174 replies to this topic

[Varent]

Nicholas Carlyle, on 06 March 2014 - 11:08 AM, said:

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.

It... depends.... CW (if done properly) will favor energy weapons in general. Also it will favor simpler weapons that are easy to replace.

I am curious to see how things are implimented.

Kaeb Odellas, on 06 March 2014 - 11:05 AM, said:

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

SRM I would disagree on. I like them as they are immensly. However the rest of your statement could be interesting. I would love to see the type of convergence they have in world of tanks based off of movement myself where as you hold still the weapons 'settle' on a single aim point.

That said, they already have stated it works against there system so.... rework from the beginning there.

[KharnZor]

Ordellus, on 06 March 2014 - 11:20 AM, said:

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

Really? I had no idea.
#sarcasm

[Sprouticus]

Joseph Mallan, on 06 March 2014 - 10:18 AM, said:

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.

Fair enough. As I said, I don't really get impacted unless I drop with folks in my unit with much higher Elo's than me. i see LRM's, lasers, even the occasional SRM boat.

Like NC above, I do know the meta and will play it in group drops. I tend to not get put into meta PPC/AC5 boats because frankly Im not good enough with those weapons. Oddly even though the meta has higher potential, I almost always do better in mechs with lasers and maybe streaks. I can run an AC20 boat well enough, but honestly that is about as easy a role as you can get in competitive play.

At the end of the end it boils down to what PGI thinks the game should look like. We can attempt to influence them, but since we can't even agree amongst ourselves whether the high alpha meta is a real problem, I doubt any change is going to happen.

[Varent]

Joseph Mallan, on 06 March 2014 - 10:18 AM, said:

@ 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.

Its a tank. I swear.

http://cdn.themetapi...supermarket.jpg

[Ordellus]

KharnZor, on 06 March 2014 - 11:30 AM, said:

Really? I had no idea.
#sarcasm

You don't say

[KharnZor]

Ordellus, on 06 March 2014 - 04:31 PM, said:

You don't say

maybe

[Trauglodyte]

A comlete overhaul of convergence is impossible due to HSR (been stated). BUT, when you say that convergence can't be fixed, well, that isn't exactly the case.

• Right now, we have two fixed reticles: one for both arms (linked) and one for torso weapons
  
• When people talk about convergence, they always refer to arm weapons because torso weapons are point and click
  
• Arm convergence is based on the targetting range indicator and arm speed

What that means is that you've got two areas in which to play with to get around the convergence issue. You can slow arm speed but that is a bad idea because then driving a mech with arms gives you no advantage over those without movable arms. On the flip side, it would probably make it easier for newbies as it would be near like having arm lock on. Regardless, that is a bad thing.

That means that you could potentially mess with where the arm convergence point is. I can't draw a picture to show it so, if someone wants to go ahead. But, imagine mech A staring down mech B. From the arms of mech A to the center of mech B forms an isosceles triangle. The range from A to B forms the convergence point at the center of B so all shots end up landing at that point. Now, if we have heat and speed impacting convergence, we could then have that impact the range finder thus putting the convergence point further back behind mech B. This already happens, to a point, when a mech uses Jump Jets.

From the June 4th patch:

Quote

Gameplay

- Jump jetting now cause:
- Screen shake - Jump jetting Mechs shake while jump jets are active.
- Cross hair shake - Cross-hair shake while jump jets are active.
- Weapon fire spread - Aiming weapons is randomly offset while jump jets are active.

I'm not entirely sure how they implement weapon spread but the point is to force the arms to widen and thus have less shots landing on the convergence point calculated by the arm reticle.

One final set of things that could help would be:

• disabling arm lock after the 25 game Cadet bonus is over
  
• removing Lock Arms To Torso entirely
  
• if #1 and #2 aren't viable, disabling arm lock/lock arms to torso while JJs are active and for a few seconds after
  
• slowing reticle reset after JJs are stopped

At any rate, fudging the convergence point because of environmental effects would go a long way to helping the game. If you want to be a pin point sniper, you need to stop and aim. If you want to run and gun, then you have to pay the price.

It isn't perfect but it could work.

[Willard Phule]

@ Trauglodyte

Sounds kind of like what they did with Counter-Strike when they instituted that whole "expanding crosshair/scatter" thing. If you're standing still, taking aimed shots, they tend to go where you aim them. If you're moving and rapid/auto firing...they spread/scatter. The more you move and shoot, the more it scatters.

[Amsro]

Varent, on 06 March 2014 - 11:23 AM, said:

SRM I would disagree on. I like them as they are immensely.

Is this the SRM 2.0 with scatter Artemis that you are referring to?

If so my trebuchet would like one of its features back;

- SRM 2.5 (serious, why would these ever be less/different then Streak SRMs.
or
- Splash Damage (I get why this was removed small mechs vapourized, but with 2.0 maybe this is the boost it needs.)
or
- Hit Detection
or
- Artemis converging wave pattern (If you had battle range skill you could make some accurate shots, I like this type of reward range skill.)

Those 4 items are currently lacking in SRM's and have contributed greatly to the long range PPC meta we've had since nerf. Hard to call this set up immensely likeable. IMO. Less skill, less damage, less splat.

[Willard Phule]

You know, it might just be an HSR thing (in fact, it probably is, considering when I play the most) but....I've seen SRM6s do the whole curve and hit thing a lot lately. Not like SSRM2s, mind you, but spectating someone after I've died....it's just kinda weird.

[WarZ]

VagGR, on 03 March 2014 - 01:52 AM, said:

Highlanders, victors and 3Ds...Jumpjets, PPCs and autocanons. you may as well remove every other weapon and chassis from the game..this is where your game is going..enjoy



And you dont seem willing to fix it...MW4 anyone?

No sh*t, so true.

And lame beyond all reason.

[Alexandrix]

Varent, on 06 March 2014 - 11:23 AM, said:

It... depends.... CW (if done properly) will favor energy weapons in general. Also it will favor simpler weapons that are easy to replace.

I am curious to see how things are implimented.



SRM I would disagree on. I like them as they are immensly. However the rest of your statement could be interesting. I would love to see the type of convergence they have in world of tanks based off of movement myself where as you hold still the weapons 'settle' on a single aim point.

That said, they already have stated it works against there system so.... rework from the beginning there.

You are kidding yourself if you believe CW (if it ever actually makes it to MWO) will be anything other than some pretend map system where we "fight over" planets in the same silly CoD in robots arena style system we already have.

[Varent]

Alexandrix, on 11 March 2014 - 04:25 PM, said:

You are kidding yourself if you believe CW (if it ever actually makes it to MWO) will be anything other than some pretend map system where we "fight over" planets in the same silly CoD in robots arena style system we already have.

your more then entitled to your opinion, just as I am entitled to mine. Ive been enjoying the direction pgi has been moving in the last few updates. So im very hopeful.

[Joseph Mallan]

Alexandrix, on 11 March 2014 - 04:25 PM, said:

You are kidding yourself if you believe CW (if it ever actually makes it to MWO) will be anything other than some pretend map system where we "fight over" planets in the same silly CoD in robots arena style system we already have.

We are hopeful that you will be wrong. I am not holding my breath as the game to date has not changes much since the summer of 2012.

[Davers]

Nicholas Carlyle, on 05 March 2014 - 07:46 AM, said:

I don't quite remember it that way. Most of these problems stem from PGI's issues with hit detection and missiles having multiple bugs that would crop up whenever adjustments were made.

For instance, PPC's and AC's were very unreliable to before HSR, which caused PGI to balance them...then HSR went in and they were overpowered. And still are.

This of course also is partly due to the terrible heat scale and AC's having insane range...oh and ammo doesn't matter.

As for LRM's, every time PGI mucked with them, it created a broken LRMageddon, which meant they had to nerf them into the dirt afterwards.

And SRM's never recovered from the splash adjustments that broke the hit detection.

So this is not about the players, but more about PGI's balancing methods and bugs.

Tomorrow is the one year anniversary of the temporary nerfing of SRMs.

Rokuzachi, on 05 March 2014 - 01:41 PM, said:

As long as this game maintains standard FPS mechanics, it'll be little more than a twitch shooter.

IE; you shoot a mech in the tiniest part of its foot, but it causes damage to the leg. You barely nick the torso with an autocannon round at an extreme angle, you deal full damage. It's pretty much the same silliness that goes on in an FPS when you kill someone by shooting them in the foot a few times because it's all you can see.

You could devolve WoT and Warthunder into the same state if you were to strip the ballistics model/armor system and just give the tanks nothing but a health pool that gets diminished every time a shot hits no matter the angle or location.

I think MWO didn't go far enough in its depth with the damage model and the result is that the game is oversimplified and dumbed down. Or they just weren't capable/cry engine is incapable of a more advanced system than what they have.

Very much this!

Alexandrix, on 11 March 2014 - 04:25 PM, said:

You are kidding yourself if you believe CW (if it ever actually makes it to MWO) will be anything other than some pretend map system where we "fight over" planets in the same silly CoD in robots arena style system we already have.

I think another Forumwarrior put it best when he said CW was just going to be another advancement/achievement system like GXP.