152 replies to this topic

[Moromillas]

ShadowbaneX, on 19 February 2014 - 10:12 PM, said:

While I abhor Cone of Fire, in TT you get a -1 penalty for walking and -2 penalty for flank speed. Right now this is not reflected in the game, a shot at 170 kph is the same as standing still.

Your heat does go up a bit while walking and running.

[ShadowbaneX]

you also get heat for walking & running (and jumping) in TT, so that's the same as in MWO. There's no to hit penalties for moving in MWO though. It should be harder to hit something while moving in MWO...I just hope they find a way other than Cone of Fire.

[Prezimonto]

Moromillas, on 19 February 2014 - 08:07 PM, said:

Not really. The problem seems to be WHEN a penalty is applied, and not the penalty itself. If 4 PPC's gives you a CoF, but 2 PPC's and some AC's give you no CoF, but the same alpha damage. Then changing the penalty from one to another doesn't accomplish anything. Replace ghost heat with CoF, and Instead of players saying that ghost heat isn't working, they'll be saying that CoF isn't working. Simply adding a minor and differential CoF variance to all the weapons across the board isn't a very ideal solution either. Too much, and it becomes random rolls land, less and it accomplishes nothing. I disagree, I think all weapons should be viable and competitive.

Roland, on 19 February 2014 - 09:17 PM, said:

Introducing random dice rolls in place of aiming would easily be the single worst possible change to this game. If you don't want to aim, go play another game for christ's sake.

I agree, that there's going to be a sweet spot for CoF implementation. I strongly think that a little time spent gathering target information should off set the CoF for all weapons. So if you hit R and then wait for full targeting information of the mech (you get the their paperdoll to pop-up) then your CoF should be zero or very close to zero.

If however you're blind firing, direct fire weapons should have a few meter spread... so if you're aiming center mass face to face, you should still never miss, just hit a spread across the LT/CT/RT... and perhaps arms on very very tiny mechs.

Different weapons could have more or less CoF...
-long range weapons should get a pretty large CoF, so you're more dependent on targeting information, and have a slight delay on perfect convergence.
-Brawling weapons like the AC20 should have a little less spread when snap fired in combination with other weapons, but it should still exist so that 2x AC20's don't have an amazing chance to hit the same location without a lot of luck.
-Lasers should have a fairly tight CoF, making them more accurate to snap shoot, which is balanced by the damage over time.

Under this scheme CoF is designed to force players out of grouped weapons "snap shots" for great effect.
Single fired weapons should still get no cone of fire.
Group weapons should get scaled CoF based on the type of damage it does and it's range. This CoF Should be negatable or, nearly so, through good play involving the targeting and movement systems... ie sit still, obtain a target, wait for full targeting information: zero CoF. Movement and a lack of targeting information should disturb the accuracy of your grouped weapons.

Now all this being said, I much prefer other solutions, but at this point I doubt anything else would be considered by the development team.

Edited by Prezimonto, 20 February 2014 - 05:17 AM.

[Joseph Mallan]

GreyGriffin, on 18 February 2014 - 08:41 PM, said:

Please?

So many of the balance issues that arise come from pinpoint targeting single body parts, especially at extreme ranges. A modest cone of fire dependent on hardpoint position can only help spread the damage out.

I am prepared to endure the slings and arrows of the lern 2 play crowd, and the pseudo realism pedants. But I stand by the position that it is a good balance move for a game that relies on its 'mechs battlefield endurance to really capture the spirit of Battletech.

Cone of fire should have been in the game since day one. Ballistics should be CoF, Lasers convergent, and Missiles RNG.

Edited by Joseph Mallan, 21 February 2014 - 04:42 AM.

[wanderer]

Quote

I don't know.... Making nearly all weapons Into Dps weapons seems to kind of miss the point. An AC20 is supposed to deliver a massive punch to a single location... Making that single weapon (and others) less effective instead of dealing with the fact that we can effectively create Ac40s or pseudo Ac30s or ML30s etc is kind of taking the long way round, don't you think?

Not at all. Battletech wasn't designed around being able to repeatedly aimed-shot the same point with large bricks of damage.

In TT,I could fire an AC/20 and hit something 4 times- and the odds of me hitting the same spot all 4 times would be astronomically small. In MWO,I just cored your Awesome without much effort. In TT, I likely just dented your armor seriously in 4 different places- maybe if I'm lucky I shot most of the armor off one and scattered the other two shots.

Lasers in TT dealt full damage to one spot, and hey- in MWO if they did, 4 ML's would core a 'Mech the same way.

MWO lasers "burn" over time instead. If 4 ML's hitting instantly for 20 damage to one spot with every shot would have been bad, why is being able to do it with an AC/20 instead in MWO good?

[cSand]

wanderer, on 20 February 2014 - 06:10 AM, said:

Not at all. Battletech wasn't designed around being able to repeatedly aimed-shot the same point with large bricks of damage.

In TT,I could fire an AC/20 and hit something 4 times- and the odds of me hitting the same spot all 4 times would be astronomically small. In MWO,I just cored your Awesome without much effort. In TT, I likely just dented your armor seriously in 4 different places- maybe if I'm lucky I shot most of the armor off one and scattered the other two shots.

Lasers in TT dealt full damage to one spot, and hey- in MWO if they did, 4 ML's would core a 'Mech the same way.

MWO lasers "burn" over time instead. If 4 ML's hitting instantly for 20 damage to one spot with every shot would have been bad, why is being able to do it with an AC/20 instead in MWO good?

It has ammo + the increased risks of carrying said ammo, and weighs more (1 AC20 = 14 Mlas )

So the disadvantages are there


Don't quote TT rules, because this isn't TT. It's a first person sim. TT rules have no place here. If your aim sucks, you won't core that awesome with your AC20. Plus if that Awesome is standing there long enough for you to pound 4 AC20's into the same spot, he deserves to die.

CoF might have a place is twitch shooters where 1 or 2 hits and you're dead. THis requires a bit more strategy and frankly part of that is not opening your weak spots up for an AC20 shot. When you round that corner and are face to face with that Atlas's hip mounted AC20, you should be afraid.

I'm not saying the system is perfect, but it's a damn load better than neutering player skill in favour of a "level playing field" because people can't take the fact there are others who are better than them. Glad PGI doesn't listen to many ideas on this forum

Edited by cSand, 20 February 2014 - 09:03 AM.

[Mirkk Defwode]

So, I'm seeing a lot of concerns here where the though is the cone of fire is static, it doesn't change in shape or behavior depending on the state the user is in.

Has anyone played World of Tanks? Much of this title is based on their mechanics, design, and approach to a F2P model.

The ideal Cone of Fire is already used in their system, static or slower moving vehicles (relative to their maximum speed, not relative to their chasis) tend to have greater accuracy with the ability to aim, stopping movement you'll watch a rapid decrease in the cone size as the "aiming" factor kicks in. These are determined by crew skill levels, and weapon type for how quickly this happen.

This is also the same system used in a myriad of other shooters.

This behavior is accepted for every FPS shooter otherwise, the behavior and it's execution changes mildly but its not done away with for any shooter title. You'll see the Behavior in Red Orchestra 2 portrayed as "sway" in Battlefield it's literally an expanding cone with mild sway. Counter-Strike has expanding reticle to show the cone enlarging and it shrinks based on player aim state. Halo has expanding reticle based on moving vs not and the time between shots.

Now what I don't get his the player of user recognition to this mechanic that is explicitly used throughout the gaming industry and is very much a standardized mechanic in every shooter no matter the genre.

These mechanics can be done in a balanced competitive sense, you can remain a strong and skilled player, this is in no way a handicapping system. It is meant to be a behavior changing system to adapt to more adversity. Stronger, more skillful, players will learn to work within this system that has been present from Mechwarrior 2 and 3. It was Absent in Mechwarrior 4.

[CeeKay Boques]

I could only see Cone of Fire of repeating auto cannons like a Machine gun, not where each shot has AT LEAST 2 seconds to stabilize the weapon. It does exist for the MG.

If you mean CoF because of movement, that's already in, its already difficult to hit things while moving, especially if they are moving as well.

If you mean CoF because of jumping, the reticle shakes.

Just No.

[cSand]

Technoviking, on 20 February 2014 - 01:30 PM, said:

I could only see Cone of Fire of repeating auto cannons like a Machine gun, not where each shot has AT LEAST 2 seconds to stabilize the weapon. It does exist for the MG.

If you mean CoF because of movement, that's already in, its already difficult to hit things while moving, especially if they are moving as well.

If you mean CoF because of jumping, the reticle shakes.

Just No.

Buuuuut mommmmmmm the other players are better shots than me!

CoF will never be implemented so don't worry.

Edited by cSand, 20 February 2014 - 03:57 PM.

[BlackBeltJones]

To those that feel modifications to the instantaneous convergence system currently implemented is equal to a dice-roll I ask you to consider the following comparison.
I will preface by saying this comparison is to demonstrate a principle, the impact and application may vary from what we see in MWO but I am expressing a principle, let the arguments that may follow address the principle and not the comparison itself.
Imagine you are wielding 2 firearms, one in each hand. Now throughout this example try to always imagine this – while a human with 2 firearms is obviously different than a Mech this visual should help with my overall expression.
Let us first dismiss the unrealistic and nearly impossible practice of a human with 2 firearms executing any real marksmanship – point blank or at range, let’s just assume the imagined human can wield 2 firearms accurately at all ranges.
With your 2 weapons let’s imagine your elbows are bent at the 90 degrees and the firearm bores are parallel and 18 inches apart. In this configuration your fired projectiles (or beams) would hit different targets and be 18 inches apart – discounting projectile drop and environmental factors this result would be the same at all ranges.
If you were to now assume a target that is exactly dead center between the two weapon bores you would quickly see (visualize yourself with 2 firearms) that the weapon bores are no longer parallel. At short range the 2 weapons would have to be angled inward to a greater degree than would they at a longer range. Imagine with your 2 weapons you have to hit a target directly in front of you 5 meters away – picture the angle of those weapons relative to your own body and relative to each other. Now imagine hitting the same target directly in front of you at 100 meters – imagine the relative angle of the weapons in this situation. If nothing else one should be able to visualize that those angles are different – that is the relative position and angle of the weapons will vary depending on the range of the target.
It should be obvious that even the most skilled marksman would have to adjust for convergence to hit a target at any range with 2 weapons at the same time. One can’t expect that an accurate hold on a target 5 meters away to be the same hold for a target at 100 meters away. To accurately hit (with both weapons simultaneously) one target at 5 meters away then follow that with an accurate shot on target at 100 meters the hold or position of the weapons will have to change.
I agree that Mechs in 3050 should be able to account for these convergence variations with ease but that does not mean that it can happen instantaneously. Just because a Mech with its computer aided assembly can more easily and accurately account for convergence and range it does not mean it can do so instantaneously. Even if a Mech can do it 20 times faster than a human it is still not instant, even a 100 times faster is not instant.
Let’s imagine that a Mech with arm mounted weapons is accurately firing on a target 25 meters in front of it then the Mech turns and accurately shoots a target 200 meters away. The relative position of those weapons will necessarily need to change. The position held for accurate shots at 25 meters will not allow the shooter to hit another target at 200 meters (or any non-25 meter range). It is easy to visualize this – as half a nit-wit I myself will stand up, holding my arms at 90 degrees , making mechanical sound effects while moving my hands inward and outward to adjust for the convergence of an imagined target – like I said, half a nit-wit.
So we should now understand that the relative position of these weapons will dictate the convergence distance. We should also appreciate that any adjustment to the weapon position will take some amount of time greater than zero. Even faster than any human could hope to, a Mech will still need to move these weapons, calculate the range and micro tune for any and all factors – this will absolutely take some amount of time no matter how small. We do have actual empirical data on these Mechs – with the known geometry (distance between various hardpoints etc) PGI should be able to calculate real convergence times for each Mech chassis - this could be like a quark, something specific based on the size and spread of the Mech and its hardpoints. That is to suggest that PGI could use data already in use to implement a convergence mechanic that is more realistic and 100% physically correct.
As example a Mech that has a X meter spread between its arms an utilizes a XXX sized engine can move its arms at X speed, thus an adjustment of X degrees for a converged shot at 185 meters will take X seconds (or .X seconds). So if you switch from one target to another and the range difference is dramatic enough you would have to expect a slight delay for perfect pinpoint convergence. So those torso-twist snap shots would not have the assured accuracy they do now.
I support the implementation of some mechanic that addresses this convergence issue. To me this has never felt right about MWO. To those that think this is comparable to randomness or dice-rolls I suggest you are confusing some issues. The end result of an implemented convergence mechanic may produce shots that appear random, that is they hit multiple hitboxes rather than just one but that spread does not itself dictate randomness. If your weapons needs to move inward 18 degrees for an accurate ranged shot and your arm speed dictates those 18 degrees will take .8 seconds (I just made that up) but you decide to snap fire only .5 seconds after firing on a different target then you will pay for that with diminished accuracy. Not because random dice-rolls but because you, like a hurried marksman, failed to align all the necessary elements to compose a perfect shot.
Right now we seem to have a ‘shoot by wire’ system that allows a shooter to hover a crosshair over a target and pull the trigger with the delivered expectation that all the fired weapons will, regardless of physical placement or alignment, hit the target in one spot. This in not analog shooting – and this I say to those that express a diminished convergence would punish their ‘skill’. You are not aiming those weapons independently, you are not accounting for convergence range, and you rarely need to lead (outside high ping and HSR snafus). This thing we have now in MWO is not representative of shooter skill; it is like playing roulette with a loaded ball. Regardless of your actions or position you can assuredly land perfectly converged shots every time at all ranges in this game and I believe this fact reduces the excitement potential of the game.

[cSand]

BlackBeltJones, on 20 February 2014 - 04:18 PM, said:

To those that feel modifications to the instantaneous convergence system currently implemented is equal to a dice-roll I ask you to consider the following comparison.

It can be fast (especially with the upgrade) but it isn't instantaneous

either that or my "pinpoint" unlock has been useless all this time!!

Edited by cSand, 20 February 2014 - 04:27 PM.

[BlackBeltJones]

cSand, on 20 February 2014 - 04:26 PM, said:

either that or my "pinpoint" unlock has been useless all this time!!

It has.

[cSand]

BlackBeltJones, on 20 February 2014 - 04:41 PM, said:

It has.

Are you sure about that? Or is the definition of "convergence time" in the game different than what we're talking about here?

[BlackBeltJones]

cSand, on 20 February 2014 - 04:46 PM, said:

Are you sure about that? Or is the definition of "convergence time" in the game different than what we're talking about here?

I can do some digging to confirm but I am nearly certain that the Convergence unlock is actually null and has no actual impact.
Other than that I believe we are discussing convergence in the same context. I can appreciate why some would not want to change the current system but it is folly to think the current system is an accurate representation of aiming skill. My effort was to suggest that a more reasonable convergence mechanic could be implemented using actual data based on the game models which would produce a more physically accurate experience. I had clumsily attempted to draw a visual that would demonstrate that such a convergence mechanic would be the exact opposite of dice-rolls or random hits.

[Koniving]

Shift autocannons from upfront damage to multiple shots result in rated damage. Wouldn't that do it?

In Battletech lore (tech manuals and books), there is no such thing as a single shot AC/20. That's a simplified tabletop mechanic.

This vid is old and outdated, I need to make a new one with much better and more accurate information. But watch two (two and a half) examples here.

Note that upon deeper research the Chemjet Gun is actually a 4 shot, not 3 shot. It is also the largest Inner Sphere Mech or Tank mounted AC/20 that exists (185mm).

Only Warships carry single shot AC/20s in the Inner Sphere tech line. "WarShips are the largest starships ever constructed, and are incapable of landing or taking off from a planet. As such, they are built at orbital docks. They do not differ significantly from other spaceships (DropShips and JumpShips) in operation."

The clanners have the only 203mm AC or UAC at the 20 rating and that's on exclusively on the Cauldron Born.

Edited by Koniving, 20 February 2014 - 05:04 PM.

[Texugo87]

I do not support RNG based methods of spreading damage.

What I would support is any number of non-random ways of spreading damage, including but not limited too:

-Non-instant convergence (preferably with a visual indicator)
-Rise and fall of aimpoint when moving at high speed
-variation of aimpoint when being struck by weapons fire (get shot in right arm, aimpoint drifts right in proportion to force of impact)
-short burst fire AC's (like 1/4-1/2 a second, just enough to punish you for bad follow through)
-firing delay (I always thought a half second firing delay for PPC's would be interesting,
-recoil

[DodgerH2O]

Prezimonto, on 20 February 2014 - 05:14 AM, said:

I agree, that there's going to be a sweet spot for CoF implementation. I strongly think that a little time spent gathering target information should off set the CoF for all weapons. So if you hit R and then wait for full targeting information of the mech (you get the their paperdoll to pop-up) then your CoF should be zero or very close to zero.

If however you're blind firing, direct fire weapons should have a few meter spread... so if you're aiming center mass face to face, you should still never miss, just hit a spread across the LT/CT/RT... and perhaps arms on very very tiny mechs.

So what happens when I take time to gain target info and lock on say, an Atlas, and then point my reticle 15m to the right of the atlas and fire at his Hunchback buddy who just popped out a half second before?

[p4r4g0n]

cjmurphy87, on 20 February 2014 - 05:08 PM, said:

-snip-
-firing delay (I always thought a half second firing delay for PPC's would be interesting,
-snip-

Been there done that ... just ask any player with a 200+ms latency who played pre-HSR .... and it sucked big time.

[Prezimonto]

DodgerH2O, on 20 February 2014 - 05:25 PM, said:

So what happens when I take time to gain target info and lock on say, an Atlas, and then point my reticle 15m to the right of the atlas and fire at his Hunchback buddy who just popped out a half second before?

You either fire a single weapon(or chain fire multiple weapons) and get no CoF or you fire a weapon group and get CoF again until you let the targeting computer do it's work and line up all those weapons on to the target from their generally immobile torso mounts.

Otherwise, you hope that you have a spotter or command console mech nearby sharing targeting information too your team... probably significantly speeding the acquisition of targeting information for nearby enemies that other mechs on your teamhave locked onto. Hurrah, instant synergy with information warfare.

If I had my way it wouldn't be CoF, which is random, it would be spread of the convergence, de-convergence as you switch locks, and re-convergence of your torso weapons with your arms to the same point.. which should take a few seconds, and all of which isn't random. But they say that will result in too many vector calculations or something for the servers, so it's not going to happen.

It's actually not convergence that's the issues it's the fact that it takes 0 seconds to get it for weapon groups. That amount of focused firepower should come with a risk-reward in the actual game play.

Edited by Prezimonto, 20 February 2014 - 06:51 PM.

[Tombstoner]

Mirkk Defwode, on 20 February 2014 - 12:56 PM, said:

So, I'm seeing a lot of concerns here where the though is the cone of fire is static, it doesn't change in shape or behavior depending on the state the user is in.

Has anyone played World of Tanks? Much of this title is based on their mechanics, design, and approach to a F2P model.

The ideal Cone of Fire is already used in their system, static or slower moving vehicles (relative to their maximum speed, not relative to their chasis) tend to have greater accuracy with the ability to aim, stopping movement you'll watch a rapid decrease in the cone size as the "aiming" factor kicks in. These are determined by crew skill levels, and weapon type for how quickly this happen.

This is also the same system used in a myriad of other shooters.

This behavior is accepted for every FPS shooter otherwise, the behavior and it's execution changes mildly but its not done away with for any shooter title. You'll see the Behavior in Red Orchestra 2 portrayed as "sway" in Battlefield it's literally an expanding cone with mild sway. Counter-Strike has expanding reticle to show the cone enlarging and it shrinks based on player aim state. Halo has expanding reticle based on moving vs not and the time between shots.

Now what I don't get his the player of user recognition to this mechanic that is explicitly used throughout the gaming industry and is very much a standardized mechanic in every shooter no matter the genre.

These mechanics can be done in a balanced competitive sense, you can remain a strong and skilled player, this is in no way a handicapping system. It is meant to be a behavior changing system to adapt to more adversity. Stronger, more skillful, players will learn to work within this system that has been present from Mechwarrior 2 and 3. It was Absent in Mechwarrior 4.

This is an excellent point. What was implemented in WOT is bassed off of real weapon stats from WWII. It has absurd but reasonably accurate levels of inaccuracy. i think the opposition defaults to moments of anger stemming from plaything that game with very inaccurate guns and getting owned: Madonnas don't like that,

I think anyone advocating for a COF in MWO wants something along the lines of the most accurate gun in WOT moving at full speed being the worst possible condition for accuracy in MWO.

Then MWO can add an advanced skills set to further reduce the COF size and give a real reason for the targeting computer. something along the linse of a 50% in COF size.

Also along this line LRM's need to adopt the SSRM hit allocation system. LRM's are for softening up the target not chain firing lrm5 in to the CT.

If PGI changed there stance on 3pv and survived, They can change there paradigm from a pure skill based targeting game with magic levels of precision to something more realistic and beneficial for weapon balance. A COF will help this game in so many ways.