404 replies to this topic

[Deathsani]

I have read a few forums on how to "fix" MWO and the issue with a lack of variety at the top of ELO brackets. I know that they have said that making convergence work as originally intended is a no-go, but have they given word on implementing it.

I don't like the idea at all, mainly because I like me some big mean canons, but it might work. Have the dev's said whether or not this is technically possible? I would think that the introduction of a massive increase in the number of projectiles would be taxing on their already less than optimized systems.

I am not here to debate the merits of it, just whether or not the developers have responded in any way to implementing this idea.

[Trauglodyte]

It seems like they had to make a choice back in beta into game release: fix hit registry or maintain convergence mechanics. They chose the former and I don't blame them. Quite frankly, back in beta, convergence wasn't really that much of an issue because HSR, or lack there of, prevented a lot of shots from landing but it also made the convergence mechanic a double negative on the player base. And, back then, nobody was running PPCs (I was cause I'm a PPC lover) or ACs other than the 20 and Gauss Rifle. The PPC was set at 10 heat but only had a velocity of 900m/s so it was near impossible to hit anything because of the speed AND lack of HSR. AC5s were considered trash weapons and you'd get laughed at for using them. Funny how things have shifted since then now that you can hit exactly what you're aiming for but now everyone wants Convergence fixed, and rightly so.

[stjobe]

Deathsani, on 22 February 2014 - 04:57 PM, said:

Have the dev's said whether or not this is technically possible?

Not to my knowledge, no.

Deathsani, on 22 February 2014 - 04:57 PM, said:

I would think that the introduction of a massive increase in the number of projectiles would be taxing on their already less than optimized systems.

It wouldn't be that much of an extra burden considering that the systems are already able to handle 10 ticks per laser beam (with just about every 'mech mounting some lasers), 10 projectiles per second per MG (and these come in pairs and quads usually), and 2-20 missiles per missile launcher (which also come in bulk).

Adding 3-5 projectiles per AC shot wouldn't amount to much extra work.

[Sandpit]

No
They have never said anything about it one way or the other that I've ever seen

[OneEyed Jack]

stjobe, on 23 February 2014 - 02:20 PM, said:

Not to my knowledge, no.


It wouldn't be that much of an extra burden considering that the systems are already able to handle 10 ticks per laser beam (with just about every 'mech mounting some lasers), 10 projectiles per second per MG (and these come in pairs and quads usually), and 2-20 missiles per missile launcher (which also come in bulk).

Adding 3-5 projectiles per AC shot wouldn't amount to much extra work.

I think "able to handle" might be a bit of a stretch. SRMs, anyone?

Trauglodyte, on 22 February 2014 - 05:31 PM, said:

It seems like they had to make a choice back in beta into game release: fix hit registry or maintain convergence mechanics. They chose the former and I don't blame them. Quite frankly, back in beta, convergence wasn't really that much of an issue because HSR, or lack there of, prevented a lot of shots from landing but it also made the convergence mechanic a double negative on the player base. And, back then, nobody was running PPCs (I was cause I'm a PPC lover) or ACs other than the 20 and Gauss Rifle. The PPC was set at 10 heat but only had a velocity of 900m/s so it was near impossible to hit anything because of the speed AND lack of HSR. AC5s were considered trash weapons and you'd get laughed at for using them. Funny how things have shifted since then now that you can hit exactly what you're aiming for but now everyone wants Convergence fixed, and rightly so.

Maybe it's my age, but I don't remember it that way. As I recall, hit registration was actually pretty darn good. You just couldn't rely at all on the visual impact of the shot, since you were seeing something different than the server was. Hitting at all on a moving target involved some quick calculation and no small amount of guesswork, but when you hit (reticle flashed) it did damage... except maybe on the Raven, but that was another issue.

[OldCowboy]

I would really like to hear if they have considered this. And if they have they might be scared of the back lash from everyone who would hate the change.

Personally I'd love burst shot ac's. So e have argued it would make them too similar to lasers as having a "burn time". I don't think they would remind of of a laser at all, might remind me of a burst fire assault rifle but definitely not a laser.

Having too many or too spaced out rounds could make cockpit shake more ********/annoying than it is now and make the guns way too different. I think a 3 burst shot for every ac(5 and up)over .2 or so seconds would make just enough of a difference an not shake things up too much(both cockpit and gameplay wise. This would increase ttk in at least two ways(other than refamiliarizing yourself with the weapon). It would spread damage just a bit and increase the cold own time of the weapons by .2 or .x seconds.

[Bishop Steiner]

Trauglodyte, on 22 February 2014 - 05:31 PM, said:

It seems like they had to make a choice back in beta into game release: fix hit registry or maintain convergence mechanics. They chose the former and I don't blame them. Quite frankly, back in beta, convergence wasn't really that much of an issue because HSR, or lack there of, prevented a lot of shots from landing but it also made the convergence mechanic a double negative on the player base. And, back then, nobody was running PPCs (I was cause I'm a PPC lover) or ACs other than the 20 and Gauss Rifle. The PPC was set at 10 heat but only had a velocity of 900m/s so it was near impossible to hit anything because of the speed AND lack of HSR. AC5s were considered trash weapons and you'd get laughed at for using them. Funny how things have shifted since then now that you can hit exactly what you're aiming for but now everyone wants Convergence fixed, and rightly so.

and don't forget if you DID hit, the footprint of the ppc was apparently so large as to splash the damage and usually you were lucky to get 5 damage to one location.

Funnily enough, I used the ac10 a lot back then, same as now, and while people scoffed, I wrecked a lot of face. But the ac20, GR and SRMs and SSRMs (CT hit every time!) were definitely weapons of choice back then.

[Trauglodyte]

Might be your age, Jack.

"Why am I not hitting this guy with my lasers?"

"Cause you're not leading him, duh!"

It was bad! Very bad!

[Bishop Steiner]

stjobe, on 23 February 2014 - 02:20 PM, said:

Not to my knowledge, no.


It wouldn't be that much of an extra burden considering that the systems are already able to handle 10 ticks per laser beam (with just about every 'mech mounting some lasers), 10 projectiles per second per MG (and these come in pairs and quads usually), and 2-20 missiles per missile launcher (which also come in bulk).

Adding 3-5 projectiles per AC shot wouldn't amount to much extra work.

I'm still totally against making the AC into DoT weapons. One of the few great ideas the Devs have had was making each weapon type unique in damage mechanic. I am still a much bigger fan of Convergence (unlikely) or Movement and range based CoFs, which would allow each weapon to maintain it's current functionality, but remove pinpoint 2 klik accuracy.

If a mech is jumping, the shake should of course happen while under thrust, but one should have a CoF on the way down while the system tries to compensate. Shooting past "Optimal" ranges of a weapon? Possible, as it is now, but each range class beyond the TT max, add a worsening CoF. (Why? There is a reason they call it "Optimal" range... that is the max range the targeting computers can reliably hit at.) Moving over 75% of max speed? CoF. Over 75% Heat load, same.

[stjobe]

Bishop Steiner, on 23 February 2014 - 03:09 PM, said:

I'm still totally against making the AC into DoT weapons. One of the few great ideas the Devs have had was making each weapon type unique in damage mechanic. I am still a much bigger fan of Convergence (unlikely) or Movement and range based CoFs, which would allow each weapon to maintain it's current functionality, but remove pinpoint 2 klik accuracy.

There's two major issues with instant-damage weapons like the ACs and PPCs, and both of them are caused by its damage mechanic:

1. All damage to one location, always. There's no spread at all, which all other weapon types have. Combine this with out perfect convergence and you get a damage mechanic that breaks the armour system (and was a major contributor to why they had to double armour and IS). You cannot twist to spread the damage around; if you get hit you're going to take all damage to one location.

2. No need to face your enemy for more than an instant. For most of the other weapons you need to face your enemy for a prolonged period of time to do damage, whether it's for the beam duration of lasers or the lock-on time of SSRMs and LRMs, or even the continuous stream of MG bullets, you have to actively make a choice whether to attack or defend. Not so with ACs and PPCs; you just twist in and click, and then you're free to defend and maneuver for the rest of the cooldown.

These two issues combine to make ACs and PPCs simply too effective in both offensive capability and defensive. Not only can you attack more effectively with ACs and PPCs, you can defend more effectively as well.

It's all very well to want weapon types to be unique. That's a laudable goal, but you're doing it wrong if one weapon type's uniqueness makes it clearly superior to the other weapon systems - which is the case with ACs and PPCs.

The easiest and least disruptive on other game mechanics way of rectifying this situation is to make ACs and PPCs not instant-damage; and the preferred method is burst-fire, since that has a very solid grounding in BattleTech lore.

Edited by stjobe, 23 February 2014 - 03:24 PM.

[Sephlock]

Sandpit, on 23 February 2014 - 02:28 PM, said:

No
They have never said anything about it one way or the other that I've ever seen

Didn't they say something to the effect that they didn't want to turn autocannons into DOT weapons like lasers?

[OldCowboy]

Whether a weapon is dot or not is not the only thing that should make a weapon unique. x damage over time is still unique from y damage over time. Even if neither x or y are 0. Not to mention the other ways they are unique...heavy, cool down times, ammo, cockpit shake, X3 long range. The dot over time does not have to match the laser equivalent, it could be a fraction of that and should be IMO.

[TehSBGX]

I might be the only one who's thinking this, but if ACs become burst fire then PPCs will be king permanently.

PPCs have been a dominant weapon for about a year, Change them to a beam duration weapon if Acs become burst fire or the meta will stay roughly the same.

Although I do have a sneaking suspicion that PPCs are Paul's favorite weapon. >.>

[Mcgral18]

TehSBGX, on 23 February 2014 - 03:56 PM, said:

I might be the only one who's thinking this, but if ACs become burst fire then PPCs will be king permanently.

PPCs have been a dominant weapon for about a year, Change them to a beam duration weapon if Acs become burst fire or the meta will stay roughly the same.

Although I do have a sneaking suspicion that PPCs are Paul's favorite weapon. >.>

If they would increase the cooldown to 5 or 6, they would still hurt but would no longer be a choice for brawling. Why does the longest cooldown in the game have to be 4 seconds? (.75 charge doesn't really count) The fact weapons are doing more damage than the 2x armor can handle is the biggest hurdle for TTK, second being frontloaded VS DoT.

Increasing cooldowns slightly for long range weapons would be a start to making a place for brawling weapons. Instead of them being a Jack of all trades.

Ballistics don't even need to be burst weapons, just halve the damage and double the refire, same (way too high) DPS, but much less frontloaded, so it'll be spread out more. Increase ammo, halve heat and decrease impulse of course, but it'd be a start.

Edited by Mcgral18, 23 February 2014 - 04:15 PM.

[Khobai]

All the devs have said is that mechs die faster than theyd like and that theyve considered increasing internal structure. They've also vaguely referenced pilot modules that will increase mech survivability.

They havent said anything about autocannons doing burst fire or ppcs doing splash damage. Although I feel both of those options would raise the skill cap on pinpoint damage. PPCs in particular are easy mode and need to be changed.

Edited by Khobai, 23 February 2014 - 04:22 PM.

[Deathlike]

Mcgral18, on 23 February 2014 - 04:14 PM, said:

If they would increase the cooldown to 5 or 6, they would still hurt but would no longer be a choice for brawling. Why does the longest cooldown in the game have to be 4 seconds? (.75 charge doesn't really count) The fact weapons are doing more damage than the 2x armor can handle is the biggest hurdle for TTK, second being frontloaded VS DoT.

Increasing cooldowns slightly for long range weapons would be a start to making a place for brawling weapons. Instead of them being a Jack of all trades.

Ballistics don't even need to be burst weapons, just halve the damage and double the refire, same (way too high) DPS, but much less frontloaded, so it'll be spread out more. Increase ammo, halve heat and decrease impulse of course, but it'd be a start.

There was a good reason why in MW4 where Gauss+PPC has really long cooldowns. It didn't stop the poptart meta, but at least brawlers had the chance to respond with low cooldown and better heat sustainable weapons.

[Khobai]

Quote

There was a good reason why in MW4 where Gauss+PPC has really long cooldowns. It didn't stop the poptart meta, but at least brawlers had the chance to respond with low cooldown and better heat sustainable weapons.

Yeah pretty much. Weapon cooldown should be based on pinpoint damage. Lasers and PPC should not fire at the same rate.

[Deathsani]

The purpose of this topic was not to rehash old conversations. I am on the fence about burst fire, and if I were to agree with it they should have different variations based on platform. Namely, the bigger you are the fewer shots your weapons are broken into.

Hopefully we can get their attention and receive a response.

Edited by Deathsani, 23 February 2014 - 08:15 PM.

[Sandpit]

A response to what exactly? Their opinion on burst fire?

[Zordicron]

Here is what I have been rehashing time and again for a year:

Ballistics should work like missile tubes. You have a hard point, and then you have a "tube count" or in this case, calibre or some such. What it does:

makes each chassis, or variant even, customizable by the devs as to "how big" a gun they can carry in the hardpoints, without removing the ability to equip whatever you want.

most extreme example: LRM20 in a NARC tube. You can do it. It will fire one missile at a time. I liken this to AC20 in a MG mount. Not 20 "pellets", but maybe 10. SO in a MG mount:

AC2, one shot
AC5, two shots(round up dmg to 2.5 for the one oddball)
AC10 5 shots
AC20, 10 shots

With the additional time to fire affecting cooldown timer, like the LRM20 NARC tube.

Gauss remains, because cooldown is longer, it blows up, it weighs a ton, and charge up mechanic. Any of these could be easily adjusted(mostly charge time or cooldown though) if suddenly the gauss becomes OP to all other ballistic. Unlikely to me, as the tonnage is unfeasable to boat them.

Chassis examples

K2- well it WAS supposed to be MG mounts in side torsos. As it would be disruptive to players now to totally rehash it, it could simply have a max calibre of 10 added, so the AC20 would fire 2 shots. Or 5 maybe so an AC20 would fire 4 shots.

n00b tube AC40 jagers: max calibre 5 or 10, suddenly AC40 isnt pinpoint instakill.

YLW, max 20. It was designed that way, hence the actuator missing.

basically, you could set up each chassis to have max put on them so they dont break cannon to far, and also to avoid or restrict pinpoint dmg on mechs that can easily abuse it. It would also allow people to maintain freedom to loadout how they want, though certain things might be suboptimal, but if it is ok for missiles, its ok for ballistics IMO.

I also think they should drop the max range from 3x to 2x, but that should be after the above is put in to see the effect. Might be moot if it breaks up pinpoint dmg enough.