459 replies to this topic

[RetroActive]

NO! That does not sound like fun to me.

[Hawks]

Possibly, depending upon implementation.

[Splitpin]

No. Are you suffering from bad hit registration ? Do you find it frustrating ? And now you want to build that into the game ? No No No

[Airborne Thunder]

The day they institute a "cone of fire" is they day I go back to playing World of Tanks. Leave the game alone.

[CeeKay Boques]

I like it! The current streak mechanic for every weapon!

[Airborne Thunder]

Seriously, you guys would want to have what amounts to the atrocious Jump Jet reticule shake on every weapon? Really?

[Dirkdaring]

Airborne Thunder, on 17 July 2013 - 12:57 PM, said:

The day they institute a "cone of fire" is they day I go back to playing World of Tanks. Leave the game alone.

You and me both, instant uninstall.

[DirePhoenix]

Zylo, on 14 June 2013 - 12:13 PM, said:

I support most changes that hurt PPC boats and poptarts but I really don't want to introduce random hit chances with a cone of fire. A cone of fire would just encourage increased use of locking weapons which is just as bad for this game as concentrated damage or random hit chances due to cone of fire.

Convergence has been talking about by many players, I think the solution would be a player selected convergence range for torso mounted weapons with the exception of lasers since it would be rather easy for the lenses to adjust the convergence.

Take a dual AC/20 K2 for example, due to the torso mounted ballistic slots a player would need to select the convergence of the weapons and could do so using a slider that might go from 50m to 2000m. Let's say this player chooses 200m for the convergence of the AC/20s which means at ranges closer than 200m both shots might not hit the same location and at ranges beyond 200m the paths of each shot would cross in a sort of X pattern possibly missing completely.

If this system was applied to all ballistic weapons + PPCs this would force PPC boats to set their convergence and be stuck with it. If they wanted to snipe at long range they would have trouble concentrating damage on a mech that engaged at close range.

PPCs and ballistic weapons mounted in the arms would not be limited by fixed convergence like a torso mounted weapon.

The TT rules for standard PPCs and minimum ranges (for every other weapon) is literally a Convergence issue, not a "damage ramping" limiter.

At ranges closer than 90m, you get a +1 to-hit modifier for every 30m, up to a +3 modifier for targets closer than 30m. What that means is that it's harder to hit targets closer than the minimum range, not that your weapons suddenly start doing less damage. If you do manage to hit, you do full damage, but it's just harder pull off.

Airborne Thunder, on 17 July 2013 - 12:57 PM, said:

The day they institute a "cone of fire" is they day I go back to playing World of Tanks. Leave the game alone.

?? You are aware that the WoT game you would retreat to if a Cone of Fire was implemented, also uses a Cone of Fire?

[Airborne Thunder]

DirePhoenix, on 17 July 2013 - 05:51 PM, said:

The TT rules for standard PPCs and minimum ranges (for every other weapon) is literally a Convergence issue, not a "damage ramping" limiter.

At ranges closer than 90m, you get a +1 to-hit modifier for every 30m, up to a +3 modifier for targets closer than 30m. What that means is that it's harder to hit targets closer than the minimum range, not that your weapons suddenly start doing less damage. If you do manage to hit, you do full damage, but it's just harder pull off.



?? You are aware that the WoT game you would retreat to if a Cone of Fire was implemented, also uses a Cone of Fire?

Yes, I am well aware that World of Tanks uses Cone of Fire. And it makes sense that they do. It is a World War 2 tank game. This is a giant robot from the future game in which they have targeting computers and lasers that shoot in a perfectly strait line. This game has been like this from conception. My point is that if they implement something as stupid as a cone of fire this far along I would be so disgusted I would take my money elsewhere. Right back to WoT and my garage full of awesomeness. Adding Jump Jet reticule shake to every weapon would change the game into something that I wouldn’t even bother with anymore. But don’t worry they won’t use the Cone of Fire idea and even if they did it would be hot fixed within a week.

Edited by Airborne Thunder, 17 July 2013 - 06:36 PM.

[Joseph Mallan]

Airborne Thunder, on 17 July 2013 - 06:25 PM, said:

Yes, I am well aware that World of Tanks uses Cone of Fire. And it makes sense that they do. It is a World War 2 tank game. This is a giant robot from the future game in which they have targeting computers and lasers that shoot in a perfectly strait line. This game has been like this from conception. My point is if that if they implement something as stupid as a cone of fire this far along I would be so disgusted I would take my money elsewhere. Right back to WoT and my garage full of awesomeness. Adding Jump Jet reticule shake to every weapon would change the game into something that I wouldn’t even bother with anymore. But don’t worry they won’t add your Cone of Fire idea and even if they did it would be hot fixed within a week.

And a (fictional) future that is well documented where those Lasers cause armor to melt off all over a Mech.

[Foxfire]

I'd like some level of divergence but at the very least I think that a circle that weapons hit on instead of a pin point would work without cuasing excess load to the servers.

[Tekadept]

I dont want a "cone of fire" per se, but i want a time to achieve convergence, when you point at a target at 1000m away sniping, then whip down to a jenner at 100m in your face, you should not have instant convergence, the targeting computer needs to calculator the angles, and "servo motors"/actuators or a kind need time to adjust all your weapons to point at the point the targeting computer spits out to them.

Edited by Tekadept, 17 July 2013 - 07:16 PM.

[Sybreed]

Tekadept, on 17 July 2013 - 07:16 PM, said:

I dont want a "cone of fire" per se, but i want a time to achieve convergence, when you point at a target at 1000m away sniping, then whip down to a jenner at 100m in your face, you should not have instant convergence, the targeting computer needs to calculator the angles, and "servo motors"/actuators or a kind need time to adjust all your weapons to point at the point the targeting computer spits out to them.

that's pretty much what my OP recommended

And smaller weapons have faster convergence speed

[DocBach]

Sybreed, on 17 July 2013 - 07:30 PM, said:

And smaller weapons have faster convergence speed

this is brilliant - it would affect large pinpoint damage weapons way more than say, medium lasers