18 replies to this topic

[Clint Steel]

I have to imagine this has been suggested before, but I can't think of why it wasn't implemented as a way to keep sniping weapons from being as dangerous in a brawl, or alphas being so deadly,since they pinpoint one area.

When your mech moves or fire more that one weapon, your accuracy/convergence would drop.

Fire 2 PPCs and a Gauss at the same time and you'll likely hit the mech not all in the same location.

I would say any weapon that is listed to have kickback should be effected, PPC's, Gauss and AC's. If you fired a weapon without kickback will shooting one of these you would still suffer from the kick of the original gun but it wouldn't multiply like it would shooting several "kicking" weapons at once.

[Psydotek]

Variable weapon convergence is something that alot of people have been clamoring for and something that the developers have discussed implementing since closed beta.

Unfortunately, nothing has yet to materialize...

[Eddrick]

It has been mentioned before. A lot of times, also with Cone of Fire. The counter argument for both are, "Lets not nerf skill".

Clint Steel, on 05 September 2013 - 05:00 PM, said:

I would say any weapon that is listed to have kickback should be effected, PPC's, Gauss and AC's. If you fired a weapon without kickback will shooting one of these you would still suffer from the kick of the original gun but it wouldn't multiply like it would shooting several "kicking" weapons at once.

The "Kick" you are talking about is Recoil. It has a much greater effect on when you try to fire again shortly after a shot was fired. Think of a Shot Gun or a high power Rifle. The first shot is not likely to miss (If you have steady aim). But, you have to re-adjust your aim because of the Kick from the Recoil.

Edited by Eddrick, 05 September 2013 - 05:56 PM.

[Clint Steel]

Eddrick, on 05 September 2013 - 05:55 PM, said:

It has been mentioned before. A lot of times, also with Cone of Fire. The counter argument for both are, "Lets not nerf skill".

The "Kick" you are talking about is Recoil. It has a much greater effect on when you try to fire again shortly after a shot was fired. Think of a Shot Gun or a high power Rifle. The first shot is not likely to miss (If you have steady aim). But, you have to re-adjust your aim because of the Kick from the Recoil.

I know when I shoot my dad's 45 I have to aim about a foot below what i want to hit, so I know recoil can effect the same shots trajectory, but ya the second shot is that much harder to line up. Either way its just an explanation for a mechanic that could help spread the damage a bit.

I wouldn't see it as nerfing skill myself, (I think true skill is dealing with how things work better than others). A more skilled player would still be putting damage closer to where it needed to be than an unskilled player, and would add another layer of strategy.

[Nauht]

Eddrick, on 05 September 2013 - 05:55 PM, said:

It has been mentioned before. A lot of times, also with Cone of Fire. The counter argument for both are, "Lets not nerf skill".

The "Kick" you are talking about is Recoil. It has a much greater effect on when you try to fire again shortly after a shot was fired. Think of a Shot Gun or a high power Rifle. The first shot is not likely to miss (If you have steady aim). But, you have to re-adjust your aim because of the Kick from the Recoil.

That's with our stupidly weak and imprecise muscles.

What about a turret, tank, battleship gun or any other mechanically mounted gun that has a computer to adjust for recoil?
Yeah, that's what a mech is.

There have been some really good ideas on how to implement a cone of fire type system that doesnt nerf skill, i.e. the crosshairs expanding when you move but cos I'm dead tired can't fire up my neurons to recall the best one I liked. Maybe later.

[Eddrick]

Nauht, on 05 September 2013 - 07:01 PM, said:

That's with our stupidly weak and imprecise muscles.

What about a turret, tank, battleship gun or any other mechanically mounted gun that has a computer to adjust for recoil?
Yeah, that's what a mech is.

There have been some really good ideas on how to implement a cone of fire type system that doesnt nerf skill, i.e. the crosshairs expanding when you move but cos I'm dead tired can't fire up my neurons to recall the best one I liked. Maybe later.

I have herd of it and understand how the systems work for Cannons on Tank and Ships. I just don't see how Recoil can be used to justify a Cone of Fire the moment the first shot is fired. Because, Recoil doesn't do that. Most of it's effects happen after the shot is fired.

Edited by Eddrick, 05 September 2013 - 07:33 PM.

[Psydotek]

It's not that we need a cone of fire, but rather all the weapon firing lines go parallel and then take time to reconverge on a single point after firing.

[RandomLurker]

Topic already up: http://mwomercs.com/...point-solution/

[Stomp]

inb4 Homeless Bill's proposal.

[Further]

Make it like countrstrike, or DoD, or any other game like that, noone will say counterstrike has no skill (I hope). Mimic that aim mechanism and get rid of all these invisible penalties and game mechanics that screw noobs over. jeeeeeezuuuus pay me to think for you

[Clint Steel]

RandomLurker, on 05 September 2013 - 07:48 PM, said:

Topic already up: http://mwomercs.com/...point-solution/

thanks for the link

Eddrick, on 05 September 2013 - 07:32 PM, said:

I have herd of it and understand how the systems work for Cannons on Tank and Ships. I just don't see how Recoil can be used to justify a Cone of Fire the moment the first shot is fired. Because, Recoil doesn't do that. Most of it's effects happen after the shot is fired.

You fire a large caliber handgun and tell me there is no effect during fire

I agree a battleship or a mech in this case would handle this much better since they are stronger, but consider their weapons are an equal proportion stronger, and then imagine firing multiple at once. (maybe arm mounted guns would suffer more than chest mounted guns too)

[Fut]

Clint Steel, on 05 September 2013 - 06:16 PM, said:

I know when I shoot my dad's 45 I have to aim about a foot below what i want to hit, so I know recoil can effect the same shots trajectory, but ya the second shot is that much harder to line up. Either way its just an explanation for a mechanic that could help spread the damage a bit. I wouldn't see it as nerfing skill myself, (I think true skill is dealing with how things work better than others). A more skilled player would still be putting damage closer to where it needed to be than an unskilled player, and would add another layer of strategy.

Whoa. Wait. What?
This doesn't sound right to me at all. Being a Northerner, I grew up with marksmanship and hunting as hobbies and what you're saying doesn't jive with any of my experiences. Granted, I've only ever fired Shotguns or Rifles, but I wouldn't imagine a pistol to be much different.

If you're aiming a foot below your target, there's no way the kick will line you up with what you're trying to hit. The speed at which the bullet leaves the muzzle is extremely fast. much more than the speed at which the recoil sends your barrel upwards... I'd be shocked if your shot landed on target with you aiming the way you claim.

[operator0]

Clint Steel, on 05 September 2013 - 06:16 PM, said:

I know when I shoot my dad's 45 I have to aim about a foot below what i want to hit,

That's not due to recoil, but poor trigger control and/or sights that aren't aligned. The second shot would be affected by recoil unless you waited until it was properly lined up, at which point it becomes the first shot of a volley again.

As far as how this effects MWO, my opinion is that it's not really a huge game changer. Most top tier players, when brawling, do a significant amount of torso twisting. As such, their precision upon shooting that high damage weapon is significantly lowered already. If we are talking about sniping, then maybe. Still, I believe most who advocate for this change would be disappointed with the results.

[Blue Footed Booby]

Clint Steel, on 05 September 2013 - 06:16 PM, said:

I know when I shoot my dad's 45 I have to aim about a foot below what i want to hit, so I know recoil can effect the same shots trajectory, but ya the second shot is that much harder to line up. Either way its just an explanation for a mechanic that could help spread the damage a bit.
...

If you watch a high-speed video of a pistol firing you can see that the bullet leaves the barrel long before the gun starts to recoil, before the slide even begins to cycle back. You're having a different problem, like messed up sights, or not lining up the sights correctly. You might also be jerking the trigger or flinching in anticipation of the kick. The latter is best fixed by practicing with a lower power weapon so you can build up good habits. The former may mean you need more practice, but it could also indicate a trigger pull that's too heavy for you to deal with (which could be a problem with the gun, the gun not being a good match for you, or you needing to work on your grip strength).

Edited by Blue Footed Booby, 06 September 2013 - 08:27 AM.

[Lefty Lucy]

Fut, on 06 September 2013 - 06:51 AM, said:

Whoa. Wait. What?
This doesn't sound right to me at all. Being a Northerner, I grew up with marksmanship and hunting as hobbies and what you're saying doesn't jive with any of my experiences. Granted, I've only ever fired Shotguns or Rifles, but I wouldn't imagine a pistol to be much different.

If you're aiming a foot below your target, there's no way the kick will line you up with what you're trying to hit. The speed at which the bullet leaves the muzzle is extremely fast. much more than the speed at which the recoil sends your barrel upwards... I'd be shocked if your shot landed on target with you aiming the way you claim.

A pistol actually is significantly different because stance, trigger pull, and recoil compensation have a very magnified affect compared to using a rifle or shotgun. However, if you're shooting a pistol right, you definitely aim the sights at the place you want to hit, assuming your sights are in alignment.

[Clint Steel]

Lefty Lucy, on 06 September 2013 - 10:25 AM, said:

A pistol actually is significantly different because stance, trigger pull, and recoil compensation have a very magnified affect compared to using a rifle or shotgun. However, if you're shooting a pistol right, you definitely aim the sights at the place you want to hit, assuming your sights are in alignment.

This is true, as long as you can control the recoil you should aim where you want to hit. I definitely don't recommend using a gun (for more than fun) you have to aim correct by aiming below the target

I've shot several rifles and shotguns in my life, and the only thing I've noticed recoil effecting the shot was the pistol, I do know how to squeeze the trigger, so this wasn't a trigger pull issue. I assumed was because of the light weight to large caliber, combined with only having the pistol grip to hold on to.

That said, this thread was more about minimizing the damage Alpha Strikes do, than necessarily than exactly replicating real life. Reading more, perhaps convergence time would jive better with everyone, though the sniper would then still have access to pinpoint alpha. it would at least make anyone keep their reticle on target for a certain amount of time before firing to get full pinpoint damage.

[Taemien]

Server Side Hit Detection.

As long as we have that. Convergence changing isn't possible. The reason why CoD, Counterstrike and other games have it is because they use Client Side Hit Detection. They also are loaded with hackers.

So... to have Client Side Hit Detection, MWO will need to be subscription based so banning hackers is meaningful.


I'm down for paying $15 a month to play with client side hit detection. Means no HSR is needed and every shot lands where you see it land. Makes coding easier for the devs, and a slew of other nice goodies.

[Donnie Silveray]

Penalizing the ability to aim in an FPS is like saying I cannot turn while moving forward in a racing game . MWO isn't like your bog standard FPS, most of the distinction in MWO is mech control, not gunplay. That is why our sights don't expand or lose accuracy, it is because it is rough enough to control the mech and aim simultaneously amongst other things a shooter doesn't need to worry about. Additionally the ability to aim at parts of a mech is what makes MWO special, by introducing significant deviation from where one aims you're partially killing the intent of strategically disassembling an opponent.

The mechs are of sufficient size, weight, and technological capability to absorb/compensate for most recoil that they are put through. The only weapon I am somewhat less content is that the AC20 doesn't vibrate my mech or recoil the arm as an animation.

It'd be more prudent and less sloppy to somehow integrate converging sights on a target by adjusting how certain harpoints on mechs operate. Torso weapons might have some leeway like turret-less Tank Destroyers from WW2, but otherwise can't aim too far out of their cone, within reason. It'd absolutely suck having to turn your Atlas to aim that hip AC20. Arms can probably benefit from slightly slowing down their traverse. However I doubt this will be enough to remove your dislike of being aimed at, merely make snapshots rougher. You'll just have to get used to it, this is a mech shooter after all.

[Lefty Lucy]

Clint Steel, on 07 September 2013 - 05:45 AM, said:

I've shot several rifles and shotguns in my life, and the only thing I've noticed recoil effecting the shot was the pistol, I do know how to squeeze the trigger, so this wasn't a trigger pull issue. I assumed was because of the light weight to large caliber, combined with only having the pistol grip to hold on to.

It's very likely an issue of anticipating the recoil, which is a reflex that you actually have to work hard to train out of yourself if you fire pistols.