1026 replies to this topic

[Victor Morson]

drunkblackstar, on 10 February 2014 - 10:20 PM, said:

Ignore the issue of balance? Suggest You to offer boxers get rid of weight limitations - 50 kg vs. 120 kg. for example - I'll would like to hear their reaction.

Single HGN can't change the course of the match, but 4 coordinated HGN do that, no matter what.

Instead of trying balancing Locust and Atlas, wich is nonsense par exellence, PGi should look at the core of the issue: tonnage differences and limits were the basis of BT from the very beginning. Ignoring that simple and obvious fact won't make this game better.

Well what would address what you want, but also address reality as pointed out below, would be BV (Battle Value) matching.

That would work. A subpar 'mech like the Awesome could cost as much as a top tier medium like the Shadow Hawk, and everything works out for everyone. This worked wonderfully in Living Legends and it would work here. Suddenly second rate weapons, mechs and configurations are useful to free up more room for better 'mechs in the config.

Then again we've been saying that since before the F&F beta even, and instead, we have the glory that is ELO because the people in charge refuse to take advice and like to look for the worst possible solutions.

Edited by Victor Morson, 10 February 2014 - 11:33 PM.

[VXJaeger]

Move chargetime from Gauss to PPC's and nerf is done.

[Cerberias]

Huzzah for sense ^

[MustrumRidcully]

MavRCK, on 10 February 2014 - 10:48 AM, said:

Ya because human beings have this tendency to try and hit what they aim for.

Yet they don't usually glue together 4 guns and have them all hit the same spot. Especially not in a contest of shooting skills. There is a reason Biatlethes have to hit 5 targets with one gun, and not 1 target with 5 guns glued together so they all hit the same spot. They have to prove consistently good aim under pressure (time and the general excited physical state).

If you want aiming to emphasize "skill", the combination of group fire and convergence has to go. You can have your perfect crosshair that adjusts for range*, but if you want that, you don't get to five 4 guns hitting the same spot

Quote

Good games with competitive followings such as Starcraft 2 and LoL do small nerfs and moderate buffs to achieve game balance - they rarely introduce new game mechanics..

So I am not just making shit up as Armchair Designer when I see inventing new mechanics to fixing balance issues shoudl always be a last resort and a good designer would actually try to tweak the mechanics he has first to fix his problems? PGI certainly loves to invent new mechanics. I suppose it's more fun then tweaking some lame numbers.


*I genuinely think that would be better for the game, since it's easier to understand and doesn't require any additional UI or logic to identify the actual "divergence" your weapon would have. Making more weapons be beams or burst fire weapons or outright forcing weapons to be chain-fired would be a lot easier.

Edited by MustrumRidcully, 11 February 2014 - 02:23 AM.

[Dirus Nigh]

MustrumRidcully, on 11 February 2014 - 02:15 AM, said:

Yet they don't usually glue together 4 guns and have them all hit the same spot. Especially not in a contest of shooting skills. There is a reason Biatlethes have to hit 5 targets with one gun, and not 1 target with 5 guns glued together so they all hit the same spot. They have to prove consistently good aim under pressure (time and the general excited physical state).

If you want aiming to emphasize "skill", the combination of group fire and convergence has to go. You can have your perfect crosshair that adjusts for range*, but if you want that, you don't get to five 4 guns hitting the same spot


So I am not just making shit up as Armchair Designer when I see inventing new mechanics to fixing balance issues shoudl always be a last resort and a good designer would actually try to tweak the mechanics he has first to fix his problems? PGI certainly loves to invent new mechanics. I suppose it's more fun then tweaking some lame numbers.


*I genuinely think that would be better for the game, since it's easier to understand and doesn't require any additional UI or logic to identify the actual "divergence" your weapon would have. Making more weapons be beams or burst fire weapons or outright forcing weapons to be chain-fired would be a lot easier.

The following human made war machines would like to have a word with you.

P-51 mustang
6-8 .50 cal machine guns mounted in the wings. These guns would be set to converge on a single point. Some pilots had two different convergence points. The outer guns would converge at a farther distance than the inner guns.


P-47 Thunderbolt
A heavy fighter, used for tactical bombing. Usually tanks, trains, ships, and transport vehicles. Six .50 cal machine guns.


P-40E Kittyhawk Air superiority fighter, and bomber. Six .50 cal machine guns.

Just three examples, but I can go on.

The idea for using multiple weapons to converge on a point is not unique to MWO. It is most likely how laser weapons could and will be made in the future. It would be more economical to build four smaller laser weapons, and have them converge there beams, than to have one really large laser. This is called an array.

Your rant on "skill" is miss guided. Skill come with how a person uses a weapon, mech, or other item in game. Whether or not a person uses one, two, or six of the same weapon does not detract from a persons skill. That is just finding an efficient way to accomplish a goal. The goal being to destroy another mech before he destroys you. Hokey mechanics that make a player jump through hoops to use is not skill, its hokey mechanics.

If you truly wanted a realistic skill based game. Then mechs would be specialized to do a job. Then rely on only one or two weapons to do that job, with a secondary back up weapon. After all real modern tanks only use one main gun, with a secondary weapon, such as an anti tank missile, and one machine gun for infantry.

Following that logic, the catapult A1, and the Hollander are perfect mechs.

[smokefield]

i think that a simple solution would be to implement recoil for all projectile weapons, less when standing on ground...more when flying.

[Helsbane]

Dirus Nigh, on 11 February 2014 - 03:09 AM, said:

The following human made war machines would like to have a word with you.

P-51 mustang
6-8 .50 cal machine guns mounted in the wings. These guns would be set to converge on a single point. Some pilots had two different convergence points. The outer guns would converge at a farther distance than the inner guns.


P-47 Thunderbolt
A heavy fighter, used for tactical bombing. Usually tanks, trains, ships, and transport vehicles. Six .50 cal machine guns.


P-40E Kittyhawk Air superiority fighter, and bomber. Six .50 cal machine guns.

Just three examples, but I can go on.

The idea for using multiple weapons to converge on a point is not unique to MWO. It is most likely how laser weapons could and will be made in the future. It would be more economical to build four smaller laser weapons, and have them converge there beams, than to have one really large laser. This is called an array.

Your rant on "skill" is miss guided. Skill come with how a person uses a weapon, mech, or other item in game. Whether or not a person uses one, two, or six of the same weapon does not detract from a persons skill. That is just finding an efficient way to accomplish a goal. The goal being to destroy another mech before he destroys you. Hokey mechanics that make a player jump through hoops to use is not skill, its hokey mechanics.

If you truly wanted a realistic skill based game. Then mechs would be specialized to do a job. Then rely on only one or two weapons to do that job, with a secondary back up weapon. After all real modern tanks only use one main gun, with a secondary weapon, such as an anti tank missile, and one machine gun for infantry.

Following that logic, the catapult A1, and the Hollander are perfect mechs.

The Jug (P 47) had eight .50 cals... Fighter plane weapon convergence was fixed at set distances. The problem with MWOs weapon convergence has been cited many times in the past. Torso based weapons seem to 'free-float' when they should fire in a straight line (not converge). having them only fire in straight lines would eliminate a great deal of the single panel meta game we currently are saddled with.

Only IFVs (infantry fighting vehicles) have an anti-tank missile as an alternate weapons system. Typically because their chain gun only goes up to 30mm (unless its a Soviet model, in which case it's over 70mm). MTBs simply use varying ammo in their main gun. MBTs can also sport up to three MGs, typically one mounted co-axially and two up top for the commander and loader.

Edited by Helsbane, 11 February 2014 - 04:47 AM.

[MustrumRidcully]

Dirus Nigh, on 11 February 2014 - 03:09 AM, said:

The following human made war machines would like to have a word with you.

P-51 mustang
6-8 .50 cal machine guns mounted in the wings. These guns would be set to converge on a single point. Some pilots had two different convergence points. The outer guns would converge at a farther distance than the inner guns.


P-47 Thunderbolt
A heavy fighter, used for tactical bombing. Usually tanks, trains, ships, and transport vehicles. Six .50 cal machine guns.


P-40E Kittyhawk Air superiority fighter, and bomber. Six .50 cal machine guns.

Just three examples, but I can go on.

The idea for using multiple weapons to converge on a point is not unique to MWO. It is most likely how laser weapons could and will be made in the future. It would be more economical to build four smaller laser weapons, and have them converge there beams, than to have one really large laser. This is called an array.

Your rant on "skill" is miss guided. Skill come with how a person uses a weapon, mech, or other item in game. Whether or not a person uses one, two, or six of the same weapon does not detract from a persons skill. That is just finding an efficient way to accomplish a goal. The goal being to destroy another mech before he destroys you. Hokey mechanics that make a player jump through hoops to use is not skill, its hokey mechanics.

If you truly wanted a realistic skill based game. Then mechs would be specialized to do a job. Then rely on only one or two weapons to do that job, with a secondary back up weapon. After all real modern tanks only use one main gun, with a secondary weapon, such as an anti tank missile, and one machine gun for infantry.

Following that logic, the catapult A1, and the Hollander are perfect mechs.

Why do people always come up with real world examples for real world imbalances? Those engineers designing combat planes - today just as in the 1st WW or the 2nd WW - try to build better machines, that are inherently superior to what the enemy has or what they had before. They build these machnies for their own "team" to excel over the competition.

But game designers don't make planes or mechs or weapons for themselves to be better than the others. That would be easy, they could always add "If (Pilot.Bame = "Paul Inoyue" || Pilot.Friends.Contains("Paul Inoyue")) damage = damage*=10" and call it a day. They design them to enable a game where a huge variety of options and strategies to enable fair competititons.

If a mechanic stands in the way because it creates a drawback for certain range of options without granting a compensating advantage, that mechanic needs to be reworked.

Again, back to competititons in the real world - We don't argue: "Why do the biathlethes use skis to get around the track, why not use snowmobiles? And why can't they use a grenade launcher, that should get rid of these 5 targets just as well as 5 bullets, and require a lot less effort. That's all real world technolgy we have had for decades, why wouldn't we use it in the 2014 Olympics?"

[wanderer]

Quote

As for the "problem" itself... It's not just HGN. Right now any JJ mech has an advantage over those without 'em depending on the map. Best example being Canyon where JJs truly shine. All this started after you introduced "hill slope nerf" and many mechs lost their ability to climb hills.

Ironically, hill climbing seems to be one of the few places the Locust does right in. I've zipped that thing up slopes that make most 'Mechs cry without jets.

But I'm not being bitter about things. Some maps jets are marginally useful, others they're useful all the time. They just have to make jet performance worth taking a significant number of said jets in the first place.

Quote

Move chargetime from Gauss to PPC's and nerf is done.

And we'd back to Gauss master race once again.

The problems are twofold, one bigger than the other.

Poptarting is annoying- but that's because it has ideal weapons to do it's work.

The frontloaded, instant damage weaponry is the big issue. AC's mostly, but PPC's as well not so much for firing speed but for the fact that if they aren't adjusted and AC's are, we'll be seeing PPC-flavored poptarts pretty much forever.

Don't kill jump-and-fire, but make airborne shooting always have crosshair shake, whether jets are active or not.

And finish the job we started when lasers were made "burn" rather than hitscan-instant. That delivery method completely screws the defensive measures a pilot can engage in otherwise, and the only way to fix that is to alter the weapon performance. Burst, splash, or scatter- the 'Mech was designed to spread damage across multiple locations, and weapons that easily bypass this vastly reduce TTK.

Edited by wanderer, 11 February 2014 - 05:05 AM.

[Unleashed3k]

VXJaeger, on 11 February 2014 - 01:32 AM, said:

Move chargetime from Gauss to PPC's and nerf is done.

100% for that! PPC is an energy which "could" hold trigger to charge its particels, gauss is a projectile gun, when its loaded, it is fire-ready. ever fired a standard ballistic weapon? projectile in, click, boom... ever seen this for a BFG (which comes close to ppc)?


AND DO SOMETHING AGAINST MAKROKIDS! I've tried a simple autohotkey as I was overruned several times by ilyas with uac5 that never seemed to jam, and as i use an uac-ilya myself, it is just insane how perverted your dmg rises and how fast enemys fall, u cant be serious if U allow such things or at least dont try to do somethin about it. i deleted it like i sold my hgn's when the jumpmeta started, i dont NEED and i dont WANT such crappy shit, every noob can have a good game with, i like to train aiming and fire discipline, if others arent willing, they should go play COD instead, this is not a common FPS, and succes comes from skill, here u have some possibilitys to sneak around the skill and do dmg the sissy-way...

Edited by Battlestar3k, 11 February 2014 - 05:19 AM.

[Wintersdark]

Dirus Nigh, on 11 February 2014 - 03:09 AM, said:

The following human made war machines would like to have a word with you.
<snip>

The idea for using multiple weapons to converge on a point is not unique to MWO. It is most likely how laser weapons could and will be made in the future. It would be more economical to build four smaller laser weapons, and have them converge there beams, than to have one really large laser. This is called an array.

Your rant on &quot;skill&quot; is miss guided. Skill come with how a person uses a weapon, mech, or other item in game. Whether or not a person uses one, two, or six of the same weapon does not detract from a persons skill. That is just finding an efficient way to accomplish a goal. The goal being to destroy another mech before he destroys you. Hokey mechanics that make a player jump through hoops to use is not skill, its hokey mechanics.

If you truly wanted a realistic skill based game. Then mechs would be specialized to do a job. Then rely on only one or two weapons to do that job, with a secondary back up weapon. After all real modern tanks only use one main gun, with a secondary weapon, such as an anti tank missile, and one machine gun for infantry.

Following that logic, the catapult A1, and the Hollander are perfect mechs.

Convergence: if weapons where set to converge at a fixed point, as with your example, this wouldn't be an issue. That's not the case however. In MWO, weapons instantaneously snap to converge at a specific point (which may change extremely rapidly) with perfect precision. Convergence causes substantial problems in this game, and in this MWO is unique. No other game, to my knowledge, has instant convergence from multiple weapons at any range or situation.

In fact, most shooters have Cone Of Fire even when only firing one weapon (amount being weapon dependant).

And even then, those games don't really differentiate between hitblocations a whole lot. In mwo, being able to land shots from 8 different weapons fired simultaneously on a pinpoint is highly problematic and it decidedly reduces TTK. While not one for pushing Tabletop rules, there's a reason in table top you rolled hit locations per weapon, not just once for everything. Mechs are made up and balanced with the intent that incoming damage be spread about.

[w0rm]

Battlestar3k, on 11 February 2014 - 05:02 AM, said:

100% for that! PPC is an energy which "could" hold trigger to charge its particels, gauss is a projectile gun, when its loaded, it is fire-ready. ever fired a standard ballistic weapon? projectile in, click, boom... ever seen this for a BFG (which comes close to ppc)?


AND DO SOMETHING AGAINST MAKROKIDS! I've tried a simple autohotkey as I was overruned several times by ilyas with uac5 that never seemed to jam, and as i use an uac-ilya myself, it is just insane how perverted your dmg rises and how fast enemys fall, u cant be serious if U allow such things or at least dont try to do somethin about it. i deleted it like i sold my hgn's when the jumpmeta started, i dont NEED and i dont WANT such crappy shit, every noob can have a good game with, i like to train aiming and fire discipline, if others arent willing, they should go play COD instead, this is not a common FPS, and succes comes from skill, here u have some possibilitys to sneak around the skill and do dmg the sissy-way...

[FactorlanP]

Dirus Nigh, on 11 February 2014 - 03:09 AM, said:

The following human made war machines would like to have a word with you.

P-51 mustang
6-8 .50 cal machine guns mounted in the wings. These guns would be set to converge on a single point. Some pilots had two different convergence points. The outer guns would converge at a farther distance than the inner guns.


P-47 Thunderbolt
A heavy fighter, used for tactical bombing. Usually tanks, trains, ships, and transport vehicles. Six .50 cal machine guns.


P-40E Kittyhawk Air superiority fighter, and bomber. Six .50 cal machine guns.

Just three examples, but I can go on.

The idea for using multiple weapons to converge on a point is not unique to MWO. It is most likely how laser weapons could and will be made in the future. It would be more economical to build four smaller laser weapons, and have them converge there beams, than to have one really large laser. This is called an array.

Your rant on "skill" is miss guided. Skill come with how a person uses a weapon, mech, or other item in game. Whether or not a person uses one, two, or six of the same weapon does not detract from a persons skill. That is just finding an efficient way to accomplish a goal. The goal being to destroy another mech before he destroys you. Hokey mechanics that make a player jump through hoops to use is not skill, its hokey mechanics.

If you truly wanted a realistic skill based game. Then mechs would be specialized to do a job. Then rely on only one or two weapons to do that job, with a secondary back up weapon. After all real modern tanks only use one main gun, with a secondary weapon, such as an anti tank missile, and one machine gun for infantry.

Following that logic, the catapult A1, and the Hollander are perfect mechs.

I'm sure it has already been pointed out that these WW2 aircraft had guns that ONLY CONVERGED AT A SINGLE RANGE.

This convergence was set by the ground crews and could not be adjusted in the air.

I actually recommended this very mechanic way back in Closed Beta.

I think it would be GREAT to allow a player to set the distance at which his guns/lasers/PPCs will converge. Then only when he is at that exact distance will he get pinpoint convergence.

This would reward a skilled pilot who can get into that optimum range and stay there. At any other range, damage would be spread around, solving the instant pinpoint damage problem.

Edited by FactorlanP, 11 February 2014 - 08:25 AM.

[Ngamok]

TheMagician, on 10 February 2014 - 10:54 AM, said:

You are missing a few:
First there was: Small laser hunchies, medium laser K2s, and medium pulse awesomes
Then there was: K2 Gauss boats, cents, and jenners
Then there was: A1 splat cats, centers, and Ravens
Then there was: PPC stalkers (improved hit detection + speed + reduced heat), 3D 2PPC/Gauss, some cents, and ravens (later jenners once again, particularly when strk nerf hit)
Then there was: HgN 3PPC/Gauss + 3D 2PPC/Gauss
Now there is: HgN 2PPC/2UAC5

First there was the Dragons........oh never mind.

[rolly]

Paul Inouye, on 05 February 2014 - 05:27 PM, said:

Just going back to the good old days of poking the dragon and running away.

Yes... JJs are being looked at and specifically the initial burst turn. And there are other Mechs on the firing range.

I'm pretty disappointed in reading this. I do support the improvement of this game but at first glance this looks like piece-meal patching. Is this the only way we can balance this game? Unlike many I don't follow the trending meta-build of the week. I use my HGN as I built it since I bought it as my first mech and keep it close to its original weapons layout. Its not a LURM-boat or a Energy-boat its just a HGN.

The HGN has always been a specialized assault mech because of its jumpjets and being 90 tons. Hence the canon use of "Highlander Burial". Unfortunately this is not possible in game. I am using the HGN's jumpjets to their maximum effective, despite its severe limitations. Why would we have the burst turn limited when its one of the best viable tactics for a HGN to stay alive in a fight against light mechs? Could anyone ellaborate this for me?

As I understand jumpjets are meant to impart tactical flexibility to a mech. Having them on the HGN allows it to fight effective and stay alive longer.
If you are considering nerfing it, to what end? Why not focus on addressing the other issues that as to why people jump turn instead of hobbling player used work arounds?

Jumpjets already have such a limited scope of use, and further curtailing them will really just hobble game play and tactical flexibility. Previous versions of jumpjet allowed for vectoring thurst. Now, I'm not advocating HGN's have the ability of Harrier VTOLS but all I'd like to see is jumpjets giving mechs more flexibility in mobility, not just the rudimentary ability to jump.

I see little point in whittling down mechs attributes to the point of nullifying the advantages of investing in them.

I also feel that the nature of this post hinting about nerfing is counter productive in fostering stronger better community relations. Hinting at a possible nerf without clear specifics, and reasons why, really seems like egging the community. Sure we have a lot of QQ's and trolls, but I feel poor taste to drop a hint like this just to stir up discussion, especially after such progress has been made to bridge and build trust after the release of UI 2.0. Users have already come out and taken their time to post illustrations of how UI 2.0 can be made more ergonomical.

[Tombstoner]

Dracol, on 10 February 2014 - 04:32 PM, said:

At first I liked the idea, but it might not reflect the brawling style..... Brawlers get in there after long range fire has been exchanged. Their enemies will have sustained damage, so a brawler is looking to try and finish a mech off. Long range fire would benefit from this the most because their the ones ussually working on the armor. Brawlers work more on the internals....

Why make the brawler dependent on LRM fire.

This addition is for making pulse lasers more interesting and attractive vs large lasers. in fact the stats can be exactly the same. One does full damage to armor. The other 10% or so to internals. Mechs that have take heat damage to the CT would be at a disadvantage to damage transfer but im ok with that. that's the price you pay for large alphas.

With some damage transfer going for the ammo in the leg might be a viable tactic. or going for soft targets like Gauss rifles, ECM, Heat sinks, Weapons. It makes a critical hit system viable in such a fast pasted game. It would make players stop and think about attacking over that hill. armor lasts such a short time any way.

[DocBach]

FactorlanP, on 11 February 2014 - 08:23 AM, said:

I'm sure it has already been pointed out that these WW2 aircraft had guns that ONLY CONVERGED AT A SINGLE RANGE.

This convergence was set by the ground crews and could not be adjusted in the air.

I actually recommended this very mechanic way back in Closed Beta.

I think it would be GREAT to allow a player to set the distance at which his guns/lasers/PPCs will converge. Then only when he is at that exact distance will he get pinpoint convergence.

This would reward a skilled pilot who can get into that optimum range and stay there. At any other range, damage would be spread around, solving the instant pinpoint damage problem.

In early closed beta, weapons didn't instantly converge; the problem with the system was there was no indication how converged your weapons were so you'd have PPC's criss cross at odd ranges without having any idea on if they were going to be on target.

Putting that back in, and adding a reticule change that let you know how converged your weapons were on the target, would have been a good fix for alpha strike warrior without having to add in mechanics like ghost heat.

[FactorlanP]

DocBach, on 11 February 2014 - 10:36 AM, said:

In early closed beta, weapons didn't instantly converge; the problem with the system was there was no indication how converged your weapons were so you'd have PPC's criss cross at odd ranges without having any idea on if they were going to be on target.

Putting that back in, and adding a reticule change that let you know how converged your weapons were on the target, would have been a good fix for alpha strike warrior without having to add in mechanics like ghost heat.

Yes, I recall that. I believe that there were net coding issues involved as well.

If they would make that system work, it would open up all kinds of possibilities for Modules and Skills (beyond "Pinpoint") etc etc.

I find myself hoping that the fact that they have never replaced "Pinpoint" in the Mech skill trees means that they are planning to bring weapon convergence times back at some point in the future.

It would solve so many problems if they did.

[Dirus Nigh]

Wintersdark, on 11 February 2014 - 06:41 AM, said:

Convergence: if weapons where set to converge at a fixed point, as with your example, this wouldn't be an issue. That's not the case however. In MWO, weapons instantaneously snap to converge at a specific point (which may change extremely rapidly) with perfect precision. Convergence causes substantial problems in this game, and in this MWO is unique. No other game, to my knowledge, has instant convergence from multiple weapons at any range or situation.

In fact, most shooters have Cone Of Fire even when only firing one weapon (amount being weapon dependant).

And even then, those games don't really differentiate between hitblocations a whole lot. In mwo, being able to land shots from 8 different weapons fired simultaneously on a pinpoint is highly problematic and it decidedly reduces TTK. While not one for pushing Tabletop rules, there's a reason in table top you rolled hit locations per weapon, not just once for everything. Mechs are made up and balanced with the intent that incoming damage be spread about.

Yes I understand that.

I've had many conversation on the convergence issue with friends. I'm starting to think that weapon groups should have a set convergence distance. The range for a weapon group could be set by the player in mechlab with the weapon group tool. Weapons can have 50-75m with in the chosen point of having normal convergence speeds. Out side that zone the convergence rate, and area of convergence would be greater. Some weapons would not be able to converge at specific ranges. For example the PPC could not have a convergence point set below 90m. This would help simulate the minimum range of the weapon.

PPCs and the gauss rifle are not the only weapons in Battletech that have a min range. The AC2 and 5 also have them. By having a weapons convergence point, and a limit on how close that point can be made, could help simulate the min range better.

The convergence point can also be limited by the shortest range weapon in the group. For example a large laser and medium laser can be in the same group, but the convergence point will have a range limit of 270m. That being the effective range of the medium laser. The same thing can be done with min range weapons. If a PPC and large laser are in the same group then the convergence point could not be set at 90m or lower.

Weapon location is another factor in what groups can be converged. For example only weapons mounted in the torso, or arms respectively, could share a convergence point.

In order for this to work the speed at which weapons converge would have to be decreased. Speed can and heat level can effect the rate at which weapons converge. I'm not talking about drastic changes, but they should be enough to see the effect, and create a need to compensate for it.

Ballistics should also have recoil. If I'm firing off an AC10 or 20 then there should be a kick. Granted they fire one shell at a time, so the recoil would not effect the AC20 much. However the AC2, AC5, and UAC5 would be. The player would have to adjust his aim to compensate for the recoil. It could also effect the convergence rate. If a player is firing off an AC20 and lasers at the same time the laser would be kicked off target, and the player would have to either adjust his aim, or wait until the beam converges.

This would also allow for more modules, and or pilot skills to be added to the game. A module/pilot skill for reducing the recoil on auto canons, or a module to increase the distance weapons can converge normally from the set point.

[Villz]

Khajja nar Jatargk, on 06 February 2014 - 09:54 AM, said:

And yet when presented a challenge in the form of a locust you demurred completely. Were YOU as good as you claim and not simply bloviating, YOU'D take up the challenge to be great in anything. Not just FOTM.

Must suck never enjoying the game because you've trapped yourself into a certain playstyle all because its "competitive"

Yes trapped into a certain playstyle known as the correct one.

The way of getting good is knowing whats bad and why ;-)

And i know you ;-)

hehehehuhuhihihih