56 replies to this topic

[Abrahms]

I poked around the forums and noticed that people are still asking for things like more heat penalties and weapon spread to reduce alpha strike gameplay.

Two problems with that - heat penalties still harm unbalanced weapons more than others (will simply change what the already better custom mechs carry) and lack of convergence removes skill.


Convergence
Its increases skillful gameplay and, frankly, is more realistic. If today's main battle tanks like the M1Abrams can jump a hill at 50 mph and snipe a tank a mile away in mid air, I dont think that Battletech mechs would suddenly suck at aiming.

The RNG on the board game was to depict that the pilots would make mistakes with accuracy, and that mechs moved, turned, etc: its how an RNG game depicts skill.... some of you may concur that actually it was intended to show poor technology and accuracy, but when accuracy improved, things were less random.

Spread and luck have ZERO place in a live game unless its something natural, like a WWII game 50 cal spread that is a reality. Not all weapons are accurate, but accurate weapons SHOULD be accurate. A 3025 guass rifle wont have random spread... sorry scrubs. Also, its horribly frustrating in FPS games to die first because your bullet spread was worse... and the other guy actually missed but had lucky spread. (if you say this isnt an FPS - youre right, this isnt counter strike, but its still a first person game where you shoot at bad guys)

Now, that doesnt remedy the one shot alpha strikes does it? Well - see below

Heat
If youve been around for a while (you probably know my posts from now over a year ago) that noted that head is simply broken in MWO. PGI started with TableTop (TT) values for heat and damage, then tripled the rate of fire.

They failed to realize that weapons in TT had their tonnage balanced around TT heatsinks, which meant that when the rate of fire was tripled, the heat sink requirement per 10 seconds (TT standard) tripled. This meant that a PPC, which have 10 tons of heatsinks for a 7 ton weapon (17 tons) was now a 37 ton weapon for the same effect. The Gauss though was a 15 + 1 heatsink weapon, now it needed 2 more heatsinks, for 18 tons.

Now, not all weapons were exactly three times faster, etc, so the numbers are rough, but I hope you get the point. Tripling the rate of fire (roughly) severely broke the game balance and made higher heat weapons substantially weaker than their TT counterparts. This spawned the gauss, small laser, missile only gameplay.

How did PGI try to fix this? By lowering the heat on some high heat weapons....

Today, generally, the heat is now totally off track from TT, but at least it plays out in a related manner - PPCs for example are no longer totally worthless.

SO what is the remaining problem?
Heat caps and dissipation rates are still horrible. The heat cap is way too high, and dissipation is way too slow, quite often. It really encourages high hit, alpha builds.

You can carry a bunch of heavy hitting weapons, fire twice, and then run away for you 2 minute cool off. Its not fun, and harms gameplay.





Experimenting with a lower cap, and realistic TT dissipation rates would substantially encourage MORE SPREAD because players would need to stagger fire. However, right now, there is no point to stagger fire. All weapons have really short cooldowns, which means that if you take more than 3 or 4 ppcs, its a detriment. If you tried to chain fire 6 ppcs, by the time you get to number 3, the first 3 are already off cooldown, thus the remaining 3 ppcs are actually 21 tons of dead weight.

Faster dissipation and a lower cap would make it worthwhile to carry more weapons and still stagger fire because they would dissipate faster than the cooldown was resetting. Remember, if it takes longer to dissipate than cool off, you are wasting space, and need to take heatsinks instead and your DPS will actually go up.

The high heat cap, however, mitigates that, and allows you to simply carry 6 ppcs and then cool off for several minutes. Normally, though, 4 ppcs builds do much better because though your alpha is smaller, you can get substantially more DPS out.

Your end result would be that players could no longer try to take heavy hitting alphas, yet carrying a large amount of weapons would still be useful, because you can actually chain fire without overheating before your first weapon is off cooldown.

Simplified TLDR
High head cap and low dissipation encourages alpha strikes whith everything you have available. Lower heat cap and TT dissipation ratios (changing from 10 sec window to MWO's 3) would encourage staggered fire without simultaneously making it better for everyone to carry less weapons.

This game has gone from heatsink boats to alpha boats, all of which have a core problem in heat and recycle time mechanics. Its all related to MWO weapons generating too much HPS, and the cap being too high. Now that the weapons are somewhat normalized, everyone has too much leeway with a high heat ceiling, but this cannot be changed without also normalizing the dissipation rates.

pro tip: PGI needs to hire the local junior college kid in a stats class to fix their game for them.

[One Medic Army]

When was the last time you even played the game?

[Hotthedd]

Quite the opposite. Instant pinpoint alpha strikes REMOVE skill from the equation. The game does all of the work for you. Shifting range? No problem, the weapons converge on the crosshair whether the target is 50m away or 1000m away. Actually aiming 6 times to place 6 hits on a single spot takes MUCH more skill than one click = 6 hits.

You think your Abrams can fire two turrets and have them both hit the same place on the target? Three weapons? Five? I do not think so.

Let the player set alpha convergence on a fixed distance in the mechlab. NOW it would take skill to pinpoint alpha, as it would have some difficulty.

By the way, I have no problem with individually fired weapons hitting the crosshairs consistently.

Lowering the heat cap and increasing dissipation would definitely be a good thing for MW:O.

Edited by Hotthedd, 02 July 2013 - 02:45 PM.

[Homeless Bill]

From my proposal's rebuttals:

Of all the heat solutions, I like this the best because it’s a system-wide change that doesn’t affect relative weapon balance. But I still don’t like it.

Lowering the heat cap would require harsher penalties for overheating to be effective; otherwise, you’re just making the first alpha shut them down instead of the third. With that in mind, I think it would make the game quite unforgiving to new players. It’s going a bit far in my mind if a single salvo with all equipped weapons could do serious, self-inflicted damage.

I also think alpha strikes are an awesome, valid tactical choice. Seeing a ‘mech fire everything in a desperate bid to put out some damage is fun to watch. I simply think that alpha strikes and regular shooting should have a difference: one is for putting damage on a specific target and the other is for putting huge amounts of immediate damage on any part of a target – not just an act of suicidal desperation.

Increasing dissipation could make the experience smoother, but it would certainly have a few unknowable effects on gameplay. High damage per second would be king, and heat management would, in some ways, be less necessary.

Verdict: Punishment instead of prevention, too harsh, relegates alphas to a sad, lonely corner, will affect the pace of gameplay in unknowable ways, and utterly ineffective against ballistics.

Edited by Homeless Bill, 02 July 2013 - 02:46 PM.

[Abrahms]

Hotthedd, on 02 July 2013 - 02:43 PM, said:

Quite the opposite. Instant pinpoint alpha strikes REMOVE skill from the equation. The game does all of the work for you. Shifting range? No problem, the weapons converge on the crosshair whether the target is 50m away or 1000m away. Actually aiming 6 times to place 6 hits on a single spot takes MUCH more skill than one click = 6 hits.

You think your Abrams can fire two turrets and have them both hit the same place on the target? Three weapons? Five? I do not think so.

Let the player set alpha convergence on a fixed distance in the mechlab. NOW it would take skill to pinpoint alpha, as it would have some difficulty.

By the way, I have no problem with individually fired weapons hitting the crosshairs consistently.

Lowering the heat cap and increasing dissipation would definitely be a good thing for MW:O.

1)its pretty easy for even today's technology to pinpoint in a single location almost instantly: any issues with actual convergence at range would be due to issues like wind, atmosphere, etc, most of which a computer can resolve. Even hand held sniper scopes today are capable to taking all that into consideration...

2)It doesnt improve skill to remove convergence. Random spread is the epitome of NO SKILL unless there is a very malleable, defined way to reduce that spread when you want to. If I aim at your cockpit, and I miss because a random number generator says I miss, then that sucks. When you miss me, and instead hit me because RNG favors you, that isnt skill.

Id rather see players get spread because theyre shooting chain fire (which means its very hard for players to always put hit the same exact spot) instead of RNG. Because mechs move, turn, etc, as long as players are using some form of staggered fire, you will naturally see damage spread out. This is why things like the AC2 can have such high DPS but not kill substantially faster - it spreads out everywhere, even without programmed spread.

Now, some skill can be related to actions taken to improve accuracy, like timing, etc, and many modern games do that (prone = more aim, scope = more aim, slow = more aim, etc) however, that isnt really skill, its simply acknowledging that you cant run and gun accurately. That is a yes or no determination, and doesnt involve skill. Its merely a game mechanic to make a game more realistic and to encourage people to slow down when they shoot, but even then, and spread is still a luck factor.

Ive had plenty of CS games or other shooter games in the past where I lost a duel in a hallway because every bullet I fire misses the center of the crosshair. Likewise, Ive taken potshots and scored a headshot kill on a target that I would have clearly missed if my gun had 0 spread. LUCK is a bad attribute for a game to have, unless it is used in moderation and in logical ways. That is why most FPS have some weapon spread and its a good thing. It serves no purpose in a large battlemech game, however.

[Hotthedd]

1. Tell you what. You take a rifle in each hand and see how easy it is to hit a bullseye firing both of them at once. Why not strap a laser pointer to your head, CT, RT, LT, and one on each arm and have them all hit the same spot. Now hit a moving target. Now do it while driving. Not so easy, is it?

2. Who said anything about random spread? It certainly was not me. I proposed a system that would have the multiple weapons converge at a PLAYER SET DISTANCE. No RNG invoved whatsoever.

Since the rest of your post addresses RNG and luck, I really feel no need to respond other than to say I agree. RNG would be a BAD thing.

[Corbon Zackery]

Take 2 paintball pistols hold them with your arms downward elbows at a 90 degree angle and try to hit Paul with your paint guns in one spot more than one time.

Just say hey Paul we need to use you for a experiment give him a helmet and let loose the thunder.

[Hellcat420]

Abrahms, on 02 July 2013 - 02:19 PM, said:

snip

convergence like we have now is for unskilled noobs. wtf planet are you living on?

[Ningyo]

in addition to all the corrections people above me like Hotthead have given you, I would point out your example of chain firing instead of alpha striking with 3 PPC causes the exact same heat over the exact same time. If you can do both with no convergence or other penalties, the alpha striking will always be more effective.

[HansBlix WMD]

Why do machine guns have a 10-20 degree cone of fire, while a jagermech can fire two AC20 rounds with pinpoint accuracy and suffer no ill effects? Makes no sense and is completely out of balance.

[EchoMike]

I think the LARGEST ISSUE is still high pin-point alpha strikes are OP. Thus leading to low Mech mortality rates, leading to quick engagements leading to 3-4-6 minute match durations = NO FUN AT ALL.

[Roland]

Quote

Spread and luck have ZERO place in a live game unless its something natural, like a WWII game 50 cal spread that is a reality. Not all weapons are accurate, but accurate weapons SHOULD be accurate. A 3025 guass rifle wont have random spread... sorry scrubs.

Technically, the weapons should all be PRECISE, not necessarily accurate. These are different things.

That is, for any particular set of circumstances, the shooter should be able to predict exactly where a shot from any particular weapon will go. Similar to having a rifle whose sight is misaligned, but whose misalignment is known to the owner. The shooter may know that the gun always drifts to the right, and can simply compensate for that known factor, since it is PRECISE, although perhaps not accurate. Understanding of the misalignment, coupled with the precision, can then lead to accuracy in the hands of a skilled shooter.

Similarly, with weapons mounted on a mech, you could have perfectly precise weaponry (that is, for a given setup, pulling the trigger for one weapon will land one shot after another on the exact same location). However, it may be somewhat inaccurate in regards to the actual aiming reticle. The easiest and most simple inaccuracy would be based upon the location of the weapon on the mech. For instance, a weapon mounted on the right torso would fire slightly to the right of the center of the aiming reticle.

The effect of this is that you could have perfectly precise weapons (i.e., ones that fired with absolutely zero luck or random chance, thus preserving all skill on the part of the shooter) but whose inaccuracy did not match perfectly with each other, preventing the shooter from firing all of them together and having them ALL hit the exact same location.

By adding inaccuracy, while preserving precision, we can make a more complex convergence system which preserves skill on the part of the shooter.

[Abrahms]

Hotthedd, on 02 July 2013 - 03:16 PM, said:

1. Tell you what. You take a rifle in each hand and see how easy it is to hit a bullseye firing both of them at once. Why not strap a laser pointer to your head, CT, RT, LT, and one on each arm and have them all hit the same spot. Now hit a moving target. Now do it while driving. Not so easy, is it?

2. Who said anything about random spread? It certainly was not me. I proposed a system that would have the multiple weapons converge at a PLAYER SET DISTANCE. No RNG invoved whatsoever.

Since the rest of your post addresses RNG and luck, I really feel no need to respond other than to say I agree. RNG would be a BAD thing.

I also would like you to try and use your brain to compute a hundred thousand math equations in .05 seconds. Oh yeah, you cant do it.

A COMPUTER CAN.

Likewise, you probably can barely aim with one rifle muchless two. Yet today we have sniper scopes that can literally aim for you and wont let you fire unless the bullet is computed to hit the target. Likewise, a machine can calculate where to aim BOTH arms at once to hit the target.

Even today's car factories use high precision robotic. Your analogy to aiming two rifles was dumb and irrelevant. Battlemechs are robotic machines with computer systems more advanced than what we have today. (although, somewhat limited by what was imaginable in the 80s, along with a few other quarks).

[Abrahms]

Roland, on 02 July 2013 - 05:30 PM, said:

Technically, the weapons should all be PRECISE, not necessarily accurate. These are different things.

That is, for any particular set of circumstances, the shooter should be able to predict exactly where a shot from any particular weapon will go. Similar to having a rifle whose sight is misaligned, but whose misalignment is known to the owner. The shooter may know that the gun always drifts to the right, and can simply compensate for that known factor, since it is PRECISE, although perhaps not accurate. Understanding of the misalignment, coupled with the precision, can then lead to accuracy in the hands of a skilled shooter.

Similarly, with weapons mounted on a mech, you could have perfectly precise weaponry (that is, for a given setup, pulling the trigger for one weapon will land one shot after another on the exact same location). However, it may be somewhat inaccurate in regards to the actual aiming reticle. The easiest and most simple inaccuracy would be based upon the location of the weapon on the mech. For instance, a weapon mounted on the right torso would fire slightly to the right of the center of the aiming reticle.

The effect of this is that you could have perfectly precise weapons (i.e., ones that fired with absolutely zero luck or random chance, thus preserving all skill on the part of the shooter) but whose inaccuracy did not match perfectly with each other, preventing the shooter from firing all of them together and having them ALL hit the exact same location.

By adding inaccuracy, while preserving precision, we can make a more complex convergence system which preserves skill on the part of the shooter.

You mean how the torso retical is already separate from the arms? You would like to further change it so that each weapon has an identifiable aiming problem?

Thats a much better idea that what most people suggest. Even I wouldnt mind that system, as long as I can know where to fire, and it hits exactly where I aim. If I merely need to fire weapons apart to guarantee always hitting one location, that is manageable and does not add RNG.

The only problem, is how to get there when we already have an arm/torso bifurcated system. Ive seen some ideas about reticals that grow larger with inaccuracy, but that is merely RNG... you would need something like a dot on the screen for where each weapon specifically aims. Anything related to a "cone" of fire is a no go.

Skill needs an identifiable point where shots will hit. Whether that means adding more than an armo/torso system, its probably already way over PGI's heads.

Edited by Abrahms, 02 July 2013 - 05:36 PM.

[One Medic Army]

Abrahms, on 02 July 2013 - 05:31 PM, said:

I also would like you to try and use your brain to compute a hundred thousand math equations in .05 seconds. Oh yeah, you cant do it.

A COMPUTER CAN.

Likewise, you probably can barely aim with one rifle muchless two. Yet today we have sniper scopes that can literally aim for you and wont let you fire unless the bullet is computed to hit the target. Likewise, a machine can calculate where to aim BOTH arms at once to hit the target.

Even today's car factories use high precision robotic. Your analogy to aiming two rifles was dumb and irrelevant. Battlemechs are robotic machines with computer systems more advanced than what we have today. (although, somewhat limited by what was imaginable in the 80s, along with a few other quarks).

That's nice.
So you want auto-aim in MWO? Just let the computer do all the work?

Realism can go die in a fire, this is a video game and the prime directive is that it be fun.
As a PvP game the second directive is that it be balanced.
The third is that it have a higher skill cap than repeatedly moving 2m from cover and clicking on the enemy.

[Roland]

Quote

You mean how the torso retical is already separate from the arms? You would like to further change it so that each weapon has an identifiable aiming problem?

In practice, given the current system, the torso isn't effectively separate from the arms anyway since folks can just press a button and have both reticles instantly snap together.

But yes, I would introduce additional separation of different weapons, based on their locations on the mech. Perfectly predictable, and thus PRECISE, disparities in relation to the center of the aiming reticle. Thus, skilled shooters could still land shots exactly where they want. But doing so would require more skill.

Quote

Thats a much better idea that what most people suggest. Even I wouldnt mind that system, as long as I can know where to fire, and it hits exactly where I aim. If I merely need to fire weapons apart to guarantee always hitting one location, that is manageable and does not add RNG.

Exactly. It leaves luck out of the equation completely. And yet, at the same time, it prevents people from duct taping many weapons together and having them all function as though they were a single weapon.

In many cases, such as the 4P, most of the weapons would end up hitting very close together anyway, as they are mounted so closely together. And I think this is likely ok, given that it is the centerpoint of the mech's design. But the overall impact on most mechs would be to increase spread when people just fired all of their weapons at once.

[Lootee]

Abrahms, on 02 July 2013 - 05:31 PM, said:

I also would like you to try and use your brain to compute a hundred thousand math equations in .05 seconds. Oh yeah, you cant do it.

A COMPUTER CAN.

Likewise, you probably can barely aim with one rifle muchless two. Yet today we have sniper scopes that can literally aim for you and wont let you fire unless the bullet is computed to hit the target. Likewise, a machine can calculate where to aim BOTH arms at once to hit the target.

Even today's car factories use high precision robotic. Your analogy to aiming two rifles was dumb and irrelevant. Battlemechs are robotic machines with computer systems more advanced than what we have today. (although, somewhat limited by what was imaginable in the 80s, along with a few other quarks).

What a load of crap.

Can your computer figure out how hard and which direction the wind is blowing 1000m away ? How? With the Force? Reading the wind is a skill that long range marksmen train for years or decades to master. What about variations in the powder charge loaded inside the cartridge? You do know military specifications allow for 4 minutes-of-angle deviation for the currently issued individual infantry rifle right? Even if you clamped 5 M16s into a robotic vise that aimed them all at the exact same point in space 100m away, you will still get a spread approx 4" in diameter. Why? Because mass produced military ammo is not known for its consistency, and neither are military service grade rifle barrels. Artillery sized ordnance is even less precise.

A tank or helicopter can easily calculate a trajectory to score a likely hit SOMEWHERE on another vehicle, but to try to shoot out the left side passenger window with 3 different guns at long range (which is what MWO does), BullS---.

And don't try to argue that BattleTech is actually set some place beyond Star Trek where every society has Q levels of technology. Because we all know the Inner Sphere has been bombing itself back towards the Stone Age for 3 centuries and can barely keep the few mechs, dropships and jumpships running. The TROs plainly state technology and engineering knowhow have degraded so much that very few people can repair the sophisticated battle computers in mechs like the Phoenix Hawk and Stalker. In fact the Stalker and Marauder variants have dumbfired weapons aimed with iron sights due to everyone knowing how to reprogram the computers having died centuries ago.

Edited by PanchoTortilla, 02 July 2013 - 06:05 PM.

[Pht]

Abrahms, on 02 July 2013 - 02:19 PM, said:

... lack of convergence removes skill.

No. It does not need to remove skill.

In fact, if the 'mechs were made to handle their weapons like they do in the BT setting, it would take more skill than it currently does.

Pht said:

Gunnery skill in a BTU BattleMech consists of several physical and mental skills.

Physically, the main skill is the use of a joystick to indicate and track the desired target that one wants their 'Mech to try and hit, and the ability to pull trigger(s) exactly when necessary without disturbing one's aim. The joystick controls a firing reticule which is displayed on the main HUD in the cockpit. BTU 'Mechs are, by design, not allowed to target or track anything with the reticule or choose to shoot any weapon! Minor physical skills consist of the use of mode switches and, for example, configuring Target Interlock Circuits on the fly.

The three most important Mental gunnery skills are:

Knowing how the internal heat levels in your 'Mech will affect it's ability to aim, knowing if your 'Mech can make the shot you're indicating to it, and if you think it can make the shot, how long to let your 'Mech's Targeting and Tracking (T&T) computers calculate lead (weapons convergence) in order to hit the target being indicated and tracked by you. The decision on when to shoot or not shoot and how long let your T&T work on "a fix" is affected by other factors, which a good MechWarrior will take into account.

These factors consist of:
Choosing what weapons should be fired based on their rated battlefield ranges in relation to the distance to the target;

Knowing how the varying environmental and terrain types your 'Mech or a target is in will affect your 'Mech's ability to make the shot;

Choosing when to shoot based upon the target's behavior, for example, waiting until the target is relatively "still" enough in relation to your 'Mech's firing arc so that your 'Mech has an easier time making the shot;

Choosing what sort of movement you will be engaging in while asking your 'Mech to make a shot, for example, standing still while shooting, or running and shooting;

Choosing what types of weapons to fire based on their differing performance parameters i.e. ACs vs Gauss weapons, or pulse lasers vs normal lasers;

Choosing what types of ammo to use for ammo using weapons i.e., when to use LBX Cluster rounds vs LBX AC rounds;

Choosing firing modes for some weapons, for example, attempting to fire normal AC's in rapid fire mode, or rate of fire for Rotary ACs;

Knowing when engaging in an advanced firing mode is worth the tradeoff it requires (for instance, bracing an arm requires you to be immobile; Called Shots are harder to connect with, etc);

Knowing how the damage your 'Mech has taken will affect it's ability to make a shot (weapons can be degraded by taking damage, weapons in damaged arms might not align properly).

In case it's not already obvious, the 'Mech handles the calculation of how far to "lead" a target in order to hit the target that the MechWarrior is indicating with the reticule on his HUD. It is impossible for the MechWarrior to do these calculations anywhere near as fast or as precisely as the 'Mech's computer does them, and especially for multiple weapons types at once. YES, a 'Mech CAN align/converge all of its weapons, torso mounted or otherwise.

http://mwomercs.com/...different-idea/

Quote

Convergence
Its increases skillful gameplay and, frankly, is more realistic. If today's main battle tanks like the M1Abrams can jump a hill at 50 mph and snipe a tank a mile away in mid air, I dont think that Battletech mechs would suddenly suck at aiming.

MW isn't about "future reality." It's about the fictional BT setting and the fictional BT tech.

Quote

The RNG on the board game was to depict that the pilots would make mistakes with accuracy, and that mechs moved, turned, etc: its how an RNG game depicts skill.... some of you may concur that actually it was intended to show poor technology and accuracy, but when accuracy improved, things were less random.

The only dice roll that represented the 'mechs's pilot's gunnery skill was the pilot's gunnery skill roll.

Everything else represents the 'mechs ability to figure a good firing fix, and the 'mech's ability to get it's weapons aligned properly, given whatever conditions occuring when the Mech's pilot pulls the triggers.

Quote

Spread and luck have ZERO place in a live game unless its something natural, like a WWII game 50 cal spread that is a reality.

See link above. It describes said natural situations. Basically, how conditions affect the 'mech's ability to make the shot.

Quote

Heat
If youve been around for a while (you probably know my posts from now over a year ago) that noted that head is simply broken in MWO. PGI started with TableTop (TT) values for heat and damage, then tripled the rate of fire.

PGI started with the armor values and weapons values from TT but they did NOT pick up the combat mechanic that those values were specifically balanced for.

So, of course things are/were screwed up.

[Abrahms]

One Medic Army, on 02 July 2013 - 05:38 PM, said:

That's nice.
So you want auto-aim in MWO? Just let the computer do all the work?

Realism can go die in a fire, this is a video game and the prime directive is that it be fun.
As a PvP game the second directive is that it be balanced.
The third is that it have a higher skill cap than repeatedly moving 2m from cover and clicking on the enemy.

how do you come to such illogical conclusions?

not once was auto aim ever a topic - the computers allow you to hit WHERE you are aiming, NOT aim for you.

that way better pilots will hit more accurately, because they can aim better

a few games of watching other player's first person view will quickly reveal to you just how bad many players are... they can barely hit the broad side of a barn. Skill needs to remain relevant

[Skunk Wolf]

I think people are mixing up the terms convergence and stabilization.

Convergence is the range that all your guns hit at the same spot (or thereabouts).

Stabilization is the compensation of the movement of your mech on your weapon.

All of the weapons in this game have near perfect stabilization. Which is borderline crazy.

They also instantly converge on a non-locked/lased target over where the reticule(s) is/are, automatically and instantly. That IS crazy.

That gives two things that could be tweaked to resolve this.

Problem is that it will nerf the ever living daylights out of light mechs and anything mobile.

PanchoTortilla, on 02 July 2013 - 05:45 PM, said:

What a load of crap.

Can your computer figure out how hard and which direction the wind is blowing 1000m away ? How? With the force? Reading the wind is a skill that long range marksmen train for years or decades to master. What about variations in the powder charge loaded inside the cartridge? You do know military specifications allow for 4 minutes-of-angle deviation for the currently issued individual infantry rifle right? Because mass produced military ammo is not known for its consistency.

A tank or helicopter can easily calculate a trajectory to score a likely hit SOMEWHERE on another vehicle, but to try to shoot out the left side passenger window with 3 different guns at long range (which is what MWO does), BullS---.

You beat me to it.

Is there some kind of qualification you need for incredibly bad aiming to be an Atlas pilot? It's really rare to see anybody who's a decent shot in those. I think the good shots gravitate towards the Highlander.