459 replies to this topic

[3rdworld]

DaZur, on 14 June 2013 - 08:56 AM, said:

You're overlooking the fact that as a fast-mover closes with it's target, the de-harmonization deviation is mitigated by range.

Exercise: Pick an aim point on something 10 yards. away... hold out your hand in front of you, stick your thumb up like a weapon sight and walk briskly toward whatever you're aiming at....
1.) at 50 yards it's tough to keep your thumb-sight perfectly on target. As you draw closer it will linearly become easier to keep your aim-point as the thing you're aiming at draws closer (grows bigger) and fills your sight... eventually even though you thumb-sight deviates... you can keep you aim perfectly sighted.

In short... due to the small deviating swing... once you close in your target it becomes so nominal "on target" that you effectively have pin-point damage again.

And you overlooking that it does that with the sniper as well. It isn't like PPCs are bad brawling weapons.

DocBach, on 14 June 2013 - 08:57 AM, said:

four PPC stalker firing from two different locations with expanding convergence means damage is spread out still - And I'm the wall? I've put up visual **** and you still aren't getting it.

why would it be spread?>

The criteria for convergence is slow movement firing from the same location. Other than possible shooting one arm at a different time than other you don't change anything.

so ya, what do you change, other than making camping with snipers even better? and making mechs without stacked hardpoints in the same location drastically worse.

Edited by 3rdworld, 14 June 2013 - 09:02 AM.

[DocBach]

3rdworld, on 14 June 2013 - 09:01 AM, said:

why would it be spread?>

The criteria for convergence is slow movement firing from the same location. Other than possible shooting one arm at a different time than other you don't change anything.

so ya, what do you change, other than making camping with snipers even better? and making mechs without stacked hardpoints in the same location drastically worse.

You change the convergence points for different locations from the center of the reticle to the different reference points on the reticle's stadia - the reticle expands and contracts based on differing combat conditions. Unless you have the most optimal of conditions, the reticle is expanded upon group firing and the shots converge on their individual aiming points, rather than the center of the crosshairs like current. Again, see the graphic provided no less than four times in this thread:

[Lostdragon]

Darren Tyler, on 14 June 2013 - 08:44 AM, said:

It is for a variety a reasons, not just because "they cannot hit anything."

So is this whole fix that OP wants is because you keep getting sniped in lights?
Lights have the ability to pick their fights, that is one of the advantages. If you keep getting sniped your using it wrong. Obviously the OP wants the game easier for lights.

The OP wants there to be more options than just sniping. Currently if you are not in a mech with PPCs and/or Gauss you are significantly less effective than a player who has those. This is because those are the heaviest weapons in the game and they all hit the exact same spot.

The way the game works now those two weapons outlcass every other weapon in every single situation and the purpose of these suggestions is to make brawlers, strikers, and scouts actually able to do their jobs effectively. Sure, this applies to lights more than most other weight classes but that is primarily because they can't effectively mount the heavy weapons. And they should not be able to. They need to be effective and frankly they need help toward that. Mediums are in much the same boat.

For role warfare to work then Gauss and PPCs cannot be the best choice weapons for every single scenario and outperform brawling weapons at close range. When I play my CTF 3D I have no fear of brawlers because I have the upper hand no matter the range due to the fact that I can put 35 points of damage into any component I want any time I want and that should not be the case.

[3rdworld]

DocBach, on 14 June 2013 - 09:06 AM, said:

You change the convergence points for different locations from the center of the reticle to the different reference points on the reticle's stadia - the reticle expands and contracts based on differing combat conditions. Unless you have the most optimal of conditions, the reticle is expanded upon group firing and the shots converge on their individual aiming points, rather than the center of the crosshairs like current. Again, see the graphic provided no less than four times in this thread:

So I stand still and shoot from my 4 arm mounted PPCs. Your graphic is stupid cause it does not change anything, other than the ppcs will hit different sides of a small reticle representing the arms.

What changed?

ability of moving mechs to damage snipers. Did sniping lose effectiveness? marginal at best, no at worst.

[Tombstoner]

WolvesX, on 14 June 2013 - 08:45 AM, said:

Hmm.. . Its sucks to fail a perfectly aimed shot in WoT with the most accurate gun in the game.
so no.

I play WOT, thus i am well acquainted with what your referring to. i would like to point out the your perfectly aimed shot had the COF with some empty non tank space in the area of the cone. that's why you missed. ALL WWII weapon have a COF.as do all modern one's, all that different is the size of the cone. modern being very small. you can still miss easily if your beyond the opimum(100% to hit) range.

Translation - this means that the most accurate gun in the game was being used beyond optimum range:100% chance to hit: why you missed.

If the COF is smaller than the target you will hit 100% chance... if not then your chance to miss is proportional to the area of the cone not covered by the target.

[3rdworld]

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

The OP wants there to be more options than just sniping. Currently if you are not in a mech with PPCs and/or Gauss you are significantly less effective than a player who has those. This is because those are the heaviest weapons in the game and they all hit the exact same spot.

The way the game works now those two weapons outlcass every other weapon in every single situation and the purpose of these suggestions is to make brawlers, strikers, and scouts actually able to do their jobs effectively. Sure, this applies to lights more than most other weight classes but that is primarily because they can't effectively mount the heavy weapons. And they should not be able to. They need to be effective and frankly they need help toward that. Mediums are in much the same boat.

For role warfare to work then Gauss and PPCs cannot be the best choice weapons for every single scenario and outperform brawling weapons at close range. When I play my CTF 3D I have no fear of brawlers because I have the upper hand no matter the range due to the fact that I can put 35 points of damage into any component I want any time I want and that should not be the case.

so brawling weapons suck.

So lets nerf aiming.

Actually sounds like some sort of band-aid hairbrained fix PGI would come up with.

See engine restrictions and JJ nerf for other examples of treating symptoms not the disease.

Edited by 3rdworld, 14 June 2013 - 09:15 AM.

[DaZur]

3rdworld, on 14 June 2013 - 08:49 AM, said:

and the pair of PPCs mounted to each arm of a stalker are located in the same point, and fire from the same port. so yes, you are doing nothing.

How does it mitigate their dominance? Now instead of damaging the sniper while closing, you get to spray and pray all over the place hoping to do anything before he blows your leg off.

That paired PPCs in the RIGHT MOUNT arm will only harmonize with the CENTER and LEFT MOUNT when the mech is stationary... If the mech is moving or is taking fire, the aimpoint temporarily de-harmonizes... Thus the high-alpha convergence that is so overtly prevalent right now is only viable under a narrow criteria but does not eliminate it or nerf is artificially.

What we are proposing would benefit the game as a whole making all builds viable... Right now the present meta favors assaults and heavies boating the biggest weapons in sniper/alpha config. The part that is damaging the meta right now is the fact that these configurations are 100% viable at all ranges and any conditions.

All this proposal does is narrow the viability corridor a bit so other classes and meta-play can be competitive...

[ExtremeA79]

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

The OP wants there to be more options than just sniping. Currently if you are not in a mech with PPCs and/or Gauss you are significantly less effective than a player who has those. This is because those are the heaviest weapons in the game and they all hit the exact same spot.

The way the game works now those two weapons outlcass every other weapon in every single situation and the purpose of these suggestions is to make brawlers, strikers, and scouts actually able to do their jobs effectively. Sure, this applies to lights more than most other weight classes but that is primarily because they can't effectively mount the heavy weapons. And they should not be able to. They need to be effective and frankly they need help toward that. Mediums are in much the same boat.

For role warfare to work then Gauss and PPCs cannot be the best choice weapons for every single scenario and outperform brawling weapons at close range. When I play my CTF 3D I have no fear of brawlers because I have the upper hand no matter the range due to the fact that I can put 35 points of damage into any component I want any time I want and that should not be the case.

REALLY?
No, I disagree. I been having the most amount of brawl ever, and they are fun. Sniping is here to stay, and as a light you can just use cover and try to flank. Lights have a advantage over them..
Either way, some one specifically said this was for boating, not sniping. This would hurt lights and other mechs more than snipers, If the point is to make other mechs more useful, you done quite the opposite.

[Lostdragon]

3rdworld, on 14 June 2013 - 09:12 AM, said:

so brawling weapons suck.

So lets nerf aiming.

Actually sounds like some sort of band-aid hairbrained fix PGI would come up with.

Straw man. Never said brawling weapons suck, said they are outclassed by PPCs and Gauss Rifles. Brawling weapons ate fun and interesting, they just aren't nearly as good as weapons that have no damage spread.

If you want the playing field to be even then you either have to make brawling weapons pin point accurate or you have to introduce some variables that can cause the pin point long range weapons to have some spread.

[Joseph Mallan]

See I use Gauss an ERPPC for ranged and for Brawling... They are multi purpose weapons.

[Lootee]

The best and easiest option is to just do nothing. Let it all burn then sell the rights to Roberts Space Industries.

There's way too many people in love with the 1 click Death Star mechanic. There's too many spazkiddies who can't bear to see their weapons fire spread out over space or time. Just let them have their game for the next year until the servers shut down and a reputable company picks up the IP.

Maybe the MWLL guys could have a kickstarter of their own.

[DocBach]

3rdworld, on 14 June 2013 - 09:09 AM, said:

So I stand still and shoot from my 4 arm mounted PPCs. Your graphic is stupid cause it does not change anything, other than the ppcs will hit different sides of a small reticle representing the arms.

What changed?

ability of moving mechs to damage snipers. Did sniping lose effectiveness? marginal at best, no at worst.

3rdworld, on 14 June 2013 - 09:09 AM, said:

So I stand still and shoot from my 4 arm mounted PPCs. Your graphic is stupid cause it does not change anything, other than the ppcs will hit different sides of a small reticle representing the arms.

What changed?

ability of moving mechs to damage snipers. Did sniping lose effectiveness? marginal at best, no at worst.

Armless 'Mechs would need the reticule changed as well, as the arms are on the outside of the torso, they should fire wider:


if grouped together firing from four locations with the convergence points being the reference points on the reticle rather than the center, the damage is still spread out over a target as shooting is angular.

[3rdworld]

Lostdragon, on 14 June 2013 - 09:19 AM, said:

straw man
Never said brawling weapons suck, said they are outclassed by PPCs and Gauss Rifles.
they just aren't nearly as good as weapons that have no damage spread.

derp

Lostdragon, on 14 June 2013 - 09:19 AM, said:

If you want the playing field to be even then you either have to make brawling weapons pin point accurate or you have to introduce some variables that can cause the pin point long range weapons to have some spread.

no. no you don't.

But keep saying it.

DocBach, on 14 June 2013 - 09:23 AM, said:

Armless 'Mechs would need the reticule changed as well, as the arms are on the outside of the torso, they should fire wider:


if grouped together firing from four locations with the convergence points being the reference points on the reticle rather than the center, the damage is still spread out over a target as shooting is angular.

I'll take what are arm actuators for $600.

again if your only basis is "reasons" it is likely a poor idea.

[DocBach]

3rdworld, on 14 June 2013 - 09:28 AM, said:

derp


no. no you don't.

But keep saying it.




I'll take what are arm actuators for $600.

again if your only basis is "reasons" it is likely a poor idea.

except these are the "armless" 'Mechs missing actuators for articulation

[Lostdragon]

Darren Tyler, on 14 June 2013 - 09:16 AM, said:

REALLY?
No, I disagree. I been having the most amount of brawl ever, and they are fun. Sniping is here to stay, and as a light you can just use cover and try to flank. Lights have a advantage over them..
Either way, some one specifically said this was for boating, not sniping. This would hurt lights and other mechs more than snipers, If the point is to make other mechs more useful, you done quite the opposite.

I don't think sniping should go away. I think sniper weapons should not be the best choice no matter the range.

Flanking and using cover in a light is all well and good but saying they have the advantage over a sniper is ludicrous and makes me wonder if we are playing the same game. I play Jenners a lot lately and if I beat a sniper 1v1 it is because I am a significantly better pilot and he made several mistakes. If I go up against a PPC HGN and come in from behind I have to keep all my lasers on his CT which means I hqve to compensate for terrain changes, my movement, and his movement. If he torso twists I spread damage. If he realizes what is happening and puts his back to a wall I have to disengage or I will die. I need several passes to bring him down and he only needs one good shot to destroy me.

But let's use a different example since that is such a huge weight disparity. Let's say I have a CTF 3D with 2x ERPPC and a GR. A 3D with 3 ML and 2x LBX 10 flanks me. He has the same alpha damage as me but I am going to slaughter him because my damage does not get spread at all.

Edited by Lostdragon, 14 June 2013 - 09:36 AM.

[Joseph Mallan]

3rdworld, on 14 June 2013 - 09:28 AM, said:

I'll take what WHERE are arm actuators for $600.

again if your only basis is "reasons" it is likely a poor idea.

Fixed that question for you.
Stalker 3025:

Stalker MWO:

Stalker (Japan)

Ohhhhh! There are the Actuators!!!

[Elyam]

Once again, the destiny of a BT game is effected by these groups:

Camp 1: players knowledgeable in universe canon who believe that there are some components necessary to all iterations of BT, despite the medium (TT, computer, movies, comics, cards, etc.); the most explicit, controversial, and argument-inducing component being that BT's diminished-technology realities mean that things aren't dependable, weapons and targeting are not accurate, and randomness is one of the natural, ever-present challenges of life in and around the Inner Sphere - something not just a product of the original dice-based play, but an intentional dramatic quality of a civilization fallen, rebuilding, and tripping over and over. This is also accompanied by the belief that any production of BT will be better and have better play when ensuring the inclusion of such integral universe components

Camp 2: players with the same knowledge as those in Camp 1 but who believe many components of the BT universe belong only to certain mediums and in fact are only existent in canon as a way to explain the necessity of some mechanics the players are faced with; as above, the most controversial being the randomness factors that this camp does believe is only a device and something not necessary to portraying BT's diminished-tech situation. This is also accompanied by a belief similar to that of Camp 3 but with a stronger dedication to melding established BT norms with the new production

Camp 3: players who may or may not know the BT universe well, but who believe foremost that making the best (whether defined as most challenging, most fun, or most profitable) production for the immediate medium (in this case a competition online game) trumps all else, and that this is natural, is smart business, and that the property behind the production must and will bend and evolve to fit what reality proscribes. This is often accompanied by a persistent urge to not be hamstrung by what came before, and sometimes a wish that the developer could strike out with their own unique creation solely to allow unfettered choices

[East Indy]

Since the problem remains combining direct fire into pinpoint mega-weapons, I'd go with the slightly larger reticle and a 300-millisecond global cooldown, even for groups.

[One Medic Army]

Fine, the lot of you say CoF is against your religion, science, realism, balance, and mom's apple pie.
I don't agree, but w/e floats your boat.

What about all projectile weapons having a 1%-5% velocity variance, so that moving/twisting targets take spread out damage from multiple projectiles fired at once.
Encourages movement rather than standing still, makes stacking lots of PPCs for quick-coring less effective.

[Joseph Mallan]

Actually the problem we are trying to push our own agenda's when the OP asked a question of preference. Why do I have to agree with "Your" preference if it isn't "Mine"?

Also anyone ever watch Nighttime Tracer fire???

I wanna see someone explain how that works in a "Skill" argument!

Edited by Joseph Mallan, 14 June 2013 - 09:50 AM.