459 replies to this topic

[CMDR Sunset Shimmer]

Darren Tyler, on 14 June 2013 - 05:29 AM, said:

I agree, camping is a valid tactic. However I think he means that it would be overused, like how boating is.

Frankly, I'd rather see camping than x6 large laser boating.

[Joseph Mallan]

3rdworld, on 14 June 2013 - 05:30 AM, said:

Joseph Mallan, on 14 June 2013 - 05:29 AM, said:

AC20 7 rounds per ton 143 LBS
Abrams ammo 53LBS a pieces.

3 times lighter 6 times the effective range (for Full damage)

your math is terrible.

The Abrams' ammo is roughly 1/3 the weight,
A Gauss effective range is 660 Meters or just over 6 times shorter 4,000/660=6.0606060601

Say again?

Edited by Joseph Mallan, 14 June 2013 - 05:38 AM.

[ExtremeA79]

Joseph Mallan, on 14 June 2013 - 05:38 AM, said:

The Abrams' ammo is roughly 1/3 the weight,
A Gauss effective range is 660 Meters or just over 6 times shorter 4,000/660=6.0606060601

Say again?

Ok well first off it would still just scratch the paint, except at range. And a gauss is not 600 meters. It's about 1200 and shoots a basketball sized round of dense iron and nickel.

[3rdworld]

Joseph Mallan, on 14 June 2013 - 05:38 AM, said:

The Abrams' ammo is roughly 1/3 the weight,
A Gauss effective range is 660 Meters or just over 6 times shorter 4,000/660=6.0606060601

Say again?

1 metric ton = 2204lbs / 7 rnds = 314lbs per rnd of AC/20 ammo / 53lbs per abrahms = almost 6 times the weight.

your math is terrible.

[Joseph Mallan]

3rdworld, on 14 June 2013 - 05:43 AM, said:

1 metric ton = 2204lbs / 7 rnds = 314lbs per rnd of AC/20 ammo / 53lbs per abrahms = almost 6 times the weight.

your math is terrible.

Yup. I went with 1,000lbs. My Bad.

The math was right the equation was wrong!

Edited by Joseph Mallan, 14 June 2013 - 05:49 AM.

[BlackIronTarkus]

Yes I would, it would fix quite a lot of problem and increase the skill cap and TTK.

[Joseph Mallan]

Darren Tyler, on 14 June 2013 - 05:43 AM, said:

Ok well first off it would still just scratch the paint, except at range. And a gauss is not 600 meters. It's about 1200 and shoots a basketball sized round of dense iron and nickel.

Max damage tapers off after 660m You can still hit at 1200 but you are not getting max effect. Its why I said Max effective range. Compared to a naval rail gun's 100 mile range.

Edited by Joseph Mallan, 14 June 2013 - 05:53 AM.

[ExtremeA79]

I swear the max was 1200...

[Joseph Mallan]

Darren Tyler, on 14 June 2013 - 05:51 AM, said:

I swear the max was 1200...

Difference between Max and Max effective. ou get our best punch at 660, after that you are not as effective.

[keith]

too long to read 6 pages. but if they do cone fire right like CS. first shot always in center, meaning first alpha will go where u point it. don't miss:D then have a 30-60sec reset timer of not firing from there to recenter to complete pin point. the cone fire would need to be something decent, at 800-600 m always need to hit an atlas, just somewhere. that would be the only way they might be able to get away with a cone fire.

[stjobe]

Darren Tyler, on 14 June 2013 - 05:51 AM, said:

I swear the max was 1200...

In MWO, effective range is 660m, max range is 1980m.
In BT, long range is 22 hexes (660m), extreme range is 30 hexes (900m).

Edited by stjobe, 14 June 2013 - 05:55 AM.

[Lostdragon]

Some sort of cone of fire needs to happen. Basing it on throttle and heat makes the most sense and so does applying it to all weapons equally. The way you can balance this for strikers like the Jenner is through efficiencies and/or chassis quirks. Give pilots that rely on mobility an efficiency they can purchase that reduces accuracy penalty for movement by some percentage. The AWS is supposed to boat PPCs so give it a quirk that reduces accuracy penalty for heat by a percentage.

The numbers can be tweaked so this change doesn't break playstyles or mechs. I think it would also be much more interesting to see efficiencies set up like talent/skill points in most RPGs; i.e. there are more of them than you can buy. This lets players further customize their mechs for their playstyle and helps open up new options while also offering the opportunity to add more differences between variants.

[Ralgas]

Siegwald, on 14 June 2013 - 12:15 AM, said:

A "modest" cone as I envision it would be small, at least in comparison to WoT, where your "2 standard deviations aka 95% cone" is for many weapons larger than a tank when shooting at distances over 300 meters.

I would like a cone that spans 3 horizontal sections (like RT - CT - LT wide) of a medium-sized mech at max optimum distance (270 meters for a medium laser) and has a gaussian distribution.
That would give you roughly a 2/3 chance at hitting the desired zone at this distance. This would pass for a mech that is not faster moving than cruising speed and below 50% heat.

Standing still and being at baseline heat (< 10%) should increase accuracy to nearly perfect (1/2 or 1/3 of the above mentioned cone size), while running with > 90% heat would increase the size to 2 or 3 times the above mentioned size.


Something like this is what I have in mind...

But even that it where it fall over on my argument, and you can test it now yourself with mg's. @ 90m (it's optimal range pre buff, for some reason they didn't tighten the cone when it went to 120m) the mg can pattern it's self inside a cicadas ct, but at the same range patterns on every hitbox of a raven/commando. scale that up to all 3 torso sections and you'll have a decent miss rate on the small guys, leave it as is and you might as well still have pinpoint on over half the mechs in the game.....

If it's going to spread it needs to do so in a semi predictable fashion so a mech can put at least some fire on the target by compensating which way the spread is going.

Edit: Tbh i don't know how well the idea i put forward would work either, may need some hardpoint adjustments on some mechs (most notably swaybacks and highlanders with their high volumes of energy hardpoints in 1 location) although it would certainly add variety and quirk to each individual chassis

Edited by Ralgas, 14 June 2013 - 06:34 AM.

[Vassago Rain]

Jade Kitsune, on 14 June 2013 - 05:13 AM, said:

Chromehounds.

Chromehounds didn't have a CoF mechanic exactly, but it did have a recoil mechanic which you had to manage properly if you were to do any good.

May I ad that CoF isn't inherently an RNG system, and that many skillful players can learn how the CoF works without a problem. Need proof? Look at all the 360 noscope headshot vids in some famous CoF based games. Counterstrike, one of the longest running competitive games has a CoF mechanic, CoD has it, Battlefield has it [and even takes it into account for tanks] ArmA has a similar mechanic.

CoF mechanics doesn't hurt competitive play, nor is it a full RNG like so many of you argue that it is. It's a learnable mechanic, that is in modern "Shooters" for a reason. Because it does help simulate a bit of "luck." So excuse me for finding your "But mah competitive shooter!" arguments invalid.

Counter-strike doesn't have cone of fire. Every single bullet goes precisely in the same spot, at precisely the same second of your spray, and has since day 1. It's just a recoil mechanic that people think is a random cone. The only RNG mechanic is sniper rifles fired while jumping. They really go anywhere they please.

[Maliconus]

Lightfoot, on 13 June 2013 - 07:19 PM, said:

No. Mech's move and shoot. Move faster, get hit less. Moving faster does throw speed-bumps in your path which knocks your aim off. So except for the weapons that use cone effects like LBX, MWO should retain it's accuracy requirement.

You might achieve similar results by making the center torso of mechs smaller. Mechs would become alot tougher. Players would miss more often.

Wait...What ?? Pinpoint is Pinpoint.

[tenderloving]

Ph30nix, on 14 June 2013 - 03:53 AM, said:

cone of fire in a game like mechwarrior is beyond idiotic. The game ISNT about that, the game is about your team and working together it shouldnt be about anything else but that(working together also implies people playing differnt roles with differnt equipment of course)

This statement is self defeating. Cone of fire would make teamwork more important, as volume of fire would be more critical to downing a mech as more shots overall were required to defeat it.

edit: my spelling was self defeating

Edited by tenderloving, 14 June 2013 - 06:32 AM.

[Vassago Rain]

Joseph Mallan, on 14 June 2013 - 05:38 AM, said:

The Abrams' ammo is roughly 1/3 the weight,
A Gauss effective range is 660 Meters or just over 6 times shorter 4,000/660=6.0606060601

Say again?

Battletech was made by college white boys, before we had the internet. Their only contact with guns came from Arnold movies, the yellow scare was still a real thing, communism was America's greatest enemy, anyone from 'the orient' had really long fingernails, and owned a katana, we didn't have anime, and many people still owned black and white TVs. The best console you could get was an atari 5200.

Battletech 'machineguns' aren't machineguns at all, and a 3 ton computer with 1 gigabyte of RAM power seemed like star trek.

[Snuglninja]

You know I think something along those lines would be cool, but I like the idea more of it being a heat thing or a sensor/gyro hit problem.
Also if they do something like that I wouldn't mind seeing the pilot tree reworked so mu mechwarrior could use xp to help reduce the impact.

[tenderloving]

Vassago Rain, on 14 June 2013 - 04:51 AM, said:

They are far more sophisticated than modern brown and bloom shooters. You have to manage resources in quake, or you lose due to map control, no matter how good your aim is.

You don't spawn with full ammo, all the grenades, and your character isn't magnetically bound to the ground. He can also do multiple things at a time.

It's not about clicking speed, but knowing what you're doing. It's like the popular idea that advanced fighting games are all about button mashing.

http://www.youtube.c...rcaaBev5A#t=20s

99% of you have never played CoD, or quake competitively. You don't play fighting games, and don't understand why some mechanics are outright bad for gaming.

For the bolded section, how does Cone of Fire affect any of that? If you apply logic to your statement, it is in effect saying "Go ahead and implement Cone of Fire because the skill in these games does not rely on pinpoint accuracy anyway."

You are now on the record as saying that Cone of Fire would not have a negative effect on skill. Thanks for your support.


As for the rest-This is a fighting game??? Mech Fighter Online?

My whole point was that Quake/Unreal are irrelevant and outdated for what this game is trying to be, and then you bring in a genre that is even LESS relevant than Quake/Unreal. Are you guys going to use Age of Empires next?

"When I click on a villager BY GOD it had better select that villager. None of this "Cone of Selection" BS."

Edited by tenderloving, 14 June 2013 - 06:52 AM.

[Vassago Rain]

tenderloving, on 14 June 2013 - 06:39 AM, said:

This is a fighting game??? Mech Fighter Online?

My whole point was that Quake/Unreal are irrelevant and outdated for what this game is trying to be, and then you bring in a genre that is even LESS relevant than Quake/Unreal. Are you guys going to use Age of Empires next?

"When I click on a villager BY GOD it had better select that villager. None of this "Cone of Selection" BS."

They've clearly designed this game to be counter-strike with robots, and not call of mechwarriors. If you don't know what you're talking about, you should be quiet.