174 replies to this topic

[wanderer]

As noted, convergence can't be fixed short of a totally new engine. Just can't.

If you can't change the placement of hits when fired, you've got to let those hits scatter either passively via damage-over-time (that is, moving you or the target will spread damage across hitboxes) or actively (the weapon naturally shotguns/splashes across the target in the process of firing, even if neither party is moving).

Lasers spread passively (burn), LB-X and missiles actively (scatter), Gauss meta-scatter simply by having a very small firing window. AC's and PPC's do not,and that's the problem- they either have to or they immediately gain an immense advantage over other weapons...which is where we are right now.

[Nicholas Carlyle]

wanderer, on 06 March 2014 - 07:59 AM, said:

As noted, convergence can't be fixed short of a totally new engine. Just can't.

If you can't change the placement of hits when fired, you've got to let those hits scatter either passively via damage-over-time (that is, moving you or the target will spread damage across hitboxes) or actively (the weapon naturally shotguns/splashes across the target in the process of firing, even if neither party is moving).

Lasers spread passively (burn), LB-X and missiles actively (scatter), Gauss meta-scatter simply by having a very small firing window. AC's and PPC's do not,and that's the problem- they either have to or they immediately gain an immense advantage over other weapons...which is where we are right now.

Yup.

[CeeKay Boques]

wanderer, on 06 March 2014 - 07:59 AM, said:

Lasers spread passively (burn), LB-X and missiles actively (scatter), Gauss meta-scatter simply by having a very small firing window. AC's and PPC's do not,and that's the problem- they either have to or they immediately gain an immense advantage over other weapons...which is where we are right now.

I'd like them to continue to do what they do. SOME Weapons, especially those that leave a barrel at high velocity should impact where ever they hit. If they can continue to do what they do, but do it poorly when more than one of them is fired at a time... I wouldn't want to nerf that, or the Gauss mechanic. I don't want to see every weapon spread, or again, might as well load up the cone of fire and remove all this HTAL stuff. Weapons hitting their target shouldn't be what we're trying to fix, but mass groupings of the similar weapons doing so.

[wanderer]

Quote

Weapons hitting their target shouldn't be what we're trying to fix, but mass groupings of the similar weapons doing so

That would be "convergence", and it cannot be fixed, which is the whole point.
You fire six lasers, all of them will direct to the same point. The only reason this doesn't turn a 'Mech into a donut with a neatly cooked hole in the middle is that movement shifts some of the damage off-target or even missing entirely.

You fire four SRM 6's at 150m. They don't auto-center and core the target, but scatter and actively spread damage- even if the centerpoint is what you aimed at.

You fire four AC/5's. They all go the same spot and deal their full damage to a single location,which crumbles quickly because unlike the other two, every single bit of the damage is unshared between other locations or whiffing.

That's the problem. X amount of damage from ballistics takes X + Y (Y being damage that drifted off or partialy missed) damage to match it. Combine that with being rapid-fire weapons, and many opponents don't get to DPS out that extra damage they need before the ballistic user disables/kills them.

[Varent]

wanderer, on 06 March 2014 - 08:25 AM, said:

That would be "convergence", and it cannot be fixed, which is the whole point.

pretty much yes. They have already stated convergence works against hit detection. That said they had degrees of it when the game first came out. They also had (have) a boost to convergence that increased it further. I dont think it was what you think it was honestly. At most ranges people were firing (and rightly so) the shots were still a nice tight grouping (as they would be with any weapon system after that much time spent working on it - 'future'). The only major difference it would have would be up close fighting really. Wich I suppose could have benefits and minuses. Alot of people are fond of the world of tanks system of convergence with the growing and shrinking recticle based on amount of time moving and standing still as well as other factors. I like it myself but to do anything like this they basically need to reword there entire system because... (read second sentence.)

[Joseph Mallan]

wanderer, on 06 March 2014 - 08:25 AM, said:

That would be "convergence", and it cannot be fixed, which is the whole point.
You fire six lasers, all of them will direct to the same point. The only reason this doesn't turn a 'Mech into a donut with a neatly cooked hole in the middle is that movement shifts some of the damage off-target or even missing entirely.

You fire four SRM 6's at 150m. They don't auto-center and core the target, but scatter and actively spread damage- even if the centerpoint is what you aimed at.

You fire four AC/5's. They all go the same spot and deal their full damage to a single location,which crumbles quickly because unlike the other two, every single bit of the damage is unshared between other locations or whiffing.

That's the problem. X amount of damage from ballistics takes X + Y (Y being damage that drifted off or partialy missed) damage to match it. Combine that with being rapid-fire weapons, and many opponents don't get to DPS out that extra damage they need before the ballistic user disables/kills them.

Lasers should be that Pin Point, While Ballistics should have some drift. To many players seem to think they are gods gift to shooting. But if you can't put 99 rounds through the first bullet hole, you cannot do what we do in MW:O.

[Nicholas Carlyle]

No one in this game is hot sh*t.

Mech's are huge slow moving targets. And at the ranges with engage, with weapon velocity and super convergence...it's not hard.

The only reason I don't do better, is I choose to play at higher settings than I should, on a 60inch TV while sitting on my couch.

Anyone with proper settings, sitting at a desk, should have 0 issues putting damage wherever the heck they want in this game.

Edited by Nicholas Carlyle, 06 March 2014 - 08:47 AM.

[Abivard]

Joseph Mallan, on 06 March 2014 - 08:44 AM, said:

Lasers should be that Pin Point, While Ballistics should have some drift. To many players seem to think they are gods gift to shooting. But if you can't put 99 rounds through the first bullet hole, you cannot do what we do in MW:O.

Honestly, nothing in MWO is like real life, it is either making the impossible common, or making the common impossible.

[Joseph Mallan]

Nicholas Carlyle, on 06 March 2014 - 08:47 AM, said:

No one in this game is hot sh*t.

Mech's are huge slow moving targets. And at the ranges with engage, with weapon velocity and super convergence...it's not hard.

The only reason I don't do better, is I choose to play at higher settings than I should, on a 60inch TV while sitting on my couch.

Anyone with proper settings, sitting at a desk, should have 0 issues putting damage wherever the heck they want in this game.

Yes. They should have some trouble. Otherwise it is not good enough.

[Sprouticus]

Joseph Mallan, on 06 March 2014 - 08:44 AM, said:

Lasers should be that Pin Point, While Ballistics should have some drift. To many players seem to think they are gods gift to shooting. But if you can't put 99 rounds through the first bullet hole, you cannot do what we do in MW:O.

This was the case in MW4, you had hitscan lasers, and it was a disaster.

Wanderer is absolutely correct, they need to put some kind of active or passive spread into weapons.

For AC's: split the shots into discreet low point point damage multi discharge functions a la MW3. (Ac5 would be 3pt/2pt), AC10 5x2pt, Ac20 5x4pt). NOTE: UAc's would then have an interesting funciton as you would be able to double up the RoF)

For PPC's, splash is the answer, but we saw that splash does not work well in the engine with SRM's. Thus the only answer would be a rework to make them like lasers, DoT lightning guns instead of ball o lightning guns.

[Joseph Mallan]

Sprouticus, on 06 March 2014 - 09:10 AM, said:

This was the case in MW4, you had hitscan lasers, and it was a disaster.

Wanderer is absolutely correct, they need to put some kind of active or passive spread into weapons.

For AC's: split the shots into discreet low point point damage multi discharge functions a la MW3. (Ac5 would be 3pt/2pt), AC10 5x2pt, Ac20 5x4pt). NOTE: UAc's would then have an interesting funciton as you would be able to double up the RoF)

For PPC's, splash is the answer, but we saw that splash does not work well in the engine with SRM's. Thus the only answer would be a rework to make them like lasers, DoT lightning guns instead of ball o lightning guns.

Lasers hit exactly where they are pointed, That does not imply they are hitscan since they have to stay on target or full effect. And Ballistics work fine as is, but we could have different styles of ACs for those folks who don't like hammering their enemy into scrap.

[Varent]

Joseph Mallan, on 06 March 2014 - 09:19 AM, said:

Lasers hit exactly where they are pointed, That does not imply they are hitscan since they have to stay on target or full effect. And Ballistics work fine as is, but we could have different styles of ACs for those folks who don't like hammering their enemy into scrap.

yup.

[Sprouticus]

Joseph Mallan, on 06 March 2014 - 09:19 AM, said:

Lasers hit exactly where they are pointed, That does not imply they are hitscan since they have to stay on target or full effect. And Ballistics work fine as is, but we could have different styles of ACs for those folks who don't like hammering their enemy into scrap.

We will have to agree to disagree on the AC's. BT (and hopefully mechwarrior by extension) involved battles of attrition damage wise due to random hit rolls. Sure you could get lucky with a headshot, but it didnt often happen.

That more than anything is what gave BT its unique flavor. You may not like that aspect, but it is part and parcel of the BT/Mechwarrior experience.

soem Mechwarrior games have done better than others at emulating this, but honestly none of them have done a great job. Non shooter versions of the BT experience (MechCommander, cresent hawks, etc) which used a random hit generator did a FAr better job (and were also far easier to balance).


There are lots of ways PGI could have emulated the randomness in MW:O, they chose not to or were limited by tech. A cone of fire would have been the best option IMO. Convergence another. A multi reticule systems another. Stock hard points another, a MW4/BT hybrid system for hardpoints another.


Regardless, those options are not available to us. Which leaves more artifical means (ghost heat to limit multiple instances of the same weapon, different speeds for AC/PPC's, etc, DoT for lasers, spread for missiles.).

WITH THE OPTIONS CURRENTLY AVAILABLE TO US, the best fixes for PPC's and AC''s to try to generate that BT feel I mentioned above is to spread AC damage & PPC damage using in game mechanics like splash and DoT functionality.



Is this going to happen? I doubt it. PGI has shown no desire to change the base functionality for AC's or PPC's. They feel that indirect methods like ghost heat are better. I personally disagree as do others.


One final point to reiterate, The current meta is only really a problem at the highest Elo's. The middle ground and low Elo areas seem to have a much more diverse weapons population. I know because I am in that Elo. This may be why PGI is not making radical changes like this, because they feel that the majority of theirr users work well in the current system and only a small population of very good pilots feels 'forced' to use the meta.

[Varent]

Sprouticus, on 06 March 2014 - 10:14 AM, said:

"alot of stuff about BT and attrition"

Its not BT.

[Fut]

Nicholas Carlyle, on 03 March 2014 - 11:39 AM, said:

It's not all I drive, but it's always nagging at the end of a match...knowing I could have done better if I'd gone Meta.

And it makes the game mundane.

Why give in to the Meta that you hate so much?
"Be the change you wish to see in the World" - Gandhi

[Joseph Mallan]

Its a matter of preference Sprout, so I will agree to disagree as well. You made good points, I just like the way I play more than I like the suggestions.

@ Varent, we use Mechs From BT, we use the weapons from BT, We are part of Factions from BT... Well at least I am.

It is a BattleTech video game, cause it quacks like a duck.

Edited by Joseph Mallan, 06 March 2014 - 10:21 AM.

[Varent]

Fut, on 06 March 2014 - 10:16 AM, said:

Why give in to the Meta that you hate so much?
"Be the change you wish to see in the World" - Gandhi

Ive done the meta. I still do it when I want to be competitive in 12s though honestly many times in 12's I prefer recently to run a light mech or be a back line support for the snipers. May not be as 'exciting' but I feel better about myself for it and enjoy it a ton more. When im not going 12s Im almost always in some brawler or another. If there is like.. a double pre made of jump snipers on the other team or one PARTICULARLY good lance then it can be abit rough, but otherwise I usually find a way to the backline without too much damage and put the fear of god into them.

[Kaeb Odellas]

I kinda want to see what this game would look like with extremely limited convergence arcs. Basically, every weapon has their own aim point, and can only converge on the "center" to a limited degree, if at all. Lasers have better convergence arcs than PPCs and ballistics, and smaller weapons have better convergence arcs than larger ones. Arms with lower actuators can converge as normal, but arm hardpoints are similarly limited in convergence, so two projectiles fired from two weapons on one arm would land in slightly different places. Arms without lower arm actuators will be limited in the same way torso hardpoints are, except of course their greater pitch angles.

Certain hardpoints could even have better convergence properties than others. The Hunchback's head laser, for instance, looks like a tiny gun turret. I'd like to see it actually be able to articulate some, and track with the arms.

This would have the effect of enforcing chain firing weapons, as you may have to aim each weapon individually depending on the shape of your mech. For example, this would pretty much eliminate close-range AC40 Jager alphas, as the arm mounted cannons would not be able to converge close enough to land both shots at one point. You'd have to aim both cannons separately, one after the other, to ensure both shells land on one component at close range. Long range Jagers would not have this problem, as they would be able to converge their weapons at longer distances.

This would even the balance between FLD weapons like PPCs and autocannons, as they now have an enforced spread mechanic at close ranges, making lasers a more attractive choice, especially for brawlers.

Missiles would remain unaffected by this system, as they're all supposed to have some kind of target tracking anyway.

[Nicholas Carlyle]

Fut, on 06 March 2014 - 10:16 AM, said:

Why give in to the Meta that you hate so much?
"Be the change you wish to see in the World" - Gandhi

I already stated I don't give into the Meta all the time. Just occasionally. Doesn't change my KNOWLEDGE of the Meta, and knowing I could have done more to help my team.

My problem is....do we all see how much Meta there is now? With no real objective?

What happens when CW does come into play, and every match is suddenly important? Guess what...MORE META.

[Ordellus]

KharnZor, on 03 March 2014 - 03:14 PM, said:

The game has become happy?

Tons of words have multiple meaning... maybe you just need a dictionary