Jump to content

Why You Are Wrong: Mwo Balance Edition

Balance General Gameplay

123 replies to this topic

#121 Agent of Change

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Bad Company
  • Bad Company
  • 3,119 posts
  • LocationBetween Now and Oblivion

Posted 05 June 2014 - 09:03 AM

View PostTombstoner, on 05 June 2014 - 08:39 AM, said:

NO, its intimately tied into there design philosophy. Player controlled convergence was a nice idea but a plan B was needed or we get what we have. The game is too far past release for such a significant change. It must be lived with and compensated for. with the right adjustments i think it would work very well, as it is... not so well.

Mech scale and the effect it has on combat needs to be looked at desperately.


I beg to differ that they are "too far past 'release'" for major changes.

Major changes are the only way they are going to get to a point where they retain a player base long enough to deliver on the actual game part of this game.

And convergence shouldn't be that "major" of a change to make.

#122 Gorgo7

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Overlord
  • Overlord
  • 1,220 posts
  • LocationOntario, Canada

Posted 05 June 2014 - 10:13 AM

I personally am quite happy with the current weapon balance since they brought AC's into their correct range brackets.

Convergence can be an issue... and if I was to mess with it I would have the arms converge at any range where you have a target locked. Chest weapons would fire straight ahead at the actual separation imposed by the model that carried them.

This could require new code be written to allow the aiming reticule to deviate based upon the primary weapon you were aiming with (had armed/selected) and to show where the rest would land in relation to this primary weapon.
In effect a new HUD and selection system would have to be implemented in order to facilitate this new system.

Just thinking.

Edited by Gorgo7, 05 June 2014 - 10:14 AM.


#123 Kmieciu

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Urban Commando
  • Urban Commando
  • 3,437 posts
  • LocationPoland

Posted 06 June 2014 - 03:44 AM

View PostTombstoner, on 05 June 2014 - 08:39 AM, said:

Player controlled convergence was a nice idea but a plan B was needed or we get what we have. The game is too far past release for such a significant change. It must be lived with and compensated for.


Warthunder is much more fast paced than MWO with speeds exceeding 1000 km/h and still it uses fixed convergence. You can set it manually for each plane before spawning - the default is 400 meters but you can set it however you want, even at 50 meters or infinity (guns firing in parallel).

You should try this game, If you haven't already. Start playing russian planes and after one hour you will unlock a I-153 Chaika. It has 4 machineguns firing at 1800 rounds per minute each (thats 120 projectiles fired every second). Bullet drop and velocity decrease is also simulated (up to 4 kilometers) .And every weapon in game has it own RNG (which you can somewhat decrease by leveling up the plane).

Because in real life, no weapon is truly pinpoint.

Edited by Kmieciu, 06 June 2014 - 03:45 AM.


#124 Agent of Change

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Bad Company
  • Bad Company
  • 3,119 posts
  • LocationBetween Now and Oblivion

Posted 06 June 2014 - 09:45 AM

View PostGorgo7, on 05 June 2014 - 10:13 AM, said:

I personally am quite happy with the current weapon balance since they brought AC's into their correct range brackets.

Convergence can be an issue... and if I was to mess with it I would have the arms converge at any range where you have a target locked. Chest weapons would fire straight ahead at the actual separation imposed by the model that carried them.

This could require new code be written to allow the aiming reticule to deviate based upon the primary weapon you were aiming with (had armed/selected) and to show where the rest would land in relation to this primary weapon.
In effect a new HUD and selection system would have to be implemented in order to facilitate this new system.

Just thinking.


Individual traverse ranges for hardpoints? Crazy talk, seriously it's nuts and ... well kind of awesome. I mean I'm not sure it would work in this game but it is a cool idea. I'm just not sure this engine can support doing that right. Maybe it can.

View PostKmieciu, on 06 June 2014 - 03:44 AM, said:


Warthunder is much more fast paced than MWO with speeds exceeding 1000 km/h and still it uses fixed convergence. You can set it manually for each plane before spawning - the default is 400 meters but you can set it however you want, even at 50 meters or infinity (guns firing in parallel).

You should try this game, If you haven't already. Start playing russian planes and after one hour you will unlock a I-153 Chaika. It has 4 machineguns firing at 1800 rounds per minute each (thats 120 projectiles fired every second). Bullet drop and velocity decrease is also simulated (up to 4 kilometers) .And every weapon in game has it own RNG (which you can somewhat decrease by leveling up the plane).

Because in real life, no weapon is truly pinpoint.


This is a great point. I personally that self set convergence is a good answer. It commits you to a playstyle. In WT a pilot with a 2-300m convergence tends to play a bit different than someone with a convergence set to 1Km.

It would require you to know what you want your role to be and what your weapons can do and play within it. It make mechs less swiss army knives and would be great for needing teammates to be a bit varied.

And it's simple, and we know the engine can support it since it can automatically set convergence to any distance now. It would be great to see them test this on a test server.





3 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 3 guests, 0 anonymous users