32 replies to this topic

[Scurry]

Well.......just some idle brainstorming on my part. Meta-type builds seem to be generally long-ranged focused, and brawlers aren't very common.

So, just some random thought - what if 2x/3x range dropoff was removed altogether? Outside max range, no damage at all, ala missiles. Seems to me like that would severely restrict long-range combat - but of course, I'm probably missing a lot. Might help simplify things for the sake of new players too. Thoughts?

Edited by Scurry, 26 May 2014 - 04:34 AM.

[divinedisclaimer]

Scurry, on 26 May 2014 - 04:34 AM, said:

Well.......just some idle brainstorming on my part. Meta-type builds seem to be generally long-ranged focused, and brawlers aren't very common.

So, just some random thought - what if 2x/3x range dropoff was removed altogether? Outside max range, no damage at all, ala missiles. Seems to me like that would severely restrict long-range combat - but of course, I'm probably missing a lot. Might help simplify things for the sake of new players too. Thoughts?

Just no, it's a core game element.

Yesterday I gibbed a full speed Raven 3L at 1,100m with a pair of ERPPC's.

[Reitrix]

divinedisclaimer, on 26 May 2014 - 04:38 AM, said:

Just no, it's a core game element.

Yesterday I gibbed a full speed Raven 3L at 1,100m with a pair of ERPPC's.

I actually kind of agree with Scurry there. While not wholesale elimination of extended ranges, i would support dropping it to half the base range.
For example, currently a Gauss Rifle will hit and damage targets out to nearly 2000 meters. However, if we only allowed weapons to deal damage out to half the base range, that Gauss Rifle would only have a range 990 meters, allowing it to snipe at LRM 'Mechs without removing the LRM 'Mechs ability to return fire.

If we totally removed the extended ranges, it'd create problems with brawl range weapons, having your AC20 shell do exactly nothing at 271 meters is just as flawed as allowing it to shoot all the way up to 700 meters.

[divinedisclaimer]

That would be horribly disappointing.

I assure you, the issue isn't damage in the falloff range. That's damage that's hard to put on point.

Here's what other shooters do to address MWO's core issue: while you're moving, you are less accurate. Not humanly so, but mechanically: when moving you have an uncontrollable random cone of fire. That means you have to plant your feet to make a long-range shot.

As a result, everyone making a long-range shot is equally vulnerable. Also solves the poptart situation.

Edited by divinedisclaimer, 26 May 2014 - 05:10 AM.

[Reitrix]

divinedisclaimer, on 26 May 2014 - 05:10 AM, said:

That would be horribly disappointing.

I assure you, the issue isn't damage in the falloff range. That's damage that's hard to put on point.

Here's what other shooters do to address MWO's core issue: while you're moving, you are less accurate. Not humanly so, but mechanically: when moving you have an uncontrollable random cone of fire. That means you have to plant your feet to make a long-range shot.

As a result, everyone making a long-range shot is equally vulnerable. Also solves the poptart situation.

Except that in those shooters you can stop, shoot and sprint away at full speed in less than a second. For an Atlas to pull up to a total halt, shoot, then accelerate into cover .. yeah .. not going to happen.

[divinedisclaimer]

divinedisclaimer, on 26 May 2014 - 05:10 AM, said:

That would be horribly disappointing.

I assure you, the issue isn't damage in the falloff range. That's damage that's hard to put on point.

Here's what other shooters do to address MWO's core issue: while you're moving, you are less accurate. Not humanly so, but mechanically: when moving you have an uncontrollable random cone of fire. That means you have to plant your feet to make a long-range shot.

As a result, everyone making a long-range shot is equally vulnerable. Also solves the poptart situation.

The issue being that it's too easy to reliably hit the same part of an enemy mech when you're above-average in shooter skill.

Because the mechs, frankly, are too good. Their aim needs to be intrinsically imperfect by a degree or three.

If you too the inertia variable out of Counter Strike you'd have headshots all day from certain players ruining the experience for many others. That's a variable that makes you less accurate the faster you're moving, to a threshold. That's what you've got in MWO. Perfect aim.

[Sephlock]

Yeah, I gotta agree with the others here: Keep the increased range. Instead, just triple the range for LRMs . That'll make things fair.

[divinedisclaimer]

Reitrix, on 26 May 2014 - 05:12 AM, said:

Except that in those shooters you can stop, shoot and sprint away at full speed in less than a second. For an Atlas to pull up to a total halt, shoot, then accelerate into cover .. yeah .. not going to happen.

That's fine. This game's version of the trick would be much much more forgiving. You would have just as much ease hitting someone at full speed in these ranges. It would be just mild enough to make hitting the same part of the enemy repeatedly while moving less reliable. We are talking about a very subtle, but very significant change. This would probably go unnoticed by many below-average players, whose mice already float all over the enemy at ranges above 600.

[The Great Unwashed]

With a projectile travel time, charge time, projectile drop, beam duration, twin reticules, and cockpit shake (when hit) there are already several in-game mechanisms that do not make MWO a perfect-aim game. Especially not so at large range. Increasing the range of the LRM would only reward those that cannot aim at all; heck, they cannot even manage their own locks

Edited by The Great Unwashed, 26 May 2014 - 05:20 AM.

[divinedisclaimer]

I'm not a competitive player here, but I truly a dead-eye. If they just put a 1% margin of error on me that I couldn't account for no matter what, that would be perfect.

Also, maybe limit certain weapon groupings. I could see, regretfully, "no dual gauss". It's brutal due to there being no other weapon with such a high projectile speed, damage, and range.

It really is an elephant in the room, outpacing every other weapon grouping in the game for damage, range, and heat; losing out only in weight: but you don't need to move fast when everyone's running away from you.

Edit: if the inaccuracy is applied to both gauss shots, that could solve that problem, too. Also debuffs dual AC5 poptarting without hurting their effectiveness up close or drastically altering the game.

Make it equally more challenging for all players to reliably kill each other. It'll make MWO a more entertaining game. Simultaneously lends merit to cycled fire weapons and bring AC2's up a bit; since more shots means more chances to land the one you really really wanted on that CT

Edited by divinedisclaimer, 26 May 2014 - 05:22 AM.

[The Great Unwashed]

and loosing out on being mountable on a few mechs only that have to use the XL engine and it explodes upon destruction.

(The weapon is efficient so your total damage is often low and with that your match score. I do love the twin gauss though. Dead eye or not, I only land 55% of the shots fired)

Edited by The Great Unwashed, 26 May 2014 - 05:26 AM.

[Reitrix]

divinedisclaimer, on 26 May 2014 - 05:20 AM, said:

I'm not a competitive player here, but I truly a dead-eye. If they just put a 1% margin of error on me that I couldn't account for no matter what, that would be perfect.

Also, maybe limit certain weapon groupings. I could see, regretfully, "no dual gauss". It's brutal due to there being no other weapon with such a high projectile speed, damage, and range.

It really is an elephant in the room, outpacing every other weapon grouping in the game for damage, range, and heat; losing out only in weight: but you don't need to move fast when everyone's running away from you.

Edit: if the inaccuracy is applied to both gauss shots, that could solve that problem, too. Also debuffs dual AC5 poptarting without hurting their effectiveness up close or drastically altering the game.

Make it equally more challenging for all players to reliably kill each other. It'll make MWO a more entertaining game. Simultaneously lends merit to cycled fire weapons and bring AC2's up a bit; since more shots means more chances to land the one you really really wanted on that CT

Pffft thats what LB10s are for

[El Bandito]

Eliminating the fallout range will make SRMs a viable choice and make LRMs actually long ranged missile.

I'm down with that.


If not, then increase missile range by 2x. Fair is fair.

Edited by El Bandito, 26 May 2014 - 05:50 AM.

[Scratx]

Eliminating the 2-3x range thing is not really the solution either, and has immersion issues (how do you justify a, AC10 shell suddenly not doing any damage because it hit something 451m away from the barrel instead of 449m? ). Not dissimilar to why gauss rifles and autocannons have no minimum range, when it comes down to it.

Now, 3x range dropping to 2x I'm not against at all, but I'm not brainstorming for that right now.

Finally... cone of fire? I'd honestly say for ballistics a small cone of fire is justifiable. Not enough to make shooting where you aim at unreliable sub-300m, but over 400-500m, yeah, it wouldn't be 100% "hit the component I aimed at". It may pose problems with HSR, though... since the client MUST know ahead of time which random seed(s) to use to make the random variations on the shots.

Unfortunately, giving the client this info would have a few downsides.

Anyway, no more time for forumwarrioring. *waves*

[Jun Watarase]

I dont like the idea of the massive ranges in mwo either, and im not sure why they included it in the first place.

But i see one problem with removing it : Massive range trolling.

Take for example a fast mech with long range weapons that stays like 5 meters out of your range and then can just move in, alpha and then quickly reverse to prevent anyone from hurting him.

The only way to prevent that from happening is to make weapons inaccurate at longer ranges like in the TT, but PGI would never do that either...

[El Bandito]

Scratx, on 26 May 2014 - 07:03 AM, said:

Eliminating the 2-3x range thing is not really the solution either, and has immersion issues (how do you justify a, AC10 shell suddenly not doing any damage because it hit something 451m away from the barrel instead of 449m? ).

Of all the immersion issues, that is the least of concern IMO. Besides, in all the materials I read, I don't recall IS mechs in 3050 duking it out at over a kilometer. I do remember them generally slugging it out within few hundred meters. I'd say current 2-3x range is actually killing the Battletech immersion.

Jun Watarase, on 26 May 2014 - 07:07 AM, said:

I dont like the idea of the massive ranges in mwo either, and im not sure why they included it in the first place. But i see one problem with removing it : Massive range trolling. Take for example a fast mech with long range weapons that stays like 5 meters out of your range and then can just move in, alpha and then quickly reverse to prevent anyone from hurting him. The only way to prevent that from happening is to make weapons inaccurate at longer ranges like in the TT, but PGI would never do that either...

That's why people should learn to bring mixed loadouts. Also, reducing fallout range will actually help against long range sniping and empower brawling.

Edited by El Bandito, 26 May 2014 - 09:22 AM.

[Eddrick]

Implement Mech mountable Artillery Piece Weapons and you have a deal (Sniper Artiller Piece, Thumper Artllery Piece, and Arrow 4 Artillery Missiles). Artillery Pieces might as well have no "Extreme Range" with the size of maps we have now. Thier opimium range is well over 1000m.

[Almond Brown]

Sephlock, on 26 May 2014 - 05:15 AM, said:

Yeah, I gotta agree with the others here: Keep the increased range. Instead, just triple the range for LRMs . That'll make things fair.

Just go 2X and reduce the Max. in-direct lock on range by 50% from what they are.

A max. distance Lock Kit (module based) is what? Out to +/- 900m? Reduce it to 500m.

Having LRM's with a reach of 2km would make the Light/Scout Mech the "only" Mechs that could provide both direct and Indirect LoS locks out beyond 501m.

Light Tags at 510m, LRM boat gets Target via C3 (built in now) Light can hold indirect Lock for time based on Module load out and or use Narc or TAG to maintain extended locks. No secondary Mechs holding Missiles locks for just being in the area and pressing "R".

That might cut back on some of the whining about how In-Direct fire locks work as they are used\played currently.

The Great Unwashed, on 26 May 2014 - 05:18 AM, said:

With a projectile travel time, charge time, projectile drop, beam duration, twin reticules, and cockpit shake (when hit) there are already several in-game mechanisms that do not make MWO a perfect-aim game. Especially not so at large range. Increasing the range of the LRM would only reward those that cannot aim at all; heck, they cannot even manage their own locks

Would give the Scouts a nice new Role.

Edited by Almond Brown, 26 May 2014 - 10:11 AM.

[Almond Brown]

El Bandito, on 26 May 2014 - 09:17 AM, said:

Of all the immersion issues, that is the least of concern IMO. Besides, in all the materials I read, I don't recall IS mechs in 3050 duking it out at over a kilometer. I do remember them generally slugging it out within few hundred meters. I'd say current 2-3x range is actually killing the Battletech immersion.

That's why people should learn to bring mixed loadouts. Also, reducing fallout range will actually help against long range sniping and empower brawling.

Damage drop off works pretty well. If someone wants to waste ammo (heat not so much) hitting me at less than optimal range, why the hell not. An AC20 at 600m is waste of perfectly good ammo but you see it fired all the time. Plink Plink is doing "something versus, crap, Large Map, I am useless unless the enemy closes...

P.S. I think the LRM in BT was 630m (21 hex) Long Range.

Edited by Almond Brown, 26 May 2014 - 10:19 AM.

[Ursh]

Well, currently ballistics weapons have maximum armor penetration ranges in the real world.

A .45 caliber bullet will smash ribs and rupture organs at close range on someone who is wearing a kevlar vest. At 200m though, it does very little damage against that vest.

Just because a projectile is capable of traveling a long distance, doesn't mean it's capable of hurting an armored target at long distance.

A ppc's dropoff damage can be blamed on atmosphere disruption.

I mean, we can't go too deep into physics realism or we'd have to admit that by 3050, their would be no battlemechs because guys in concealed armored suits would blow them to pieces with hypersonic missiles using kinetic payloads to disintegrate the 100 ton war machines.