1263 replies to this topic

[RustyBolts]

I can sum this up in one simple word. CRAP! Can we please stop the nerf hammer now! This set up is way to complicated.

[ReXspec]

Reno Blade, on 07 August 2014 - 02:19 PM, said:

So it is closer to a Flight sim with missile lock (or actual MWO LRM) just not the lock but the convergence.

Sounds a bit like in "Engarde" when Justin Allard tried to lock onto the Rifleman, but the woods made the targeting system unable to and he switched to manual aiming and fired without a "hard lock" of his weapons.

It would definitely help against the twitch-shooting element of these weapons, but it would not help against the power of these builds.
Of course if the convergence is depending on loadout, somehow...
Well, I don't know about the speed, but if we had the 6 reticules mentioned above converging like this, it could work.
Please excuse the bad animation.

That is the most gorgeous thing I've ever seen.

If you make the crosshairs dynamic (bob from moving, jump from recoil, etc.), actually go with a dual-lock convergence system (have the crosshairs converge on the center crosshairs' target, OR have the weapons converge on a target painted by your sensors) and make the weapons converge at a similar speed as is illustrated here, I'd say we REALLY got something here.

Edited by ReXspec, 07 August 2014 - 03:40 PM.

[SilentWolff]

The real question is how do we balance weapons with bads who cry about everything on the forums and not have PGI listen to them. Lets start by balancing bad players right outta the conversation.

[ReXspec]

SilentWolff, on 07 August 2014 - 03:40 PM, said:

The real question is how do we balance weapons with bads who cry about everything on the forums and not have PGI listen to them. Lets start by balancing bad players right outta the conversation.

This is assuming most players are fine with P.G.I.'s vision of Mechwarrior, and are simply rage-posting because they got horrendously stomped in a match by the supposed "meta."

That isn't the case here.

Over fifty-five pages of feedback in this thread, and ALL of it has been, "That's a stupid idea, but here is an alternative that might work."

And nearly ALL of those are sensible re-works to a broken system and a broken proposal, or at least the person who gave the idea has their head in the right place.

That isn't a matter of "bads crying," that is a matter of players who are protesting a horrendous idea that was put forward by the devs.

Heck, like I mentioned before, I run the build in question myself. It is one of the builds do VERY well with (you can look at my player stats in that regard as proof--I'm not bashful if it means proving my point). Even still, I think the current state of that build, and the mechanics in MWO at large are not where they are supposed to be.

Edited by ReXspec, 07 August 2014 - 03:57 PM.

[Sandpit]

IraqiWalker, on 07 August 2014 - 03:20 PM, said:

Okay, now THAT! is something I would love to see. Might require too many brain cells for the truly idiotic, but it looks, and feels like how convergence SHOULD work (damaged actuators would slow their arm's convergence speed, if not disable it completely. Making critting a mech an even more important task). This would also allow the current elite skill that boosts convergence, to actually be relevant, and do something, instead of being a 4K XP paperweight.

After a conversation with someone recently I knew there was a gap in understanding and communication in what I was talking about regarding "convergence".

Yes, you could adjust it for things like jumping, running, walking, standing still, and heat (which were all accounted for in to-hit modifiers in the TT game)

When standing still no modifier to the convergence speed
walking could equal + .1 second
running + .2
Jumping + .3
Heat modifier could scale. More heat = more modifier


I really honestly feel that this would fix and alleviate almost every problem with FLD and PPD without removing either of those components.

[ReXspec]

Sandpit, on 07 August 2014 - 04:03 PM, said:

After a conversation with someone recently I knew there was a gap in understanding and communication in what I was talking about regarding "convergence".

Yes, you could adjust it for things like jumping, running, walking, standing still, and heat (which were all accounted for in to-hit modifiers in the TT game)

When standing still no modifier to the convergence speed
walking could equal + .1 second
running + .2
Jumping + .3
Heat modifier could scale. More heat = more modifier


I really honestly feel that this would fix and alleviate almost every problem with FLD and PPD without removing either of those components.

^This.

HOWEVER,

If you did incorporate those elements, you realize that you would need to slightly shorten beam times for both IS and Clan lasers, right?

Not to mention, you would also need to shorten the clan AC burst time.

Hypothetically speaking, the shortened beam and burst times wouldn't be anything too severe, it would be just enough to match up with the newly incorporated crosshair and convergence mechanics.

[Sandpit]

ReXspec, on 07 August 2014 - 04:09 PM, said:

^This.

HOWEVER,

If you did incorporate those elements, you realize that you would need to slightly shorten beam times for both IS and Clan lasers, right?

Not to mention, you would also need to shorten the clan AC burst time.

Hypothetically speaking, the shortened beam and burst times wouldn't be anything too severe, it would be just enough to match up with the newly incorporated crosshair and convergence mechanics.

beams wouldn't need to be shortened because lasers would still be pinpoint. That would be their advantage over ballistics. They're DoT but they're pinpoint accurate so no convergence delay for lasers.

[ReXspec]

Sandpit, on 07 August 2014 - 04:34 PM, said:

beams wouldn't need to be shortened because lasers would still be pinpoint. That would be their advantage over ballistics. They're DoT but they're pinpoint accurate so no convergence delay for lasers.

That still leaves the problem with Clan ballistics. Clan AC burst times would definitely need to be shortened.

[IraqiWalker]

ReXspec, on 07 August 2014 - 04:47 PM, said:

That still leaves the problem with Clan ballistics. Clan AC burst times would definitely need to be shortened.

The problem would be with IS ballistics, since they will still only fire one shot.

[ReXspec]

IraqiWalker, on 07 August 2014 - 04:48 PM, said:

The problem would be with IS ballistics, since they will still only fire one shot.

The IS ballistics would be able to fire one shot, but would kick harder, and have greater crosshair deviations as well as convergence-zeroing times as a result.

Edited by ReXspec, 07 August 2014 - 04:51 PM.

[Sandpit]

ReXspec, on 07 August 2014 - 04:47 PM, said:

That still leaves the problem with Clan ballistics. Clan AC burst times would definitely need to be shortened.

IraqiWalker, on 07 August 2014 - 04:48 PM, said:

The problem would be with IS ballistics, since they will still only fire one shot.

yea, see because clans are burst fire I wouldn't give them a convergence delay (same with IS omni mechs if they follow suit) OR I'd give them a smaller convergence delay to offset their burst fire. They already fire pretty fast, I think any speed up in that area would put them in a spot where they might as well be FLD weapons.

This would only affect FLD weapons
IS ACs
IS and Clan Gauss
IS and clan PPCs

[ReXspec]

Sandpit, on 07 August 2014 - 04:50 PM, said:

yea, see because clans are burst fire I wouldn't give them a convergence delay (same with IS omni mechs if they follow suit) OR I'd give them a smaller convergence delay to offset their burst fire. They already fire pretty fast, I think any speed up in that area would put them in a spot where they might as well be FLD weapons.

This would only affect FLD weapons
IS ACs
IS and Clan Gauss
IS and clan PPCs

Well, you wouldn't need to speed up Clan AC burst times THAT much. Only slightly to account for the new mechanics.

Again, this would call for fine-tuning with a scalpel, not a sledge-hammer.

[Sandpit]

ReXspec, on 07 August 2014 - 04:50 PM, said:

The IS ballistics would be able to fire one shot, but would kick harder,

that's the other part of it.

If chain fired I would never have it set up where a single weapon cause recoil. Anything above the equivalent of a single AC20 though would
Examples
AC10 + AC20 = recoil causing crosshairs to jump slightly
AC10 + AC10 = no recoil
AC5+AC5+AC5 = no recoil
AC20+AC20 = recoil

it could be set to a sliding scale as well. The more you pop off at any one time the bigger the recoil. Chain fire would negate that penalty. Lasers, again, have no recoil added to them in order to offset their heat and DoT mechanics.

I think this would create more diversity in builds, alleviate FLD, make lasers more desirable, and just balance the game overall. I'm jsut tired of all these complicated mechanics when there are MUCH simpler solutions to be had

[IraqiWalker]

ReXspec, on 07 August 2014 - 04:53 PM, said:

Well, you wouldn't need to speed up Clan AC burst times THAT much. Only slightly to account for the new mechanics.

Again, this would call for fine-tuning with a scalpel, not a sledge-hammer.

True, right now, what we're talking about is the sledge hammer, after that, we can worry about the scalpel and whether we'll need it or not.

Now if only PGI would implement this idea. (I wonder if multiple moving cross-hairs like what's proposed is possible with their coding?)

[Joseph Mallan]

Reno Blade, on 07 August 2014 - 02:19 PM, said:

So it is closer to a Flight sim with missile lock (or actual MWO LRM) just not the lock but the convergence.

Sounds a bit like in "Engarde" when Justin Allard tried to lock onto the Rifleman, but the woods made the targeting system unable to and he switched to manual aiming and fired without a "hard lock" of his weapons.

It would definitely help against the twitch-shooting element of these weapons, but it would not help against the power of these builds.
Of course if the convergence is depending on loadout, somehow...
Well, I don't know about the speed, but if we had the 6 reticules mentioned above converging like this, it could work.
Please excuse the bad animation.

Dude. I am a Alpha pilot. Have been for the better part of 30 years. I LOVE this visual suggestion. Now add in some bob and weave for movement and it will be perfect.

Jumping should have no bob and weave but some thruster shake to the arm side torso Reticules and we would have some serious awesome happening!

ReXspec, on 07 August 2014 - 04:53 PM, said:

Well, you wouldn't need to speed up Clan AC burst times THAT much. Only slightly to account for the new mechanics.

Again, this would call for fine-tuning with a scalpel, not a sledge-hammer.

How in the world do you fine tune without a 30 lbs Sledge???

[ReXspec]

IraqiWalker, on 07 August 2014 - 04:54 PM, said:

True, right now, what we're talking about is the sledge hammer, after that, we can worry about the scalpel and whether we'll need it or not.

Now if only PGI would implement this idea. (I wonder if multiple moving cross-hairs like what's proposed is possible with their coding?)

It is. Very much so, it is.

The coding for all of this is already there, it's just a question of whether P.G.I.'s has the competency or the will to implement it.

I know I've said this before, but I feel like I'm talking to a wall since we haven't heard a peep out of a single P.G.I. employee.

Joseph Mallan, on 07 August 2014 - 04:59 PM, said:

How in the world do you fine tune without a 30 lbs Sledge???

It's a figure of speech, Joe.

Although, I supposed "fine-tuning" when it comes to how a 'mech works is relative.

A sledgehammer can be seen as a scalpel in 'mech terms, and a pile-driver can be seen as a sledgehammer. lol

If you want to think of it that way, to each his own.

Edited by ReXspec, 07 August 2014 - 05:03 PM.

[Joseph Mallan]

Sandpit, on 07 August 2014 - 04:54 PM, said:

that's the other part of it.

If chain fired I would never have it set up where a single weapon cause recoil. Anything above the equivalent of a single AC20 though would
Examples
AC10 + AC20 = recoil causing crosshairs to jump slightly
AC10 + AC10 = no recoil
AC5+AC5+AC5 = no recoil
AC20+AC20 = recoil

it could be set to a sliding scale as well. The more you pop off at any one time the bigger the recoil. Chain fire would negate that penalty. Lasers, again, have no recoil added to them in order to offset their heat and DoT mechanics.

I think this would create more diversity in builds, alleviate FLD, make lasers more desirable, and just balance the game overall. I'm jsut tired of all these complicated mechanics when there are MUCH simpler solutions to be had

I would of course be happy with this suggestion, but also would be ok with some recoil with single ACs as well. I'm not stupid, any change that keeps me firing on target easier is of course preferred, I'm just a little more flexible when it comes to ballistic recoil is all.

ReXspec, on 07 August 2014 - 05:02 PM, said:

It is. Very much so, it is.

The coding for all of this is already there, it's just a question of whether P.G.I.'s has the competency or the will to implement it.

I know I've said this before, but I feel like I'm talking to a wall since we haven't heard a peep out of a single P.G.I. employee.



It's a figure of speech, Joe.

Although, I supposed "fine-tuning" when it comes to how a 'mech works is relative.

A sledgehammer can be seen as a scalpel in 'mech terms, and a pile-driver can be seen as a sledgehammer. lol

If you want to think of it that way, to each his own.

You know me... I like bringing a GAU 8 to go Squirrel hunting!

The only kill is Overkill baby!!!

[IraqiWalker]

Joseph Mallan, on 07 August 2014 - 05:05 PM, said:

The only kill is Overkill baby!!!

We need to go hunting together.

[Sandpit]

Joseph Mallan, on 07 August 2014 - 05:05 PM, said:

I would of course be happy with this suggestion, but also would be ok with some recoil with single ACs as well. I'm not stupid, any change that keeps me firing on target easier is of course preferred, I'm just a little more flexible when it comes to ballistic recoil is all.

I just see no need to penalize players who show some fire discipline with chain fire and such. By not having a recoil penalty for that, it encourages players to use those big alphas in last-ditch efforts instead of shooting every single weapon every single time as fast as they possibly can.

I don't "like" the ghost heat mechanic but I'm thankful for it because it helped me learn how to chain fire effectively, cycle my weapons, etc. so that I actually know when, where, how, and why I should shoot off alpha strikes and I rarely overheat even on terra and caustic with 5+LL boats.

Don't take that to mean I think ghost heat is a "good" mechanic though. I think there were tons of other, much less complicated, and more effective ways to scale the heat and use heat as a balancing mechanic.

[ReXspec]

Sandpit, on 07 August 2014 - 05:23 PM, said:

I just see no need to penalize players who show some fire discipline with chain fire and such. By not having a recoil penalty for that, it encourages players to use those big alphas in last-ditch efforts instead of shooting every single weapon every single time as fast as they possibly can.

I don't "like" the ghost heat mechanic but I'm thankful for it because it helped me learn how to chain fire effectively, cycle my weapons, etc. so that I actually know when, where, how, and why I should shoot off alpha strikes and I rarely overheat even on terra and caustic with 5+LL boats.

Don't take that to mean I think ghost heat is a "good" mechanic though. I think there were tons of other, much less complicated, and more effective ways to scale the heat and use heat as a balancing mechanic.

There are easier ways to learn firing and targeting discipline though... unfortunately, Paul chose the unnecesarily painful way of doing it.

Again, I'm still just worried that ALL this excellent feedback will be all for naught... that P.G.I. will just go off and do their own thing, and accentuate the horrendous cycles of nerfs, buffs, metas, and over-complication.

There NEEDS to be some sort of response to this feedback thread. Like I said before, I'd even take a vague statement from Niko at this point.

Why won't P.G.I. listen to us?

Edited by ReXspec, 07 August 2014 - 05:34 PM.