19 replies to this topic

[weevil]

A lot of ideas floating around on how to fix the issue of boating ppcs, ac20, etc.

Here's an idea I've had that I haven't seen posted anywhere - give each hardpoint a fixed position on the chassis, and each weapon a fixed convergence range (probably adjustable in mechlab).

The exception to the fixed covergence point would be weapons mounted on articulated arms, which would track the range of whatever is under the reticule.

The pros as I see it - reducing the effectiveness of boated weapons (especially large weapons).
For example, a jagermech carrying 2 ac20s would only be accurate if alpha striking a target whose distance was equal to the convergence point of both weapons. When firing at a target ourside of the optimal range the pilot could choose to suffer spread on the alpha, or adjust to compensate for spread, firing each ac20 individually.

The con as I see it - making mechs with hardpoints in articulated arms relatively too powerful. The counter to this might require tweaking the hardpoint locations on certain mechs OR an adjustment to the hardpoint system. As many people suggested long ago, giving hardpoints a size rating and preventing large weapons from replacing small weapons.

It's also a logical soultion, and jibes well with TT. It doesn't make sense that a weapon weighing many tons would be able to swivel around without any actuators. It contributes naturally to weapons spread, but can be compensated for by skilled piloting (i.e aiming each weapon cluster individually).

Edited by weevil, 14 June 2013 - 09:18 PM.

[DerSpecht]

This thread again!

[weevil]

Oops, guess it's a not-so-novel suggestion.

[Keifomofutu]

But a good one. Could even have an adjustable convergence point system like in flight sims where you set convergence before the battle.

The instaconvergence system the game has now is the biggest source of imbalance. Always has been.

[DocBach]

http://mwomercs.com/...ng-convergence/

instead of fixed convergence, an expanding and contracting convergence based on combat conditions such as movement, heat, range, ect.

[Homeless Bill]

http://mwomercs.com/...oats-and-clans/

Try that instead. No convergence just isn't going to fly with the mainstream crowd.

[weevil]

Actually, COF might be a good way of dealing with arm convergence.

Torso weapons always hit their fixed convergence point perfectly, since they're fixed in place (although the reticule will shake based on movement of the mech due to walking, JJ, weapons recoil and enemy fire),

Articulated arms could have COF, which would make sense since the arms would likely jiggle somewhat as the mech was in motion.

[weevil]

Neverfar, on 14 June 2013 - 09:42 PM, said:

BUT BUT ABRAMS BATTLE TANK!!!!

I'm just saying it first. For some damn reason that stupid thing keeps getting brought up all the time to justify anything and everything hokey in MWO's metagame.

The Abrams main gun is mounted on a turret, giving it a good range of motion. In reality torso mounted weapons would probably be somewhere between an Abrams and the Swedish S-tank that has a fixed gun. The S-tank would have almost no chance of moving and hitting a target at the same time successfully, but a mech would fare a little better since the torso itself is somewhat articulated, and a legged design would be more stable.

[DocBach]

Neverfar, on 14 June 2013 - 09:42 PM, said:

BUT BUT ABRAMS BATTLE TANK!!!!

I'm just saying it first. For some damn reason that stupid thing keeps getting brought up all the time to justify anything and everything hokey in MWO's metagame.

"I don't care what old books and neckbeard lore say, this game takes place 3000 years in the future, technology would be so much better!"

[Sybreed]

DocBach, on 14 June 2013 - 09:56 PM, said:

"I don't care what old books and neckbeard lore say, this game takes place 3000 years in the future, technology would be so much better!"

Unless you're stuck in the Planet of the Apes universe

[weevil]

Neverfar, on 14 June 2013 - 09:53 PM, said:

You're touting "realism" and real-life weapons in a setting that's based on rad 80s robots that shoot lasers at each other, and according to all backstory sources, is actually a bit regressed in sophistication since the Star League days.

I'm touting internal consistency, more than realism. Players balk at mechanics that are obviously capricious and illogical. I'm willing to suspend disbelief to a degree. As crazy as it is, wars fought by giant robots? OK, maybe that could happen. But solutions like adding heat penalties for firing 2+ of the same weapon? It just feels completely arbitrary. In sci-fi in general, as long as you can explain something reasonably within the parameters of the world that is established, then go for it.

I really want a balance solution that meets certain criteria -

- It should maximize the number of viable configs, and play styles.
- It should retain or strenghten the role of pilot skill in the game (if I wanted to roll dice I'd play table top).
- it shouldn't seem arbitrary (heat penalty for firing 2+ of the same weapon? Completely arbirtary).
- It shouldn't just be a series of patches for weapons that are currently considered over or under-powered.

Ultimately they all boil down to one thing - It should make the game more fun than it is now.

I would be ok with a purely COF based approach. But I do think fixed convergence is a bit more nuanced, and keeps more skill in the equation.

Edited by weevil, 14 June 2013 - 10:13 PM.

[weevil]

Neverfar, on 14 June 2013 - 10:20 PM, said:

Big flaw in your response: you seem to insist you have the monopoly on the definition of "fun." Because fun is subjective, objective attempts to chase down, isolate, chemically extract it and distribute it by metrics are self-defeating.

Your "arbitrary" claim is part of that flawed thinking. You think it's fun to put 6-8 of the same gun on a target with pinpoint accuracy? Some find it boring to do. Many find it frustrating to be on the receiving end of. If you really had a grasp of what everyone's definition of "fun" was I guess they were all having fun and they didn't notice.

Lastly, please, be done with that silly overuse, preoccupation, and over-emphasis of the word "skill". The myopic way it's used on these forums is laughable. Apparently nothing else a player can do in the game has any "skill" to it except "can you move a mouse cursor over there, lead the target a little, then click?"

I used the word skill exactly once in the quoted post. I'm not overusing it, and I'm not responsible for whatever other people on this board think or say. Your straw man must be getting sore.

People enjoy a sense of agency. If a no-stakes game leaves no room for mastery it's not rewarding, and not fun..Adults don't play go fish, or tic-tac-toe or candyland against each other because it leave no room for mastery - no skill, no fun. I don't have the monopoly on fun, nor did I ever claim to, but I think you can probably agree with at least what I've said here.

Skill (dirty word!) at this game involves more than just pulling a trigger, obviously. It involves many levels of teamwork and strategy. But it also involves individual piloting ability. I'm suggesting adding an extra dimension to be mastered... fixed weapons convergence means you must either position yourself so that your enemy is at the right range, master the art of aiming each weapon group and staggering fire OR choose configs that don't rely on convergence mechanics.

If you had bothered reading my first point (- It should maximize the number of viable configs, and play styles.) you'd see that I agree. Some people don't like running ML boats, or PPC boats, or SRM boats, or whatever. Some people do. These configs should all be viable, but a wide variety of configs should be EQUALLY VIABLE.

[aniviron]

Keep in mind that fixing convergence points harms mechs with a wide weapons spread like the awesome and dragon very substantially, while doing very little to fix mechs with narrow profiles like the Stalker, which is already the prime culprit for boats in this debate.

[Boris The Spider]

aniviron, on 15 June 2013 - 12:57 AM, said:

Keep in mind that fixing convergence points harms mechs with a wide weapons spread like the awesome and dragon very substantially, while doing very little to fix mechs with narrow profiles like the Stalker, which is already the prime culprit for boats in this debate.

No, they have lower arm actuators so they would be unaffected, so in essence buffed by this suggestion.