459 replies to this topic

[One Medic Army]

Artgathan, on 14 June 2013 - 06:29 PM, said:

Not really. CoF uses a RNG, Convergence depends on your ability to hold your crosshairs over a target for more than a split second.

Convergence gets royally screwed with wide-mount weapons, close range, and needing to lead the target.
Of course, with HSR we no longer need to lead pt blank ballistic shots.

[Ralgas]

Lostdragon, on 14 June 2013 - 06:22 PM, said:

I guess people don't realize that "convergence" is just another way of saying cone of fire. They are basically the same concept.

objectively though "cone of fire" to a gamer is just a ring that your shot will place in, somewhere. I added "typically" to my above post but in near 20 years of gaming i cant think of a game that cone isn't random. What we're taking about here would only have half the movement or less.

It would also add tactical choice to what you're doing (ie i can make one arm hit by compensating but it mean the other arm will miss completely) and will encourage more diversity in setups both of mechs and weapon groups

One Medic Army, on 14 June 2013 - 06:31 PM, said:

Convergence gets royally screwed with wide-mount weapons, close range, and needing to lead the target.
Of course, with HSR we no longer need to lead pt blank ballistic shots.

nothing like have convergence calculated short and having your weps cross waaay before target and miss by a country mile to either side

[Zordicron]

Fix hit detection first.
When LRM, lasers, etc dont apply dmg correctly, or at all sometimes, how can any type of testing or effects of this type of system be correctly measured?
getting hit by 4 PPC's suxxx. Know what suxx more? Flanking that PPC jerk, getting him there, no where to hide, and launching 60 missiles in a giant doom blob at it. Then seeing all 60 hit torso, splat, and seeing it do 5 dmg to the CT armor so it turns yellow.

Would some reduction of pinpoint convergence be welcome? Sure, I have always felt MW is a war of attrition type warfare, huge not so accurate weapons that do huge destructive dmg at close range to other huge things that can take it. But, you know, there is no way to tell if any change made at this juncture, to anything, is right because the actual dmg and effects are not registering. How does some body balance anything at all when all the data is corrupted and skewed?

[Ralgas]

Eldagore, on 14 June 2013 - 06:56 PM, said:

Fix hit detection first.
When LRM, lasers, etc dont apply dmg correctly, or at all sometimes, how can any type of testing or effects of this type of system be correctly measured?
getting hit by 4 PPC's suxxx. Know what suxx more? Flanking that PPC jerk, getting him there, no where to hide, and launching 60 missiles in a giant doom blob at it. Then seeing all 60 hit torso, splat, and seeing it do 5 dmg to the CT armor so it turns yellow.

Would some reduction of pinpoint convergence be welcome? Sure, I have always felt MW is a war of attrition type warfare, huge not so accurate weapons that do huge destructive dmg at close range to other huge things that can take it. But, you know, there is no way to tell if any change made at this juncture, to anything, is right because the actual dmg and effects are not registering. How does some body balance anything at all when all the data is corrupted and skewed?

you just answered yourself, fixing that problem will only make the pinpoint issue worse and the spread even more necessary

[Kaldor]

3rdworld, on 14 June 2013 - 10:32 AM, said:

Pretty simple really.

Lower heat cap raise heat dissipation.

Using a cap of 30 (TT value), makes shooting 3 PPCs at a time nearly an instant overheat (but not impossible). Buffs all weapons that rely on dps. Anything not PPC gauss or AC/20.

Slight weapon modifications would be needed to ensure balance. Likely increases in the AC/20 and Gauss CD.

The idea is to move the game from DMG -> DPS which in-turn increases skill cap (you have to land more shots on the same location) while remedying ppc superiority through heat, and fixes issues with certain weapons never being viable due to inherent weight/dmg values.

And I don't have to institute any CoF or RNG to do it.

You can combine this with overheat damage if you wish, though I doubt it will be that necessary. Getting huge amount of DPS onto a target that is not moving won't be hard. And it pre-nerfs clan ERPPC stacking, which if unchecked will basically run the game.

QFT

This is what some people have been preaching for a long time, and the devs and community continue to ignore it, suggesting crazy ideas like CoF or heat penalties to combat the problem, when the underlying problem with is the heat cap and shut down firing with no damage taken.

[Lostdragon]

Artgathan, on 14 June 2013 - 06:29 PM, said:

Not really. CoF uses a RNG, Convergence depends on your ability to hold your crosshairs over a target for more than a split second.

If you fire before convergence occurs then your weapons don't go where you are aiming. Convergence time is so low now this basically does not happen. With a cone of fire mechanic depending on the size of the cone your weapons may not go where you are aiming. Same concept, convergence is just one way to control the size of the cone of fire. Adding a variable like reticle bloom based on throttle is just a different way to accomplish the same thing having a longer convergence time does.

In order for huge alphas to be brought under control something has to give. Whether you want to call it cone of fire or convergence or whatever, we need something like this in addition to a hard heat cap and greater heat dissipation in order to get back to the roots and spirit of the game in my opinion.

Edited by Lostdragon, 14 June 2013 - 08:09 PM.

[Ralgas]

Kaldor, on 14 June 2013 - 07:17 PM, said:

QFT

This is what some people have been preaching for a long time, and the devs and community continue to ignore it, suggesting crazy ideas like CoF or heat penalties to combat the problem, when the underlying problem with is the heat cap and shut down firing with no damage taken.

Quote

Heat Penalty

Last update, I let it be known that we would be investigating a heat penalty for high alpha builds. It is understood that this raised the eyebrows of the many but at the same time a lot of assumptions were made which should hopefully be cleared up here.

We considered the notion of doing a max heat threshold reduction but this would have ended up nerfing every weapon system and every Mech in the game. This is why the heat scale penalty path was chosen since it lets us address every weapon individually and also allows us to take into consideration all Mech builds.

The dev's still don't agree. hence ideas that combine with the dev's intended framework

[Ralgas]

Lostdragon, on 14 June 2013 - 08:08 PM, said:

If you fire before convergence occurs then your weapons don't go where you are aiming. Convergence time is so low now this basically does not happen. With a cone of fire mechanic depending on the size of the cone your weapons may not go where you are aiming. Same concept, convergence is just one way to control the size of the cone of fire. Adding a variable like reticle bloom based on throttle is just a different way to accomplish the same thing having a longer convergence time does.

In order for huge alphas to be brought under control something has to give. Whether you want to call it cone of fire or convergence or whatever, we need something like this in addition to a hard heat cap and greater heat dissipation in order to get back to the roots and spirit of the game in my opinion.

Not the same though. the difference is convegence only alters in a straight line from the hardpoint to the recticle, the bloom can place anywhere in the area. Done with bloom, the smaller mech get their lagshield back (you remember that and the qq it caused right??) or the bloom isn't big enough to make any meaningful diffence vs the larger heavies and assaults to what we have now. Done via convergence you can reliably place a weapon on the mech but not all of them.

[Zordicron]

Ralgas, on 14 June 2013 - 07:05 PM, said:

you just answered yourself, fixing that problem will only make the pinpoint issue worse and the spread even more necessary

Misdirection, I did not answer myself, i will try to make it more clear.

Lets say it does make it more noticable- but to what degree? If the counter to those pinpoint boats is cover, or return fire(like LRM or heavy dakka to discourage them from camping) but the return fire doesnt work, then what? How much ACC should we take away from that PPC boat when LRM return fire/counter method does
20% intended dmg
33% intended dmg
100% intended dmg
over 100% intended dmg

remember broken splash dmg? We had to make ECM counter broken missile boat dmg, had to "fix" PPC's heat so there was an effective direct fire counter?

Hit detection error has made the table flip on this.

my point is: How big a cone, how much an ACC penalty, etc do you apply when you dont know what actual dmg is being applied from almost any source, at any given moment? If PPC boat appears, and positions himself to shoot me, gets his 40 point alpha in, ouch right? Except now I have a lock on, and I launch LURMPOCKOLYPSE lrm60 from my awesome 8R, and dump 66 dmg on him, while standing behind cover, each salvo less then 4 seconds apart, who ends up worse? Is it fair to PPC boat if his shots count, or miss, or both with this ACC cone idea if my missiles actually deliver enough to kill him in two salvos from behind cover? Is it fair to do it when my missiles dont hit detect, and do 0? one launcher detects so it does 15-20?

You cant tell me that any testing would be final on an idea like this when currently my LRM60 doom/falling sun does anywhere from 0-66 dmg(or more for all i know) when it hits the enemy. When 4 LL blasts do 7 dmg, or full 36. When we dont even know how much dmg registers from any given shot, if it does at all, how can we possibly know how much of an ACC variance would be balanced?

[Lostdragon]

Ralgas, on 14 June 2013 - 08:24 PM, said:

Not the same though. the difference is convegence only alters in a straight line from the hardpoint to the recticle, the bloom can place anywhere in the area. Done with bloom, the smaller mech get their lagshield back (you remember that and the qq it caused right??) or the bloom isn't big enough to make any meaningful diffence vs the larger heavies and assaults to what we have now. Done via convergence you can reliably place a weapon on the mech but not all of them.

Bloom could be done in such a way that it is still possible to reliably hit where you are aiming if the bloom is based on known, controllable factors... Just like convergence. If you know there is a 1 second convergence time you wait for it. If you know you need to throttle down or wait for heat to dissipate for reticle bloom, you do that.

[DocBach]

Perhaps the reticle size is based off of the movement speed of the 'Mech, and factors such as heat and range determine how quickly or slowly it converges smaller - then you can add in true C3 units and have C3 spotters provide range for 'Mechs farther out to converge quicker or tighter? This ability along with sharing all sensor data to other C3 networked 'Mechs (unless blocked by ECM) would be a great implementation for C3 in MWO -- which no, we don't already have.

[Sam Slade]

DocBach, on 14 June 2013 - 09:39 PM, said:

Perhaps the reticle size is based off of the movement speed of the 'Mech, and factors such as heat and range determine how quickly or slowly it converges smaller - then you can add in true C3 units and have C3 spotters provide range for 'Mechs farther out to converge quicker or tighter? This ability along with sharing all sensor data to other C3 networked 'Mechs (unless blocked by ECM) would be a great implementation for C3 in MWO -- which no, we don't already have.

and to the 'team work is OP' argument I offer Advanced Zoom reworked to increase convergence speed and range.

Also, yes for the love of god add this mechanic... use the gerat suggestions about '90% of throttle before penalty', 'hefty heat penalty' (suddenly SRMs are brawl-o-matic wonder weapon again) and so forth.

I would also be totally fine with the convergence NOT being displayed on the HUD... as in keep the current HUD but add the convergence mechanic; maybe the one concession being a visual indicator when optimal convergence is reached(so basically only there when you're stationary with locked arms and low heat)

Edited by Sam Slade, 14 June 2013 - 11:24 PM.

[Ralgas]

Eldagore, on 14 June 2013 - 08:32 PM, said:

Misdirection, I did not answer myself, i will try to make it more clear.

Lets say it does make it more noticable- but to what degree? If the counter to those pinpoint boats is cover, or return fire(like LRM or heavy dakka to discourage them from camping) but the return fire doesnt work, then what? How much ACC should we take away from that PPC boat when LRM return fire/counter method does
20% intended dmg
33% intended dmg
100% intended dmg
over 100% intended dmg

remember broken splash dmg? We had to make ECM counter broken missile boat dmg, had to "fix" PPC's heat so there was an effective direct fire counter?

Hit detection error has made the table flip on this.

my point is: How big a cone, how much an ACC penalty, etc do you apply when you dont know what actual dmg is being applied from almost any source, at any given moment? If PPC boat appears, and positions himself to shoot me, gets his 40 point alpha in, ouch right? Except now I have a lock on, and I launch LURMPOCKOLYPSE lrm60 from my awesome 8R, and dump 66 dmg on him, while standing behind cover, each salvo less then 4 seconds apart, who ends up worse? Is it fair to PPC boat if his shots count, or miss, or both with this ACC cone idea if my missiles actually deliver enough to kill him in two salvos from behind cover? Is it fair to do it when my missiles dont hit detect, and do 0? one launcher detects so it does 15-20?

You cant tell me that any testing would be final on an idea like this when currently my LRM60 doom/falling sun does anywhere from 0-66 dmg(or more for all i know) when it hits the enemy. When 4 LL blasts do 7 dmg, or full 36. When we dont even know how much dmg registers from any given shot, if it does at all, how can we possibly know how much of an ACC variance would be balanced?

when the aim of the exercise is not to be putting all of that in 1 hitbox, because we know it's excessive on several builds already even with the hit registration.... what's your point? Or are you implying there is plenty of damage out the that is hitting that shouldn't be as well?

Edited by Ralgas, 14 June 2013 - 11:25 PM.

[Ansel]

Don't add a "blooming" COF.

Add a "converging" COF. Collapses fast at first and then collapses more slowly the "smaller" it gets.

Takes longer to "collapse" if speed excedes 50%. (only longer, the cone would still fully collapse)

The longer you have a mech targeted the tighter the cone can get, say roughly a circle just around the outside of the current crosshair. (this is without even having the crosshair on or in the red box of the enemy mech, scouting is a good idea)

Put the crosshair on an enemy mechs section and hold it there the cone gets even tighter, say just inside the current "arm aim" circle. (basicly pinpoint aim if you hold it on the section you're aiming at long enough)

Lose aim on that specific section it would bloom back out a little, move it off of the enemy mech and it will revert back to being just outside the current crosshair.

Lose the target lock and the cone would then fully bloom back out until you target another mech.

[Cato Phoenix]

No.

[Von Falkenstein]

Ran into multiple 6+ 4xPPC Stalker setups again today.

We run a pretty balanced loadout with good, potent fittings but without stacking 4+ PPCs. Sometimes you manage to take such boater settings out by waiting for a bad maneuvre on their side (if they actually move their a**es that is) or outflank them. But on some very tight maps there is just no way you survive such horrible boating especially when on the offensive against an entrenched line of 6 Stalkers. There is just no room to outflank them or take em by suprise in those instances.

Cone of fire would really help to tone down this horrible boating a bit (careful adjustement of heat would help too). It's just no fun if you see 2-3 teams the whole evening and know "Ah here we go again, tons of cheese incoming".

[Training Instructor]

Skilled gunners could place sequential shots in almost the exact locations.

Changing convergence though would definitely make life harder for the "LOL I just blew off that 50 ton mechs torso with one volley" kind of halfwits.

[WarZ]

100% absolutely NOT.

I hate WoT because of that crappy mechanic.

I'm one of the top players in WoT, and I still f'ing hate that mechanic, and wont return.

So ... NO !

[Xanador]

i dont know if this is mentioned before, but i think the size of the different mech weightclasses differs too much for OPs suggestion. ATLAS = you just dont hit the correct section. light mech = you miss. Additionally: To aim for a big, slow target you normally dont have to go full speed by yourself, but to catch a light and fast mech you have to. So if you want to implement this cone e.g. in dependency of the speed of your mech you really have to be careful not to screw the balance of the game.

[SJ SCP Wolf]

WAIT WAIT

You think taking all the ammo based weapons and making them useless helps balance? When was the last time you hit your head?