16 replies to this topic

[Bobzilla]

Same mechanic as ghost heat, but the weapon can't be fired for 0.5s (can be adjusted per weapon) once the limit is reached, and get rid of ghost heat.

For example: A mech with 3 PPC's can fire 2 of them willy-nilly, but no more than 2 can be fired within the span of 0.5 seconds. A mech with 4 PPC's can fire 2 but then have to wait 0.5s to fire the other 2.

The time may have to be longer or shorter than the 0.5s and may even have to weapon spacific.

I think this would allow boats to function, as they should, but would ease some of the problems with boating.


What are your guys thoughts? Maybe it could be applied to just the pinpoint projectile type weapons. How do you think this would/should work with srms and lrms?

PS: As for an explanation as to why mechs function this way from a 'real life' view, as that is important to some. Maybe power drain or amunition feeder limitations?

Edited by Bobzilla, 19 March 2014 - 06:27 AM.

[Joseph Mallan]

I am not supportive of trying to stop people from fighting the way they want to. It is better for the game to learn how to defeat a fighting style than to limit our methods of fighting.

[Bobzilla]

Joseph Mallan, on 19 March 2014 - 06:28 AM, said:

I am not supportive of trying to stop people from fighting the way they want to. It is better for the game to learn how to defeat a fighting style than to limit our methods of fighting.

But ghost heat does that but worse, don't you think?

[Joseph Mallan]

Bobzilla, on 19 March 2014 - 06:29 AM, said:

But ghost heat does that but worse, don't you think?

I know, and I have spoke out on Ghost Heat before it was added, and after as well.

[Daggett]

I'm thinking similar to Joseph here.

I'm not a big ghost heat fan, but with ghost heat i can at least choose to fire an expensive alpha when needed.

What would be interesting however is an option/toggle to enable such a firing-restriction for players who don't want to ever create ghost heat and also don't want to guess that required 0.5sec timeframe until they can shoot again.

Edited by Daggett, 19 March 2014 - 06:37 AM.

[Bobzilla]

Daggett, on 19 March 2014 - 06:36 AM, said:

I'm thinking similar to Joseph here.

I'm not a big ghost heat fan, but with ghost heat i can at least choose to fire an expensive alpha when needed.

What would be nice however is an option/toggle to enable such a firing-restriction for players who don't want to ever create ghost heat and also don't want to guess that required 0.5sec timeframe until they can shoot again.

Good point about the notification to players, did not think about that. Maybe shading on the weapon?

[DEMAX51]

Daggett, on 19 March 2014 - 06:36 AM, said:

I'm thinking similar to Joseph here.

I'm not a big ghost heat fan, but with ghost heat i can at least choose to fire an expensive alpha when needed.

What would be interesting however is an option/toggle to enable such a firing-restriction for players who don't want to ever create ghost heat and also don't want to guess that required 0.5sec timeframe until they can shoot again.

The chainfire toggle for weapon groups pretty much does that, no?

[Daggett]

DEMAX51, on 19 March 2014 - 06:43 AM, said:

The chainfire toggle for weapon groups pretty much does that, no?

Not exactly. Take 4 Large Lasers for instance.
With chain fire it takes a full second between each shot, spreading the damage over 4 secs. Similar applies to missiles.
Ballistics fire each 0.5s, but only one gun at the same time.

The described mechanic however would fire 2 of them simultaneously and after 0.5s the other 2 weapons would be fired, spreading the damage way less than in chainfire.

Edited by Daggett, 19 March 2014 - 07:14 AM.

[Mechteric]

If there were some kind of properly created "energy" system in MWO that could play alongside the heat system then it could be interesting, like for instance how Gauss rifles use so much energy that firing 1, let alone 2 would draw massive energy, perhaps that could be turned into longer reload times for the Gauss (and any other weapons based on their energy requirements) when many high energy things are fired in a small amount of time (anything to get rid of the charge up delay).

But that's quite a new concept for the BT universe and not one I think PGI would undertake inventing anyway.

[Joseph Mallan]

Daggett, on 19 March 2014 - 07:13 AM, said:

Not exactly. Take 4 Large Lasers for instance.
With chain fire it takes a full second between each shot, spreading the damage over 4 secs. Similar applies to missiles.
Ballistics fire each 0.5s, but only one gun at the same time.

The described mechanic however would fire 2 of them simultaneously and after 0.5s the other 2 weapons would be fired, spreading the damage way less than in chainfire.

Damage needs to be less pin point. I aim at the right torso and some weapons hit the CT some hit the Right Arm the rest hit the RT. As it is if I fire direct fire everything hits the penny sized target even from 1,000+ meters. It is not normal nor does it feel right.

[Truesight]

Daggett, on 19 March 2014 - 07:13 AM, said:

Not exactly. Take 4 Large Lasers for instance.
With chain fire it takes a full second between each shot, spreading the damage over 4 secs. Similar applies to missiles.
Ballistics fire each 0.5s, but only one gun at the same time.

The described mechanic however would fire 2 of them simultaneously and after 0.5s the other 2 weapons would be fired, spreading the damage way less than in chainfire.

Easy, Mouse Macro, for example take weapon group 6 and 5 now let the macro push button 6 on activation and after 0.5 seconds push button 5. Now you map 2 Lasers to group 6 and 2 Lasers to group 5. Done!

Repeat for PPCs or something else (AC/20?).

Edited by Truesight, 19 March 2014 - 07:40 AM.

[Varent]

Bobzilla, on 19 March 2014 - 06:23 AM, said:

Same mechanic as ghost heat, but the weapon can't be fired for 0.5s (can be adjusted per weapon) once the limit is reached, and get rid of ghost heat.

For example: A mech with 3 PPC's can fire 2 of them willy-nilly, but no more than 2 can be fired within the span of 0.5 seconds. A mech with 4 PPC's can fire 2 but then have to wait 0.5s to fire the other 2.

The time may have to be longer or shorter than the 0.5s and may even have to weapon spacific.

I think this would allow boats to function, as they should, but would ease some of the problems with boating.


What are your guys thoughts? Maybe it could be applied to just the pinpoint projectile type weapons. How do you think this would/should work with srms and lrms?

PS: As for an explanation as to why mechs function this way from a 'real life' view, as that is important to some. Maybe power drain or amunition feeder limitations?

Thats basically the system we have now with ghost heat with a slightly longer delay, I believe its about a second. Ghost heat is better actually since you can CHOOSE to alpha three if needed for the extra heat.

[Strum Wealh]

Bobzilla, on 19 March 2014 - 06:23 AM, said:

Same mechanic as ghost heat, but the weapon can't be fired for 0.5s (can be adjusted per weapon) once the limit is reached, and get rid of ghost heat.

For example: A mech with 3 PPC's can fire 2 of them willy-nilly, but no more than 2 can be fired within the span of 0.5 seconds. A mech with 4 PPC's can fire 2 but then have to wait 0.5s to fire the other 2.

The time may have to be longer or shorter than the 0.5s and may even have to weapon spacific.

I think this would allow boats to function, as they should, but would ease some of the problems with boating.


What are your guys thoughts? Maybe it could be applied to just the pinpoint projectile type weapons. How do you think this would/should work with srms and lrms?

PS: As for an explanation as to why mechs function this way from a 'real life' view, as that is important to some. Maybe power drain or amunition feeder limitations?

IMO, what would be more effective is to add a firing limit of one (1) to all weapons AND add a short universal lockout to each and every weapon, such that 1.) no weapon could be fired simultaneously with any other weapon and 2.) no weapon could be fired within the lockout interval of any other weapon.

With a lockout interval of (for example) 0.125 seconds (that is, one-eighth of one second), the result would be that group-firing a set of six weapons (such as the hunch on the HBK-4P, or one of the arm clusters on the Black Hawk Prime) would take slightly more than one half-second to fire all of the weapons.

• At t = 0.000s, the group fire command is sent and weapon 1 fires.
  
• At t = 0.125s, weapon 2 fires.
  
• At t = 0.250s, weapon 3 fires.
  
• At t = 0.375s, weapon 4 fires.
  
• At t = 0.500s, weapon 5 fires.
  
• At t = 0.625s, weapon 6 fires.

In the event that of more than one group being triggered simultaneously, the firing order would prioritize by group and then by order within the group.

• At t = 0.000s, the group fire command for weapon group 1 (3 weapons) & weapon group 2 (4 weapons) is sent simultaneously, and weapon 1 of group 1 fires.
  
• At t = 0.125s, weapon 2 of group 1 fires.
  
• At t = 0.250s, weapon 3 of group 1 fires.
  
• At t = 0.375s, weapon 1 of group 2 fires.
  
• At t = 0.500s, weapon 2 of group 2 fires.
  
• At t = 0.625s, weapon 3 of group 2 fires.
  
• At t = 0.750s, weapon 4 of group 2 fires.

The result is that the number of weapons that can be fired within a given span of time - and, as a result, the amount of concentrated damage that can be delivered against a non-stationary target - is consistently limited across all weapon classes & types.

As an example of this system in action, the game Chromehounds did as described above, albeit with a very small delay interval (on the order of ~0.05 seconds); it is particularly noticeable on weapons like the cannons (e.g. Anelace) & sniper cannons (e.g. SC200). Though, it should be noted that CH did not permit more than four weapons per group and did not have the ability to simultaneously trigger multiple weapon groups.

As a modification to the proposal, the lockout time could be varied by weapon - e.g. a Medium Laser may have a lockout time of 0.125s, while a small Laser might have a lockout time of 0.100s, while an AC/20 might have a lockout time of 0.150s, while a Gauss Rifle or a PPC/ER-PPC might have a lockout time of 0.200s, and so on.

Edited by Strum Wealh, 19 March 2014 - 08:40 AM.

[Joseph Mallan]

You guys are really trying to kill us assault fighters. It is a legit tactic, that has a place in this game. Convergence has made it OP and that I would like fixed. I like Alpha striking I have liked it for going on 30 years, but I don't like having the accuracy of a Clan Targeting computer for no cost at all. Well that's not entirely accurate... but I do feel bad for it happening.

[Bobzilla]

Strum Wealh, on 19 March 2014 - 08:36 AM, said:

IMO, what would be more effective is to add a firing limit of one (1) to all weapons AND add a short universal lockout to each and every weapon, such that 1.) no weapon could be fired simultaneously with any other weapon and 2.) no weapon could be fired within the lockout interval of any other weapon.

With a lockout interval of (for example) 0.125 seconds (that is, one-eighth of one second), the result would be that group-firing a set of six weapons (such as the hunch on the HBK-4P, or one of the arm clusters on the Black Hawk Prime) would take slightly more than one half-second to fire all of the weapons.

• At t = 0.000s, the group fire command is sent and weapon 1 fires.
  
• At t = 0.125s, weapon 2 fires.
  
• At t = 0.250s, weapon 3 fires.
  
• At t = 0.375s, weapon 4 fires.
  
• At t = 0.500s, weapon 5 fires.
  
• At t = 0.625s, weapon 6 fires.

In the event that of more than one group being triggered simultaneously, the firing order would prioritize by group and then by order within the group.

• At t = 0.000s, the group fire command for weapon group 1 (3 weapons) & weapon group 2 (4 weapons) is sent simultaneously, and weapon 1 of group 1 fires.
  
• At t = 0.125s, weapon 2 of group 1 fires.
  
• At t = 0.250s, weapon 3 of group 1 fires.
  
• At t = 0.375s, weapon 1 of group 2 fires.
  
• At t = 0.500s, weapon 2 of group 2 fires.
  
• At t = 0.625s, weapon 3 of group 2 fires.
  
• At t = 0.750s, weapon 4 of group 2 fires.

The result is that the number of weapons that can be fired within a given span of time - and, as a result, the amount of concentrated damage that can be delivered against a non-stationary target - is consistently limited across all weapon classes & types.


As an example of this system in action, the game Chromehounds did as described above, albeit with a very small delay interval (on the order of ~0.05 seconds); it is particularly noticeable on weapons like the cannons (e.g. Anelace) & sniper cannons (e.g. SC200). Though, it should be noted that CH did not permit more than four weapons per group and did not have the ability to simultaneously trigger multiple weapon groups.

As a modification to the proposal, the lockout time could be varied by weapon - e.g. a Medium Laser may have a lockout time of 0.125s, while a small Laser might have a lockout time of 0.100s, while an AC/20 might have a lockout time of 0.200s, and so on.

Yes this would work great, but I don't see a harm in allowing certain weapons of different aspects to be fired simultaniously. Like a SRM6 and and AC20, or a PPC and a LL, times when the travel speeds or impulses cause the damage to not land all at once anyways (of course being point blank, or not moving would negate this, but it should).

[East Indy]

Bob, this is one variation of your ruleset concept.

[Bobzilla]

East Indy, on 19 March 2014 - 08:57 AM, said:

Bob, this is one variation of your ruleset concept.

Similar and a good concept. That method wouldn't let you alpha weapons tho.

To be clear, I think being able to alpha weapons should be allowed, espically with the difference in travel speeds so as to allow brawlers to still remain effective. I see no problem with firing 2 srm6's and 4 ML's along with an AC/20, as you would have to be really close for them to all land in the same spot on the mech, or the mech would have to be stopped. There are obvious reasons why brawling is more risky than keeping at a distance, and so it should have some sort of reward or that risk.

Edited by Bobzilla, 19 March 2014 - 11:11 AM.