LordKnightFandragon, on 15 January 2015 - 03:56 PM, said:
The OP's suggestion? Prolly wouldnt solve all our issues, but it would prolly be a better step then leaving it the way we have it and just hoping one day everyone just goes along with this mostly fubar system.
Cry engine seems to be quite limited then...
not sure if it makes MWO into gausswarrior online and killing even more diversity this is probably not better. It cna be very small unseen things that totally change a lot more than you think, and probably with a huge impact that was not expected.
Alistair Winter, on 15 January 2015 - 04:12 PM, said:
Strange. Don't russians make that game? Would have thought russians understand a thing or two about tanks. I've barely played Warthunder, so I can't say too much about the game. But everyone who understands anything about tanks and cannons know that armour piercing discarding sabot rounds (APDS) are the weapon of choice against tanks. Slide one of those just where the turret meets the hull and watch the tank go boom.
Yeah, and whats happening inside the tank to cause it to go boom by using that there Kinetic energy shot? WT has it where an AP round with HE filler is best, as it penetrates then blows up and kills the ammo rack.
Kinda figured that is how Sabot does it to. Goes in with such speed and force that it pretty much has a similar effect..
LordKnightFandragon, on 15 January 2015 - 04:55 PM, said:
Yeah, and whats happening inside the tank to cause it to go boom by using that there Kinetic energy shot? WT has it where an AP round with HE filler is best, as it penetrates then blows up and kills the ammo rack.
Kinda figured that is how Sabot does it to. Goes in with such speed and force that it pretty much has a similar effect..
Well, I don't know anything about how tank ammunition worked in WW2. Much less tank busters launched from aircraft. But the ammo rack is probably going to explode anyway, if a solid rod of wolfram / tungsten is being pushed through the hull at about 1000 meters per second. Because that tends to create a lot of heat, which results in a cook off.
Alistair Winter, on 15 January 2015 - 05:01 PM, said:
Well, I don't know anything about how tank ammunition worked in WW2. Much less tank busters launched from aircraft. But the ammo rack is probably going to explode anyway, if a solid rod of wolfram / tungsten is being pushed through the hull at about 1000 meters per second. Because that tends to create a lot of heat, which results in a cook off.
Yeah, pretty much figured as such. Now to convince WT of that, then the King Tiger, M103 and other kinetic energy based guns can get proper buffs and the Damage model in taht game can come out of fantasy land......
Cuz pumping 120mm Rounds out of the M103 into a Jagdpanther...3, 4, 5, 6 hits and it not dying cuz #HEmasterrace......
LocationStill doing ungodly amount of damage, but with more accuracy.
Posted 15 January 2015 - 05:31 PM
Perhaps with proper convergence mechanic, as described by the OP, this game will finally feel a little close to a mech sim, and less like a regular FPS game.
Convergence is not the answer to PPFLD due to hit registration being harder to track when not all weapons are pointed at the cross hair and the fact that some gamer's don't like it when what they aim at they don't hit it at all dead center where the cross hairs are.
In the real world, weapons that are meant to be fired together into the same spot are converged at a certain distance. The old fighter planes mounted with many machine guns had their guns converge at a set distance that wasn't adjustable.
There's other ways to balance the game.
Changing weapons themselves so they easily spread damage on a moving target like what they did to the Clan AC's where they fire their damage in multiple bullets or Clan ERPPC splash damage to spread the damage to other area's.
In fact, the concept of forcing multiple shots being taken at a moving target works really well at spreading a players damage done to a mech. Heat scale doesn't do this however, it only punishes a few set amount of weapon groups from being fired together with either a small heat increase or large one depending on the weapon group used. It doesn't affect all groupings of weapons that still can shoot a large amount of damage into a single location.
I think alpha strike's should be damage based on receiving a heat scale penalty instead of weapon grouped based. So if a mech fires more damage than the highest damaging IS weapon in the game (the AC 20) at the same time it would receive a heat penalty based on how much more damage it was going to do. Depending on how much heat the mech gains after the alpha strike would determine how many alpha strikes a player can do in their mech. The heat cost should be high to make alpha strike's risky and rare to do in a short amount of time in combat. That would enforce player's to shoot their weapons one after another instead of all at the same time every moment they can. Having player's chain fire would increase the chances of spreading the damage on a moving target.
Forcing multiple shots taken would likely not work well with current quirk amounts because quirks already make it possible to shoot many times to catch up with high alpha PPFLD builds. Giving a larger DPS advantage.
added a convergence example to page 1,
showing how it could be implemented into MWO,
-Example-
(convergence1)
this is how MWO behaves right now when playing,
my solution is to make weapons target past the target location to simulate this Anti-convergence,
this would just be setting the distance to the location over again to the weapon for targeting,
so if an enemy is 200m away, your weapons instead target 400m past them(600m),
if an enemy is 100m away, your weapons instead target 200m past them(300m),
this gives the illusion of weapons Anti-convergence, but keeps it balanced,
-Example-
(convergence2)
this could also give the Skill for weapon convergence actually have meaning,
by cutting the distance down from x3 to x2, enemy at 200m weapons fire at +200m(400M),
I was around when you posted this the first time. It was good idea then and I think anyone with a bit of sense can see the current meta proves its even a better idea now. Keep arms with the small convergence, and put all torso mounted weapons in to a "circle".
Also I agree that its only 1 step to make things right stopping the weapon stacking issues has to be dealt with. No more 7 pulse lasers FFS please.
LordKnightFandragon, on 15 January 2015 - 01:41 PM, said:
Good, then they could get upscaled to where they should be.....
Actually it's the heavies, assaults and some mediums that need shrinking, not vice-versa.
8 to 14 meters.
Gargoyle, being one of the tallest mechs and exceeding 14 meters, is in BT shorter than MWO's Centurion. O.o;
--------
That said I thank Cavadus for this and I fully agree on it.
There would not be a cone of fire, no random circle. If you have a weapon assortment shaped like a triangle, it would hit like a triangle from that limb.
These two weapons are aligned in parallel.
At no physical point in time can they ever hit exactly the same spot without bending the barrels.
They form this shape
___O
O
And will hit the target in that shape, regardless of where the target is in its alignment.
This forms this shape:
O
O
And will hit the target in that shape, as it should and would in real life.
There is no guesswork. It's simple fact. Take two guns, connect them together on a tripod, and tell me if they ever intersect or cross paths. The answer is no. They can not and never will without bending the barrels or the origins of the weapons.
(Btw in response to someone else: not sure about WoT, but War Thunder has no circle either. Perfect pinpoint at all times, affected by how the machine is moving. Which is because if you have a vertical alignment of 30 degrees, your tank hitting a hill, bump, or any other incline will not change the barrel's alignment. It changes the entire tank's alignment, on which the barrel is adjusted by 30 degrees thus throwing your aim EXACTLY 30 degree from your tank, exactly where you were aiming. it's just you got adjusted. The aim was perfect. The surface you hit was not.)
Example with slower-fire autocannons.
(Skip to 7 minutes in.)
(Last edit, sorry about that bud.)
Senor Cataclysmo, on 15 January 2015 - 02:42 PM, said:
If the system is a little convoluted for people to understand without explanations, it would be very easy to build an explanation into the game's tutorial. You could even have it presented "in character" by someone representing a training officer explaining how to aim your mech's weapons, something I would love to see as part of the New Player Experience stuff thats supposed to be coming this year
This is your key failure.
We don't even have a tutorial for anyof CW. What's a unit? Who is FRR? What is a clan mech? Who are the clans? What am I doing? What can I defend or attack? How is a planet taken? Why do I need to choose 4 mechs? Why am I respawning now?
PGI's most consistent failure is assuming everyone who plays also thoroughly reads their twitter & this forum. MWO could be 20 times better if they ever bothered to exlpain the convoluted BattleTech & MWO systems.
For arm mounts? Yeah! Alright!
For torso?
It's @$#$%@ excruciating. Not balancing, excruciating to the point where torso mounts are near irrelevant and detrimental
We need some other sort of system.
Here, found my old idea
Burktross, on 25 December 2014 - 12:12 PM, said:
I think convergence should be implemented, but not a whole new thing that will literally revolutionize the way MWO is played.
Torso Mounted Weapons:
-Minimum convergence is decent
-Maximum convergence is never perfect.
-Convergence is slower
-less recoil.
Arm Mounted Weapons:
-Minimum Convergence is inaccurate
-Maximum convergence is near perfect
-Convergence is fast
-Most recoil
Actually it's the heavies, assaults and some mediums that need shrinking, not vice-versa.
8 to 14 meters.
Gargoyle, being one of the tallest mechs and exceeding 14 meters, is in BT shorter than MWO's Centurion. O.o;
--------
That said I thank Cavadus for this and I fully agree on it.
There would not be a cone of fire, no random circle. If you have a weapon assortment shaped like a triangle, it would hit like a triangle from that limb.
These two weapons are aligned in parallel.
At no physical point in time can they ever hit exactly the same spot without bending the barrels.
They form this shape
___O
O
And will hit the target in that shape, regardless of where the target is in its alignment.
This forms this shape:
O
O
And will hit the target in that shape, as it should and would in real life.
There is no guesswork. It's simple fact. Take two guns, connect them together on a tripod, and tell me if they ever intersect or cross paths. The answer is no. They can not and never will without bending the barrels or the origins of the weapons.
(Btw in response to someone else: not sure about WoT, but War Thunder has no circle either. Perfect pinpoint at all times, affected by how the machine is moving. Which is because if you have a vertical alignment of 30 degrees, your tank hitting a hill, bump, or any other incline will not change the barrel's alignment. It changes the entire tank's alignment, on which the barrel is adjusted by 30 degrees thus throwing your aim EXACTLY 30 degree from your tank, exactly where you were aiming. it's just you got adjusted. The aim was perfect. The surface you hit was not.)
Example with slower-fire autocannons.
(Skip to 7 minutes in.)
(Last edit, sorry about that bud.)
Yeah, I feel the bigger mechs should be scaled down to. Would prolly really help some mechs with thier hit boxes.
For arm mounts? Yeah! Alright!
For torso?
It's @$#$%@ excruciating. Not balancing, excruciating to the point where torso mounts are near irrelevant and detrimental
We need some other sort of system.
Here, found my old idea
Legions of guass cat, boom cat, phract, and thunderbolt whiners say otherwise.
Nathan Foxbane, on 15 January 2015 - 02:23 PM, said:
First OP I charge you with research failure. Nova Cat Prime has 3 ER Large Lasers in its left arm.
Second, no engineer is going to put a weapon in a fixed mount on something that big unless recoil demands it. The only weapons powerful to make that excuse in BT are heavy Gauss rifles and artillery pieces. Instead of using screws to adjust convergence to pilot taste on weapons like WWII fighters, they would be in housings able to automatically adjust for convergence within the weapon's effective range. The whole point of Artemis is to do the same with all the tubes on an LRM launcher. What good is a basic targeting computer (not the mountable equipment) in something so complex as a Battlemech if it cannot adjust for convergence?
Proper convergence in a game like this is a delay representing the time it takes for those weapons to align on target. We had just that. It was removed which is why we currently have an elite skill that does nothing. Not sure why it was removed, but it is a lot of calculations for so many weapons.
I actually think a several second delay to convergence with a CoF while on the move and/or without full targeting information would be an excellent solution.
I think removing convergence would make lights even more of a problem to hit.
They would be easier to hit, because firing multiple weapons mounted on different parts of the mech would create a tight buck shot effect at brawling ranges...more of a dispersed bird shot at intermediate ranges. You'd have a harder time alpha'ing any one part of a fast light, but you'd have higher hit rates for lower focused damage.
If you are really bad ass, you could fire clusters of weapons in succession and make slight adjustments to the placement of the aiming ring on the target for each shot.
Another benefit this idea provides is a reduction in the effectiveness of aim bots. The typical aim bit would just center the ring on the target, it wouldn't be able to account for more accurate shot placement because it has no idea where the various weapon mounts converge within the aim ring.
3
LordKnightFandragon, on 15 January 2015 - 03:56 PM, said:
