387 replies to this topic

[Lightfoot]

@Unbound Inferno. I can't remove the Actuator, the Devs do to make the YLW and HGN-733c, for instance. It gives those mechs three variable aim points, but the arm reticule on the HUD is not for the arm missing the actuator as you soon find out.

However as I understand it, removing convergence completely as the original post suggests will turn Assaults into damage sponge titans since no one will be able to accurately hit them anymore unless they fire one weapon at a time. At the same time to kill a Light mech you just fire an Alpha Strike or two and enough weapons will hit to strip most armor and weapons since instead of the pinpoint aiming point your weapons will fire through a large (large enough) window guaranteeing a hit that would have normally missed. Please don't just dismiss this because it will likely require a complete rebalancing of all the mechs. It will be one of the results of changing group fired weapons into a narrow cone.

[DocBach]

The original post does not suggest removing convergence at all - it suggests that convergence is not instant and modified by things like movement, heat, ect and the reticle adapts to show you where your convergence level is at.

And, because the convergence speed is faster against slower moving targets, assaults will actually have enemy weapons converge faster on them.

The fact that a light 'Mech moving fast slowing convergence of weapons fired against it will also mean that the group weapons fired at fast 'Mechs will either be spread out, with some weapons in certain locations missing completely, negating the chance of one shot kills.

Perhaps a comprehension failure on your part.

Edited by DocBach, 27 June 2013 - 02:09 PM.

[Solis Obscuri]

This is a good suggestion overall, Doc, and I think it would, in its own way, make sense for immersion purposes. All of our guns are bigger than cars, after all.

[Lightfoot]

@DocBach,

Don't we have something like that already with multiple reticles? I have never understood why the arm reticle would ever trail the torso reticle, but it does by half a second to a second, and gets worse when moving over uneven terrain. So we are talking longer for the anti-alpha fix, I guess.

And you want to penalize long range and shooting from the hip, and buff brawling ranges. I am not sure anyone wants to go back to huggy-mechs from closed beta.

Anyway, you are talking about removing alot of the dynamism of the game to save players from accuracy. I just think there are better ways to save players from an over-rapid destruction of their mechs. Ways that do not complicate Mech operation more than it already is. You know many players run from MWO as soon as they see the two bouncing reticles. They never even learn to torso-twist, or well, understand what is happening when they do.

[KAT Ayanami]

I think I like the idea of More damage at the same time = more heat.

Easy

[DocBach]

I'd say keep the current gameplay for normal mode with 3rd person, make Hardcore mode more simulation/BattleTech oriented; that way PGI can generate revenue by making both camps happy and willing to open their wallets.

[DocBach]

KAT Ayanami, on 27 June 2013 - 02:15 PM, said:

I think I like the idea of More damage at the same time = more heat.

Easy

so how much heat would dual gauss boats put out? How about SRM boats? Wouldn't it be strange to have a weapon that does 1 heat when fired by itself all of a sudden shoot up to 30 heat because it fired a second one?

Edited by DocBach, 27 June 2013 - 03:48 PM.

[Lightfoot]

One last thing. I recognize that you put a lot of thought into this, although I disagree with alot of it.

You all need to consider the downside of forced fuzzy aim more. Do you really want to have your butts shot off while your weapons gyrate helplessly? That's what would happen in most of your defeats. You'll be sitting there forced to plink away at some positioned mech who has you zeroed in, unable to do anything about it. You take for granted that you can turn that battle now.

One of the hard things about balancing is that to kill one problem you can often create many more uglier ones.

Good Luck and see you in the game.

[DocBach]

I wouldn't consider this fuzzy aim, or a cone of fire at all. Nothing is random in this system; the MechWarrior would be responsible for controlling his 'Mech if he wants to achieve pinpoint accuracy; what this system is by and large is removing instant convergence, makes the rate of convergence based off combat conditions, and gives the player an adaptive reticle to give him an exact idea on how well his weapons have converged.

[Valore]

Lightfoot, on 27 June 2013 - 02:43 PM, said:

You all need to consider the downside of forced fuzzy aim more. Do you really want to have your butts shot off while your weapons gyrate helplessly? That's what would happen in most of your defeats. You'll be sitting there forced to plink away at some positioned mech who has you zeroed in, unable to do anything about it. You take for granted that you can turn that battle now.

And that's the mentality I can't understand. Forced? Do you suddenly get cemented onto the ground when you're shot?

The correct response to 'I'm being shot by someone I can't see' is not 'Stand out there and get shot some more while trying to figure out where he is'.

This is why we have such bitter arguments on these forums. It will be impossible to come to any sort of agreement when people have such divergent views on how forgiving the game should be.

Snipers may be useful in killing things. But their real value is is pinning down an enemy force who is either forced to dig them out, or flank around.

IMHO, its ridiculous that people think its fair or reasonable that this is too boring or that the game needs to allow stupid decisions so we can run up to snipers and punch them in the face.

Edited by Valore, 27 June 2013 - 02:55 PM.

[Unbound Inferno]

Lightfoot, on 27 June 2013 - 01:10 PM, said:

@Unbound Inferno. I can't remove the Actuator, the Devs do to make the YLW and HGN-733c, for instance. It gives those mechs three variable aim points, but the arm reticule on the HUD is not for the arm missing the actuator as you soon find out.

However as I understand it, removing convergence completely as the original post suggests will turn Assaults into damage sponge titans since no one will be able to accurately hit them anymore unless they fire one weapon at a time. At the same time to kill a Light mech you just fire an Alpha Strike or two and enough weapons will hit to strip most armor and weapons since instead of the pinpoint aiming point your weapons will fire through a large (large enough) window guaranteeing a hit that would have normally missed. Please don't just dismiss this because it will likely require a complete rebalancing of all the mechs. It will be one of the results of changing group fired weapons into a narrow cone.

That is partially true. It makes all mechs damage sponges.

Which is as it should be.

The old battletech lore is a slugfest, not a twitchfest. There is a significant difference between the two - and that is the surviveability of the mechs. Large mechs have the armor to withstand, while a lighter can dodge, those in the middle can do a combination depending on the mech.

But it doesn't mean your fears are either unjustified nor is it really true. An Assault still stands out like hell - it gets hit, and as it is now a fast Light is the best there is to dodge and can do it well, but its still as flimsy as can be. The deviation of aiming won't be as drastic as I think you fear either. We are talking about cutting off torso convergence and you are worried you still can't hit an Atlas. Think of the size, even with no convergence something like an Assault still will receive most of the hits in one part. Would be no different than my Catapults - the CT and Arms are targets you can't miss by a meter or so. And for a light? You might be surprised that deviation might mean another hit you would have normally missed.

Also, you argue the Highlander's variant firing angle? What would be so hard about it being any different than now? You have the CT aim, the "good arm" aim and the invisible "off arm" aim. Wow, sounds alot like what you explained.

So I don't see any issue in this adjustment, it shows promise that it can work for the SPECIFIC PINPOINT removal, and instead give a bit more coverage which should work. Some tweaking obviously needed, but there's nothing to say it can't be done so far.

[Solis Obscuri]

DocBach, on 27 June 2013 - 02:48 PM, said:

I wouldn't consider this fuzzy aim, or a cone of fire at all. Nothing is random in this system; the MechWarrior would be responsible for controlling his 'Mech if he wants to achieve pinpoint accuracy; what this system is by and large is removing instant convergence, makes the rate of convergence based off combat conditions, and gives the player an adaptive reticle to give him an exact idea on how well his weapons have converged.

I've got a similar suggestion running here - give it a look and tell me what you think.

[DocBach]

I'm not big on an idea that adds a completely new system into the mix. It's sort of like Homeless Bill's idea - it's well thought, but I think we can keep it way simpler if we keep in consistent with the source material which applied penalties based on movement, range, and heat.

[Homeless Bill]

DocBach, on 25 June 2013 - 07:27 AM, said:

To fix it PGI needs to make a decision; is this going to be a simulation of the board game, or a first person shooter skinned with the lore?

Homeless Bill's system was a good idea, but it was incredibly complicated and over complex

This proposal fully fleshed-out, it's comprehensive, it doesn't leave any messes to clean up, it doesn't force massive weapon-rebalancing, and it think it would be really cool.

The way I look at it, your solution is perfect for the former mindset, while mine is perfect for the latter. Yours has a large effect on the style and pacing of combat, pushing it towards a true Battletech simulation; mine requires very little adjustment by the player and won't affect combat save for the elimination of extreme, pinpoint damage.

Honestly, I'm okay with either direction; I just want this **** fixed.

The one point I take issue with is the supposed complexity of my proposal. For all its detail, numbers, and overly-thorough explanations, the impact on the player is truly minimal: set up your weapon groups intelligently and slightly stagger fire for accuracy or alpha strike away to pour on inaccurate pain. And the complexity (or lack thereof) of implementation on PGI's side was covered in the full article.

[DocBach]

By complex I mean by adding a completely new layer that the IP has never seen - it would be a whole lot of tuning work to get this brand new TCL factor right for every weapon. But you are completely right in the regards to this idea pushing it towards being a true Battletech simulation; I can't even really take credit for the idea as all I did was take the factors that affected accuracy in the board game and applied them to convergence.

[Undead Bane]

Actually, it just came to my mind, that I saw a system like that somewhere. Just now need to remember, where.

The main problem for the system, however, is that it is very, very, very-very noobie-unfriendly

[Katie Girll]

I think I could get use to something like this. it seems really similar to the aimer getting big in all the other shooting games.

[DocBach]

Yeah, pretty much it would be like any other FPS, where you lose accuracy for moving at a full run, except for unlike a random cone like FPS have, the reticle would give you reference points where to aim at.

[Thorasta]

I support this solution.

[Thorasta]

I want to add a caveat to my support of this thread earlier...

I don't think torso weapons ought to converge at all when group fired (unless they are lasers - maybe).

giving them a preset convergeance would be ok though - something like 200 meters?

Edited by Thorasta, 30 June 2013 - 09:31 PM.