833 replies to this topic

[Jakob Knight]

DirePhoenix, on 05 September 2013 - 11:16 AM, said:

Wrong.

Convergence is based on the location of the weapon in relation to where the crosshair is drawn. In MWO (currently) the crosshair is drawn from the pilot's perspective. The farther out the weapon is mounted away from the pilot's eyes, the more divergent the weapon will be from the crosshairs as the target moves farther within the minimum convergence range. Take for example setting a minimum convergence range of 90m for PPCs, meaning the closest the weapons can converge on the crosshairs is 90m. From the image below you can see how as the target closes within the minimum range, the weapon line of fire for the PPCs start getting farther away from the crosshair line.


So as the target gets closer, if you're trying to place your crosshairs on the target to hit, the PPCs start landing farther away from the crosshair because they're not focused on the object that's in front of them, they're focused on a point 90m out in front of them along the crosshair line.

Hence... an "accuracy modifier" that makes it more difficult to hit the spot you're aiming for within the minimum range, while not making it just plain impossible to hit at all. Experienced or 'skilled' players that have a more intimate knowledge of their 'mech and where their hardpoints are located will be able to adjust for this by aiming off to the side by a certain degree depending on how close their target is within the minimum range.

I stand corrected then. It simply seemed the only time I saw the term used was in arguments over Gausscats or Swaybacks, and the pinpoint damage of alpha strikes.

And, if I understand correctly, it's simply a matter of displacement, not of actual accuracy loss (the shot will still hit the same place if the pilot compensates the same amount every time). With a little practice, it doesn't really become an issue (especially at the short ranges where non-LRM minimum range comes into effect). Still I can see this system working better and worse than the current one. Better in being truer to the original material (though not sure how it would affect LRMs, being non-aim-capable weapons), but worse in that it would not require as much thought into mech loadout and tactical use as the current system. I'm divided on that, as I really don't want the game made easier than it already is, if you understand what I mean.

[HarlekinEO]

After testing the ER-PPKs in my AWS-8Q.
I just want to say, Im fine with the new Heating Scale. Im using 2 ER-PPKs in Chainfire, only (never was the Boating type).
But I have to say, that the "Projectile" speed is too slow for good long Range usage. It felt good in mid and close combat (even though I have better weapons for close Range installed).

So raise Projectile Speed to normal speed and maybe increase the cool downtime back from 4s to 3s. I think you raised it to keep the heat scaling in line with laser, then you should switch it back after raising the Heat. It should have no influence for boating anymore and overheating doesnt allows the overuse. But it will feal better in battle.

Edited by HarlekinEO, 05 September 2013 - 01:00 PM.

[Morlokk]

Komtur, on 05 September 2013 - 03:32 AM, said:

Jagermech with 2 gauss - a really fun machine .

But NOW ... useless!

See an enemy ... load the weapon ... wait ... fire ...... hits nothing.
When brawl starts ... also useless with this time shift.

I concur, i made this mech just to try sniping to really test out the Gauss, and all i can say for sniping this change has made it far far worse. When you hold down to charge a mech at distance moves so you can shoot, or they move while your holding charge so you attempt to compensate and then lose charge cause you've now held it for too long. So now i will just have to use other weapon sets and not use the Gauss. I am all about adapting and overcoming and they made a weapon not work for a specific role they were aiming for, again IMO. Yes i know I'm just QQing right? not valid at all right?

[Corvus Antaka]

Deathsiege, on 05 September 2013 - 10:00 AM, said:

Wow this patch has killed my erppc cat. 2 or 3 shots and I overheat.

thats 60 damage on target before a cooldown. considering you dont need ammo and it's only 7 tons and has the second longest range in game and applies all it's damage to 1 spot on a shot, this seems very reasonable to me.

[SIERRA 116]

As little as I know about BattleTech (despite calling myself a fan, but I don't get into arguments over the lore with people who know 10 times as much), I'd like to say that people seem to be getting a little uppity over how different it is to the TableTop (at least that's what it seems like to me) should take a step back. Yes, some things should remain like TT (even though I've never played), but this isn't a table top, turn based, luck based, roll-of-the-dice game. It is a real time strategic shooter, so there are plenty of things impossible to implement into the game.

Now, I can't exactly have any opinion on Gauss rifles as of now, because I don't use them, and nor can I speak much on the Standard PPC because the only 'mech I have that uses one is my CTF-1X, and that's only one. I will admit I can see why it'd be hard for people to us Gauss Rifles now due to the charge up and the short charge-hold time, but seeing as I don't use them, my opinion does not hold as much merit. As for PPCs doing 0 damage below 90 metres, I do see it as a little stupid seeing as lore says they have inhibitors that stop them from firing, instead of just doing nothing while still applying the cooldown and heat buildup, but perhaps such a thing is difficult in this game, or not, I can't say for certain. It may be quite tricky to implement such a system in a game with so many variables where something can change instantly, and the various glitches and lag.

Again, I can't say I know for certain, I know very little. But, there is one thing I wish they'd change; I wish they'd make UAC5s less prone to jamming. Even if they've had their jam chance reduced, I think they still jam a little too often.

[Mycrus]

Kattspya, on 05 September 2013 - 11:22 AM, said:

Stop that playground language and rise above, son.

In all seriousness though, can you name names? Or even better quote posts?

Gramps, stop yapping from the pasture.

[Wintersdark]

Colonel Pada Vinson, on 05 September 2013 - 03:13 PM, said:

thats 60 damage on target before a cooldown. considering you dont need ammo and it's only 7 tons and has the second longest range in game and applies all it's damage to 1 spot on a shot, this seems very reasonable to me.

That's the tradeoff. Energy weapons are hot; ballistic weapons require ammo and are absurdly heavy.

[Belorion]

Deathsiege, on 05 September 2013 - 10:00 AM, said:

Wow this patch has killed my erppc cat. 2 or 3 shots and I overheat.

<sarcasm> Haven't you read the forums? Everyone hates PPCs and the people that use them... </sarcasm>

[QuaxDerBruchpilot]

So, played a few games now and already uninstalled the Gauss because the recent change rendered the Gauss useless as a sniper weapon. One of the main features of a sniper weapon - beeing able to exactly time the shot - has been lost by this last change. So sniping an enemy moving back and forth behind cover has become nothing more than a lucky guess.

On the other hand, I cannot see any disadvantage at brawling distance because the target is large enough so even with the delay you cannot miss.

Needless to say that the PPC now also isn't a sniper weapon anymore due to it's speed decrease.

So basically what this last patch achieved (in terms of weapon balance) is a complete dissapearence of sniper weapons.

[Ransack]

Ransack, on 03 September 2013 - 11:15 AM, said:

Yay, only a year late, but yippee kiyo kiyay!


[/list]OK, I can live with that


[/list]ditto the above


[/list][/list]uh, what? Why did you nerf the Gauss? this is a change that I do not agree with, but will test before passing judgement.


[/list]Did you adjust the ghost heat to compensate?


[/list]This baffles me. Was there no value in between that worked?

[/list]okay I guess


Two weeks guys. That's all that is left. In my opinion, you should have been making these changes LAST MONTH. It's a little late in the game for big swings at balance. Oh well, thanks for doing... something though.

Had my first set of drops since the patch.

Why did you guys speed up the walk animation? Every humanoid mech runs like the Quickdraw now. Not visually pleasing

ERPPC is Hot as hell. I'm ok with the ER/PPC changes.

Gauss Rifle plain sucks. Awful. It is still usable, but why bother? I see that you guys brought back the fart through a crazy straw sound for it's charge.... ARRGGGHHH! The weapon that i feared the most in closed beta, became my preferred ballistic even after it becoming a glass cannon, has become a weapon that I will refuse to use in the state that it is in. A shame.

Oh well.

[Tylok Grey]

ok, I only played 'bout 2 hours since that patch ... overall , doesn't seem bad , time will show
i must admit I'm not a fan of that GR-modification, but that may be related to the fact that I can't really handle it properly by now (here again time will show) only pactising makes a master ... or sth like that
Can't really tell about "it's canon/not canon" , I played BT TT only with a friend of mine years ago, and even that only 1-2 times per month on the week-ends, so...
By now imho I think we have a playable game taken from a universe many were hoping to get a decent revival... just keep it up going , lets see where it will take us with/after launch. I'm pretty confident

[Belorion]

DirePhoenix, on 05 September 2013 - 11:16 AM, said:

Wrong.

Convergence is based on the location of the weapon in relation to where the crosshair is drawn. In MWO (currently) the crosshair is drawn from the pilot's perspective. The farther out the weapon is mounted away from the pilot's eyes, the more divergent the weapon will be from the crosshairs as the target moves farther within the minimum convergence range. Take for example setting a minimum convergence range of 90m for PPCs, meaning the closest the weapons can converge on the crosshairs is 90m. From the image below you can see how as the target closes within the minimum range, the weapon line of fire for the PPCs start getting farther away from the crosshair line.


So as the target gets closer, if you're trying to place your crosshairs on the target to hit, the PPCs start landing farther away from the crosshair because they're not focused on the object that's in front of them, they're focused on a point 90m out in front of them along the crosshair line.

Hence... an "accuracy modifier" that makes it more difficult to hit the spot you're aiming for within the minimum range, while not making it just plain impossible to hit at all. Experienced or 'skilled' players that have a more intimate knowledge of their 'mech and where their hardpoints are located will be able to adjust for this by aiming off to the side by a certain degree depending on how close their target is within the minimum range.

Sounds like an absolutely terrible idea, glad you aren't designing the game.

[Kattspya]

Mycrus, on 05 September 2013 - 03:33 PM, said:

Gramps, stop yapping from the pasture.

I'm not that old but hypocrisy sucks and condescension is always a nice in response.

How about those examples? Should I assume your previous post has been withdrawn?

Mycrus, on 05 September 2013 - 03:33 PM, said:

Gramps, stop yapping from the pasture.

I'm not that old but hypocrisy sucks and condescension is always a nice in response.

How about those examples? Should I assume your previous post has been withdrawn?

[PlatypusKnight]

After playing around with the Gauss I still don't particularly like the new 'charge and hold' . However, I would be fine with this setup if the 'hold' time were increased to maybe two or three seconds. I think that would give an acceptable middle ground that would allow the dedicated snipers the ability to put a shot on target and still keep the weapon somewhat balanced in game. I would also accept an increase in the 'charge' time to a full second as a trade off for a longer 'hold' time.

With the way that players duck in and out of cover routinely, the current setup makes it almost impossible to use the Gauss for its intended purpose as a long range hitter, and moves it back to a medium range and relatively slow (vs. other ballistic weapons) weapon.

[Appogee]

Kattspya, on 06 September 2013 - 05:37 AM, said:

I'm not that old but hypocrisy sucks and condescension is always a nice in response.

How about those examples? Should I assume your previous post has been withdrawn?


I'm not that old but hypocrisy sucks and condescension is always a nice in response.

How about those examples? Should I assume your previous post has been withdrawn?

You must be old - you keep forgetting what you've said and then repeating it .

[Hillslam]

Patch killed the Victor variants except for the AC20 one.

[qki]

Wolfways, on 05 September 2013 - 09:29 AM, said:

According to Sarna:
"First introduced in 2400 by the Terran Hegemony, Long Range Missiles are designed to engage the enemy at great distances at the expense of damage dealt. Adapted towards the profusion of electronic jamming on the battlefield and the effectiveness of current armor designs, these missiles are capable of indirect fire and disperse over a smaller area than Short Range Missiles. Inner Sphere LRM launchers achieve this range by firing at a ballistic launch angle, making them less accurate at close range. Clan LRM launchers do not suffer from this effect, in addition to being smaller and more compact, thanks to their technological advantage. LRMs are highly upgradable, able to fire a variety of warheads and benefit from devices such as Artemis IV FCS."
To me that sounds like the only reason IS missiles have a minimum range is not because they didn't arm as they left the launcher, but because they were fired at an upward angle. Also, it says "less accurate at close range", not "no damage at close range".

yeah, sure

as long as you can consistently keep rolling 15 or better on 2d6, you'll do damage with them just fine.


Unless some really heavy tweaking is done to the flightpath, to make it nearly impossible to hit something closer than 140m, you can have your 141-190m damage back.

It's just a simpler way of doing things, and I can't say I mind, or feel inclined to nitpick.

[Ransack]

Wolfways, on 05 September 2013 - 09:29 AM, said:

To me that sounds like the only reason IS missiles have a minimum range is not because they didn't arm as they left the launcher, but because they were fired at an upward angle. Also, it says "less accurate at close range", not "no damage at close range".

This is true in the novels. There are many intances of LRM's fired at close range. They do not arm and explode, but they do cause damage.

[William Knight]

ezzquizo, on 03 September 2013 - 10:45 AM, said:

gauss sucks!

Nope.

[Zog]

The hero mech for the Orion should be 'Cliff'. I would have bought that, sight unseen.