Jump to content

Why You Are Wrong: Mwo Balance Edition

Balance General Gameplay

123 replies to this topic

#81 Phlinger

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Liquid Metal
  • Liquid Metal
  • 595 posts

Posted 30 May 2014 - 11:24 AM

View PostAgent of Change, on 30 May 2014 - 11:23 AM, said:

[size=4]

There are a lot of ways to handle this issue, many bad a few are great. We just need the devs to have the skill and testicular fortitude to give it a shot.



Even if only in a closed testing environment, there are a few of these ideas that should be explored. I still think my idea is best though.

#82 Artgathan

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Knight Errant
  • Knight Errant
  • 1,764 posts

Posted 30 May 2014 - 11:27 AM

View PostMcgral18, on 30 May 2014 - 07:06 AM, said:


For the first part, you'd need to expose 3 armored sections in the CT, and avoid the 2 empty slots. That would take a long enough time with MGs, since the cone of fire pretty much prevents you from hitting the same spot with more than 5 bullets in a second. PPFLD might still be the most efficient, but it would be much more difficult to actually hit the spot you want.

It might cause issues with lights, but I like the proposed idea.

Reduced damage to internals (or an internal buff to 2x, same as armor) would be a good enough idea. I'm against a bonus against internal structure though. Crits already deal 15% bonus damage, and things melt pretty quickly with current weapon values at 300% damage against IS.


Ah, I misunderstood. That said, I still like my idea about reducing damage vs internals for certain weapons. I didn't mean to apply a bonus on top of the existing crit system, but rather to tweak the crit system so that it deals the bonus damage more consistently.

For example, a PPC has a 100% chance to crit for -50% damage, 80% chance for -30% etc... SRMs have a 100% chance to crit for +25% damage...

IMO internal structure is too weak. BT is about a literal war of attrition played out in miniature (where mechs can survive for a while with exposed Internals), whereas MWO is just about clean killing blows (where you die in one shot as soon as your armor is gone).

View PostAgent of Change, on 30 May 2014 - 09:55 AM, said:


I mean yeah the real trick would be that each "critical point" has it's own armor total. The idea of "blowing off a whole segment" would be gone ans replaced by the more realistic gutting or crippling of the bits. Ammo explosions... easy they go to adjacent crit spots if not CASEd. The thing is as it stands you already only need three engine crits to kill a mech, you just tend to get them by coring or a side torso with XL.


I really like the idea of multiple "armor slots" on each portion of the mech, with specific sections corresponding to specific critical slots. It'd add more skill to the process of destroying a mech and less RNG.

That said, that sort of system really buffs PP FLD weapons since they will still be the ones that can most easily exploit holes in the armor (getting an LBX cluster onto the CT of an Atlas is already a pain... Getting it into a target 1/5 that size? Eep)

EDIT: This system would really benefit light mechs (by shrinking already small components further) while only slightly buffing larger mechs (since 1/5 of an Atlas torso is still a pretty big target). I think there would be complaints.

Edited by Artgathan, 30 May 2014 - 11:29 AM.


#83 Agent of Change

    Member

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

Posted 30 May 2014 - 11:35 AM

View PostArtgathan, on 30 May 2014 - 11:27 AM, said:


I really like the idea of multiple "armor slots" on each portion of the mech, with specific sections corresponding to specific critical slots. It'd add more skill to the process of destroying a mech and less RNG.

That said, that sort of system really buffs PP FLD weapons since they will still be the ones that can most easily exploit holes in the armor (getting an LBX cluster onto the CT of an Atlas is already a pain... Getting it into a target 1/5 that size? Eep)

EDIT: This system would really benefit light mechs (by shrinking already small components further) while only slightly buffing larger mechs (since 1/5 of an Atlas torso is still a pretty big target). I think there would be complaints.


As proposed it's not perfect admittedly. However things that could strip multiple points would be valuable. Lrms become a real softening tool and that PP FLD would have to be really really accurate to make full use of their ability because you couldn't just aim vaguely at the center and fire any more and expect to gut mechs every other alpha.

lights would gain a something in the exchange but then they would be able to as easily gut assaults because of a multi-sectioned setup. The idea is in the end to extend the TTK and reduce the universal utility of the PP FLD. but even this to me is a bandaid an wouldn't be nearly as preferable to fixing convergence in any number of interesting ways.

#84 Mcgral18

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • CS 2019 Top 8 Qualifier
  • CS 2019 Top 8 Qualifier
  • 17,987 posts
  • LocationSnow

Posted 30 May 2014 - 11:58 AM

View PostAgent of Change, on 30 May 2014 - 11:35 AM, said:


As proposed it's not perfect admittedly. However things that could strip multiple points would be valuable. Lrms become a real softening tool and that PP FLD would have to be really really accurate to make full use of their ability because you couldn't just aim vaguely at the center and fire any more and expect to gut mechs every other alpha.

lights would gain a something in the exchange but then they would be able to as easily gut assaults because of a multi-sectioned setup. The idea is in the end to extend the TTK and reduce the universal utility of the PP FLD. but even this to me is a bandaid an wouldn't be nearly as preferable to fixing convergence in any number of interesting ways.


Another thing to add to the system could be a different amount of "boxes"; or more engine crits per box. A light could have 2 per box (having 3, along with less armor would be a 1 hit kill for most, bad idea) while the Atlas could have individual ones. This means they should survive less damage, while the Atlas could tank more.

Likewise, overscaled mechs could have more boxes than their smaller counterparts, such as Trebs compared to BJs.

#85 East Indy

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Hammer
  • The Hammer
  • 1,245 posts
  • LocationPacifica Training School, waiting for BakPhar shares to rise

Posted 30 May 2014 - 12:01 PM

View PostTombstoner, on 30 May 2014 - 07:33 AM, said:

No some one shouldn;t tweet this to PGI

Then don't? Rest assured, there's far more other stuff to wade through here than on his feed. Not sure why anyone would not take advantage of multiple channels.

#86 Koniving

    Welcoming Committee

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Guide
  • The Guide
  • 23,384 posts

Posted 30 May 2014 - 12:08 PM

View PostFupDup, on 28 May 2014 - 11:56 AM, said:

The funny thing about this, though, is that there are many convergence solutions out there that maintain 100% player control at all times, without resorting to random elements.

That's a fairly decent one (better than ghost heat as it'd mean something). But this much simpler one would take about 5 to 10 minutes (at most 3 hours for one person) to implement and would be unique for every mech with absolutely no real effort.

I quote from elsewhere.

View PostKoniving, on 29 May 2014 - 07:58 AM, said:

I'm well aware, but nothing will get a cone. It'd make competitive players cry. Delayed convergence was great but it was server side. Client side somehow is open to hacking but that's probably because of how simple PGI made that (since there's so much security in a server side system, why protect the client side?). But if we had it client side, we'd have delayed convergence without 'lag' throwing it off and all our problems would have gone away.

There's other ways too without doing a cone of fire. Play in 3rd person. Especially in a Stalker, Raven, Shadowhawk, Kintaro, Hunchback, Firestarter, etc.

Notice how the crosshair moves?
Not the teleporting of instant convergence, but just look at one thing and move around.
Now move at different speeds.
Notice if the mech jiggles, the crosshair jiggles.
If the mech hobbles, the crosshair hobbles.
If the mech limps, oh god is the fairly crosshair useless!

Wouldn't it only be fair if that was also true for first person?
We'd have no need for cone of fire or random chance or even delayed convergence.

But even better!
Every mech will have a unique (well as unique as the animation is) crosshair movement. Diversity!
Every mech will automatically have improved or worsened accuracy at different speeds. (Due to animations, some mechs will favor slower speeds while others favor faster speed.)
Climbing a hill? Welp that affects accuracy.
Falling from having used jumpjets? Oh god you should see what happens! O_O!
Got shot? WHAM! Crosshair jerks so far to the side that you can miss by almost 75 degrees that if you fired then!

So why the heck isn't it in first person? It's not that different from a headbob.


Simplicity yet uber effective.
Probably why we'll never see it done by PGI.
1) too simple (history shows PGI likes convoluted things). 2) too effective (history shows PGI doesn't like to do anything more than sort-of manipulate and propagate an issue rather than deal with it).

Edited by Koniving, 30 May 2014 - 12:09 PM.


#87 Agent of Change

    Member

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

Posted 30 May 2014 - 12:11 PM

View PostKoniving, on 30 May 2014 - 12:08 PM, said:

Simplicity yet uber effective.
Probably why we'll never see it done by PGI.
1) too simple (history shows PGI likes convoluted things). 2) too effective (history shows PGI doesn't like to do anything more than sort-of manipulate and propagate an issue rather than deal with it).


I believe you but I need to tell you it's against my religion to play in third person mode even for a good cause. ;)

so other people will have to confirm this on my behalf, I do like it. Simplicity itself.

Edited by Agent of Change, 30 May 2014 - 12:12 PM.


#88 lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • FP Veteran - Beta 1
  • FP Veteran - Beta 1
  • 918 posts

Posted 30 May 2014 - 12:12 PM

Instead of a crosshair pinpoint have a area of fire which the weapons are likely to hit (like a circle) and that circle gets bigger while maneuvering (representing the old TT difficulty roles for movement)

http://www.sarna.net...Modifiers_Table

All of the sudden "poptarting" vanishes in a puff of logic.

Pulse lasers get smaller circles.

Give Clan's the "Advanced Targeting Computers" that represent the current cross hair for I.S. mechs because, I'm sorry, they're not supposed to be that accurate. Kill two birds with one stone.

#89 Koniving

    Welcoming Committee

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Guide
  • The Guide
  • 23,384 posts

Posted 30 May 2014 - 12:22 PM

View PostAgent of Change, on 30 May 2014 - 12:11 PM, said:


I believe you but I need to tell you it's against my religion to play in third person mode even for a good cause. ;)

so other people will have to confirm this on my behalf, I do like it. Simplicity itself.


Trust me, you'll be a HUGE disadvantage when you do. For example in a Misery, well see for yourself.
Here. Skip to 8 minutes if it doesn't do it anyway. I start taking on a lot of enemies in a Flamer Stalker. In 40 seconds from there, I switch to third person. Watch that bob! Eye the crosshair specifically as it bounces with every single step and whenever I'm hit, sudden jerk to a side even if I don't actually 'turn', because it draws from the cockpit to the target and if the cockpit turns, so does the reticule and so does the shot so when you're hit by a heavy weapon, WHAM you get thrown way off.

Gif for the lazy.
Spoiler

Another Gif, different source.
Spoiler

Another gif. Different mech.
Spoiler

Still 100% pinpoint, but with a mech bob, so you fire when your crosshair's perfectly on point.

Short vid demonstrating the concept and its effect.


Long vid, showing how it affects aim differently to different mechs and speeds. The Banshee in the later half also demonstrates that with enough skill, repeat headshots are still possible (but considerably more difficult). This allows competitive 'pinpoint', while significantly increasing both the skill quotient and the need to 'reduce speed' to pull off amazing shots that would otherwise be impossible (where in MWO right now you can do them while going 169 kph).

Edited by Koniving, 01 June 2014 - 11:29 AM.


#90 ArmandTulsen

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 1,184 posts

Posted 01 June 2014 - 08:50 AM

Dat OP.

It's beautiful.

#91 Nyden

    Member

  • PipPipPip
  • The Boombox
  • The Boombox
  • 58 posts

Posted 01 June 2014 - 09:55 AM

View PostKoniving, on 29 May 2014 - 07:58 AM, said:




There's other ways too without doing a cone of fire. Play in 3rd person. Especially in a Stalker, Raven, Shadowhawk, Kintaro, Hunchback, Firestarter, etc.

Notice how the crosshair moves?
Move at different speeds.
Notice if the mech jiggles, the crosshair jiggles.
If the mech hobbles, the crosshair hobbles.
If the mech limps, oh god is the crosshair useless!

Wouldn't it only be fair if that was also true for first person?
We'd have no need for cone of fire or random chance or even delayed convergence.

But even better!
Every mech will have a unique (well as unique as the animation is) crosshair movement. Diversity!
Every mech will automatically have improved or worsened accuracy at different speeds.
Climbing a hill? Welp that affects accuracy.
Falling from jumpjets? Oh god you should see what happens! O_O!
Got shot? WHAM! Crosshair jerks so far to the side that you can miss by almost 75 degrees that if you fired then!

So why the heck isn't it in first person? It's not that different from a headbob.


Somebody should tweet this to Russ. Have them run a public test!

#92 Jonathan Paine

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Survivor
  • Survivor
  • 1,197 posts

Posted 01 June 2014 - 10:19 AM

Completely agree that convergent weapons resulting in huge amounts of pinpoint damage is the fundamental problem of the game right now.

A mech standing still, firing a single weapon, should have perfect accuracy for that weapon. There should be no other scenario where a mech gets perfect accuracy.

#93 Koniving

    Welcoming Committee

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Guide
  • The Guide
  • 23,384 posts

Posted 01 June 2014 - 11:29 AM

Vids added here.

#94 IraqiWalker

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The 1 Percent
  • The 1 Percent
  • 9,682 posts
  • LocationCalifornia

Posted 01 June 2014 - 04:15 PM

View PostAgent of Change, on 28 May 2014 - 11:53 AM, said:

Prologue: A hero rises.

Once more the fields of battle lie strewn with the detritus of flame wars. Once more, like the hydra of legend, do bad threads with misplaced focus get struck down only for two or more to appear in their place. I take it now upon myself to take up the baton of wisdom and smite some ignorance up in this piece. It is a Quixotic endeavor I know but still I must try, because I care and mostly because as my signature says “I post better than you”.

What you are wrong about:

Well when it comes to balance in this game there is a great giant pink and polka dotted (F)Atlas in the room that most people studiously ignore in part or in toto. The primary issue is being ignored by many posters but worst of all by PGI itself. What is this issue?…. Well that’s what suspense is for (it’s the next section).
  • · The point remains that the underlying issue is not Poptarting which is annoying yes but not the primary cause.
  • · It is NOT a screwed up Meta again annoying but it’s a symptom not a cause.
  • · It’s not the players pushing the boundaries of what can be done, human nature is not the problem, but the problem allows this trait to dangerously impact the fun of the game.
  • · It’s not Pre-mades V. Pugs though many would like that to be the issue.
  • · It’s not X weapon is OP/UP, though the real issue is largely responsible for the Charlie Foxtrot that individual weapon balance has become.
  • · It’s not there are too many X type of mech on the battlefield… but again we see clustering because of the real problem.
The point is if you believe any of the above to be the “game breaking” problem, quite simply you are wrong. But it is ok, all of those are problems and should be addressed but most of them are surface problems and we are looking bag us a big fix here.



The Real Issue:

Ladies and gentlemechs, come one come all and see the problem time forgot (not to mention PGI). Without further ado I give to you the real problem with MWO: Perfect Pinpoint Convergence All the Time. This is the root, the source of heartache and the cause of such SNAFU’s as Ghost heat, Poptarting, high alpha heavy/assault meta, Gauss over nerf, low TTK, etc etc etc… without this one issue in the way a lot of the missteps and struggles with balancing would not only be unnecessary a lot of the “fixes” could be rolled back *cough* ghost heat *cough*.

This is the key issue because it affects everything else and breaks the premise of giant robots whose primary defense is to slough off armor. Perfect pinpoint accuracy with all weapons and no drawbacks for getting it is canon breaking, and as we are seeing is pretty game breaking as well. It renders many weapons scrub tier, forces a BS meta, and not only rewards but encourages boating.

Why is it still an issue:

3 words that make a 3 letter acronym. For whatever reason the developers have either alternatively ignored this issue or tacitly stated that it is working as intended. The arguments that are made are under the false assumption that perfect accuracy = more skill. That Fixed distance convergence, movement affected convergence, Cone of fire, et al. are in fact less e-sport viable. That is a bit of a fallacy because it make a false equivalency. All of those things would be a problem if MWO was supposed to be a twitch FPS, which MW isn’t supposed to be. Granted it could be done badly and be very random or done very well and create choices and different skill sets that require more than drag mouse and click to alpha.

But the issue goes unaddressed. Not all of the solutions are great, and fixing this won’t fix everything about game balance but it is the single biggest underlying problem driving the issues with weapons, balance, and meta. If you are talking about balance and not calling for this to be addressed you are in fact at least a little wrong.


Great post AoC. I agree with a lot of it, and I honestly think if people keep whining threads down to a minimum, and suggestion threads up, things might improve faster.

#95 DeathlyEyes

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Messenger
  • 940 posts
  • Google+: Link
  • Facebook: Link
  • Twitter: Link
  • Twitch: Link
  • LocationMetaphorical Island somewhere in the Pacific

Posted 01 June 2014 - 05:15 PM

Brawler weapons don't do enough dps to make them viable. Reducing beam duration, reducing srm spread spread and reducing traditional sniper weapon recycle rates (ppc+gauss while removing gauss charge mechanic) will will all be steps in the right direction. If this leads to a way too fast time to kill then buffing armor is also an option. Right now there is little to no danger for not carrying brawler weapons. We need better maps with actual paths around the maps for short short ranged weapons.

Setting weapons to converge on target distance should eliminate chassis specific advantages. Sadly anything short of random convergence will always create some advantage. Reducing hill climb penalties should reduce edge poptarts have. Buffing acceleration and stopping rates also will help.

Edited by SLDF DeathlyEyes, 01 June 2014 - 05:22 PM.


#96 IraqiWalker

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The 1 Percent
  • The 1 Percent
  • 9,682 posts
  • LocationCalifornia

Posted 01 June 2014 - 09:03 PM

View PostSLDF DeathlyEyes, on 01 June 2014 - 05:15 PM, said:

Brawler weapons don't do enough dps to make them viable. Reducing beam duration, reducing srm spread spread and reducing traditional sniper weapon recycle rates (ppc+gauss while removing gauss charge mechanic) will will all be steps in the right direction. If this leads to a way too fast time to kill then buffing armor is also an option. Right now there is little to no danger for not carrying brawler weapons. We need better maps with actual paths around the maps for short short ranged weapons.

Setting weapons to converge on target distance should eliminate chassis specific advantages. Sadly anything short of random convergence will always create some advantage. Reducing hill climb penalties should reduce edge poptarts have. Buffing acceleration and stopping rates also will help.


Our armor is already doubled. Honestly the TTK in this game is good enough. Could use an increase, but it's good enough. Most people think it should take a lot longer to kill a mech. However, in TT an assault vs assault battle lasts about 50 seconds, and they have random hit locations, we can choose where to put our shots, so our TTK should be less than that.

The real problem is arm lock and 100% convergence. I prefer the old incremental convergence. The longer you hold your aim onto a target the more accurate your fire becomes. We had something like that in CBT.

#97 Jam the Bam

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 535 posts

Posted 02 June 2014 - 12:57 AM

View PostAgent of Change, on 29 May 2014 - 09:02 PM, said:

So Another Idea for this has crossed the table (from a conversation with a squad mate) this one relatively easy to implement.

Fixed Convergence set by the player... by component.

so here's how it would work, as part of your mech loadout you would set your convergence distances.

Weapons in the CT/head would always be straight ahead towards the reticle, easy enough so far.
The the RT and LT would both individually be set and it would affect all weapons in each location.
then your arms LA and RA would also be set individually to affect all the weapons mounted there.

The distance you set would be the point at which the weapons in that component would all converge perfectly on the cross hairs (or the arm recticle for arms). The important thing is that this is set in mech lab and cannot be changed once dropped.

it's not perfect but it does mean if you want to snipe and you set your convergence way out then you won't be able to land those pinpoint hits at a brawler in your face. It helps a bit with role warfare as well. The individual component convergence gives you a bit more granular control if you want it and allows for you to make in close weapons set differently from ranged weapons if you build your mechs like that.


I actually really like this idea, but I would prefer if it was adjustable in game, would simply add an extra level of skill to the game which would make things quite fun, it would also make pinpoint sniping easily mitigated simply by moving towards or away from them so they have to keep re-adjusting their convergence point, which would require a guess as they can't see you between jumps, it would allow skilled players to still do it but would increase the skill ceiling for it.

#98 MustrumRidcully

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 10,644 posts

Posted 02 June 2014 - 04:06 AM

View PostFupDup, on 28 May 2014 - 12:42 PM, said:

Having throttle scale helps a little bit but ultimately does not solve the issue. Somebody humping a hill (of any weight class) is only going to be going a very low throttle % before making the shot.

If standing out in the open normally, a Highlander moving at 60% throttle won't be at risk as much as a Shadow Hawk or whatever moving at 60% of his own throttle. A Commando moving at 60% would almost certainly be obliterated.


Making guns unable to be fired while jumping is a bit too much of a "brute force" solution. It might end poptarting, but it also ends jump-brawling. Mediums and lights especially thrive on using their jets evasively during combat. I think that the fix to poptarting is mostly just some kind of convergence system in general (like Homeless Bill's, for example), and maybe some kind of adjustment to JJs themselves.

My almsot preferred and simplistic solution woudl be forced chain-fire, but that is not going to get traction, I think. (And the ideal solution is not that simplistic, since it would likely be unfair to require the same delay for every weapon)



Aside from extreme solutions like no group fire or no group fire while jumping - precision loss expressed as an error in the firing angle/convergence of the weapon or a cone of fire always hurts more at range then at close distances.


BTW, I don't think that precision is all there is to the weapon balance in M:WO. It may just dominate the current issues notably. But I think it's also improtant that every weapon must be worth its weight (including fulfilling heat requirements). That seems to be a bit overshadowed a bit by convergence and group fire/alpha strikes, and thus the latter is more important to get right.

Edited by MustrumRidcully, 02 June 2014 - 04:08 AM.


#99 Bobzilla

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Determined
  • The Determined
  • 2,003 posts
  • LocationEarth

Posted 02 June 2014 - 04:47 AM

Make the arm reticle into two circles instead of one, spaced slightly apart.
Make the torso reticle into two crosshairs instead of one, spaced slightly apart, but at a different distance than the arm circles.
The arm reticles and torso reticles move independantly of each other (as they do now) but the two similar reticles don't move independantly of each other (reticles move just as they do now, but there are two side by side instead of one).

Then only one arm and one torso can ever be shot pinpoint at range (RT and RA or LT and RA....), and the effect would be negated at closer distances (at close range all reticles could 'fit' in one section), and arm lock would line nothing up. (would look something like 0++0)

This would make aiming take more skill, make weapons more accurate at short range, and make poptarting take a lot of skill.


I'm not saying this is a perfect solution, there are better ideas out there, but this is a change that mitigates the convergence issue, with minimal work for the devs, while at the same time people who are pro-skill/anti-random can get behind. Yes there are a few mechs that could still run the meta and even with JJ's, which are already amongst the popular chasis' so worst case scenario, it will take a higher skill cap to do the 30 dmg pinpont at range. I think skill should be rewarded, which this would do, and i've no doubt, really good players will be able to capitalize, and they deserve to reap the benifits of that skill.

#100 Agent of Change

    Member

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

Posted 02 June 2014 - 04:57 AM

View PostJammerben87, on 02 June 2014 - 12:57 AM, said:


I actually really like this idea, but I would prefer if it was adjustable in game, would simply add an extra level of skill to the game which would make things quite fun, it would also make pinpoint sniping easily mitigated simply by moving towards or away from them so they have to keep re-adjusting their convergence point, which would require a guess as they can't see you between jumps, it would allow skilled players to still do it but would increase the skill ceiling for it.



I weighed being able to adjust in game when i pitched this, but in the end I'm against it for a couple reasons. The is first is on canonical grounds, there just wasn't a lot of "on the fly" adjustment of Mech in BT and certainly not a routine thing in the midst of battle, you configure your mech before the drop and that takes foresight, and planning as to what you think you will need. Functionally If you want to alpha snipe then set your convergence far out and deal with the consequences if some one gets close.The second is on the grounds that if it is adjustable on the fly it means it can be macro'd, which means you simply replace the game doing it automatically for a script that is manually run and you mostly end up back where we started.

I see where you are coming from but I don't see much benefit re: "fixing convergence" in a system where you can adjust convergence distance on the fly. I'm a big fan of drawbacks along with benefits, If you want to over specialize there had better be some down side to it.





12 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 12 guests, 0 anonymous users