35 replies to this topic

[NocturnalBeast]

Idealsuspect, on 19 April 2015 - 01:59 PM, said:

If you can't follow your own topic plz don't open one anymore...

Whatever, I made a post in Feature Suggestions that I believe would improve gameplay in MWO. PGI can use this idea, or they can ignore it, that is their choice.

[Idealsuspect]

Ed Steele, on 19 April 2015 - 02:28 PM, said:

Whatever, I made a post in Feature Suggestions that I believe would improve gameplay in MWO. PGI can use this idea, or they can ignore it, that is their choice.

I can only agree with this oh in fact no ...

It will improve nothing ... most of people put ammo in same location than weapon .. if you don't do it man you should learn how build a loadout.
Peace isn't a bad idea cause it isn't an idea.

[Josef Koba]

While perhaps realistic, I can't say that I'd be behind such a change. Mostly for practical reasons: New players already have a bear of a time figuring out the myriad of game mechanics that aren't articulated at all. Adding such a thing would only complicate things for them. The weapon says it reloads in X time, and they'd expect it to do so. It might be cool if it could be implemented in a decent way, but I don't know if I would consider it that much of a priority. As has been mentioned, BT didn't care, and neither have any other games. I just think it would add complexity for complexity's sake.

[NocturnalBeast]

Idealsuspect, on 19 April 2015 - 03:22 PM, said:

I can only agree with this oh in fact no ...

It will improve nothing ... most of people put ammo in same location than weapon .. if you don't do it man you should learn how build a loadout.
Peace isn't a bad idea cause it isn't an idea.

I will just ignore the ignorant statement about my ability to build a loadout and you may want to look up the definition of an "idea" as well.

[NocturnalBeast]

Josef Koba, on 19 April 2015 - 03:39 PM, said:

While perhaps realistic, I can't say that I'd be behind such a change. Mostly for practical reasons: New players already have a bear of a time figuring out the myriad of game mechanics that aren't articulated at all. Adding such a thing would only complicate things for them. The weapon says it reloads in X time, and they'd expect it to do so. It might be cool if it could be implemented in a decent way, but I don't know if I would consider it that much of a priority. As has been mentioned, BT didn't care, and neither have any other games. I just think it would add complexity for complexity's sake.

This game is supposed to be a complex game. Also, constantly hearing about the poor, inept, incapable-of-adapting new player's plight is getting really old. I have gotten at least three or four people into MWO, two of which had never played any MW games before and they had little trouble figuring the game out. Yes, if you have never played MWO and you refuse to read PGI's beginner guides, or learn how to control your mech on the testing grounds, then I have no sympathy for you. Do people not remember, before everyone had the internet, when you would install a game and *gasp* had to read the manual before you could play it effectively?

Anyway, this thread has veered off topic, it was about an idea and I get that not everyone agrees that it is an idea that is worth using. This topic should probably be locked now before it becomes a 10 page trash-talking thread.

Edited by Ed Steele, 19 April 2015 - 06:48 PM.

[Idealsuspect]

Ed Steele, on 19 April 2015 - 06:40 PM, said:

I will just ignore the ignorant statement about my ability to build a loadout and you may want to look up the definition of an "idea" as well.

This "idea" can lead only to a reload malus time... never reload minus time i'am not against if it lead only to a malus that's all and it don't follow BT lore also a false good "idea" ( well not first time i see this "idea" ).

Edited by Idealsuspect, 19 April 2015 - 11:15 PM.

[NocturnalBeast]

Idealsuspect, on 19 April 2015 - 11:02 PM, said:

This "idea" can lead only to a reload malus time... never reload minus time i'am not against if it lead only to a malus that's all and it don't follow BT lore also a false good "idea" ( well not first time i see this "idea" ).

It would only be a malus / minus / negative / nerf, if you store your armor more than one hit location from the weapon. So:


Same location = bonus to reload time.

One location from weapon = no positive or negative

More than one location away from weapon = malus

[Idealsuspect]

Ed Steele, on 20 April 2015 - 08:36 AM, said:

It would only be a malus / minus / negative / nerf, if you store your armor more than one hit location from the weapon. So:


Same location = bonus to reload time.

One location from weapon = no positive or negative

More than one location away from weapon = malus

Damn he will never understand...

"Same location = bonus to reload time. "

But same location that's the basic configuration also you should considere than actual reload time are based on same location for ammo and weapon!!!
Also you can't have bonus time with this false good "idea" but only time malus if you put ammo in legs for example...

In fact you just want some buff thats all ... no game mechanic improvement or what... just you want a buff.
Ok i have big Qi i know but i am still a human, another human should understand obvious
rationnale argue.

Reread this ( 4 th time )

Idealsuspect, on 18 April 2015 - 08:40 PM, said:

You should consider that reload time isn't only time for load ammo but maybe time for load ammo AND other things ( maybe weapons internal system checklist between each shoot and/or others thing pinpoint recalibrate, targeting computer sync, cooling internal weapons systems ).

But maybe if weapon is 12 meters away from weapon it should add reload malus .. yea but i'am sure you only care about reload bonus time not reload malus...

Edited by Idealsuspect, 20 April 2015 - 12:49 PM.

[NocturnalBeast]

Idealsuspect, on 20 April 2015 - 12:25 PM, said:

Damn he will never understand...

"Same location = bonus to reload time. "

But same location that's the basic configuration also you should considere than actual reload time are based on same location for ammo and weapon!!!
Also you can't have bonus time with this false good "idea" but only time malus if you put ammo in legs for example...

In fact you just want some buff thats all ... no game mechanic improvement of what... just you want a buff.
Ok i have big Qi i know but i am still a human, another human should understand obvious
rationnale argue.

Reread this ( 4 th time )

FYI - I rarely put ammo in the same location as the weapon on my IS mechs, so this thread is not about me wanting to get a "buff". Really, I came up with this idea when I was thinking about how practically useless CASE is for IS mechs and if there was a way to make equipping CASE more desirable.

[9erRed]

Greetings all,

If we consider that all the ammo that feeds into each weapon system is processed along 'feed belts' from each location,
- as one location is near empty it 'links' to the next supply, forming a continuous belt, the last round in linked to the 1st of the next location.
- there is no delay!

This is not a weapon system that 'feeds' only 1 round as needed, it's belt fed, and the belt is NEVER empty until your 'out of ammo'.

9erRed

[Idealsuspect]

Ed Steele, on 20 April 2015 - 12:41 PM, said:

FYI - I rarely put ammo in the same location as the weapon on my IS mechs, so this thread is not about me wanting to get a "buff". Really, I came up with this idea when I was thinking about how practically useless CASE is for IS mechs and if there was a way to make equipping CASE more desirable.

Also is a bad method for made CASE more attractive ...
Bad cause ok 1 srms in head will have malus another smrs in arms with have no bonus and one smrs in torso will have bonus...Very interesting
But srms or ballistic weapon in head location are really rare isnt it... Also like you expect there will be more buff than nerf in cooldown. Obvious.

More than that ok IS people will put less ammo in legs and maybe buy one case for a componant full of ammo. But when this component is blow off your mech is like weaponless i will never do this even for win a little cooldown bonus..... Guess lots of veterans will do same.
And one more thing IS XL engine can't resist ammo explosion it will not change coze side torso is lost even CASE or not CASE cause ammo blew off the entiere component and also some engine slot >>> mech destroyed its a BT rule with IS engine.


Then clan mechs will get this " idea " like a total buff, they already hace CASE and clan XL engines they will only have a cooldown buff for ballistic and missiles weapons. OKOK false good "idea" ( i run only Clan mechs except CW for now ).
5th.

Edited by Idealsuspect, 20 April 2015 - 01:35 PM.

[NocturnalBeast]

9erRed, on 20 April 2015 - 01:20 PM, said:

Greetings all,

If we consider that all the ammo that feeds into each weapon system is processed along 'feed belts' from each location,
- as one location is near empty it 'links' to the next supply, forming a continuous belt, the last round in linked to the 1st of the next location.
- there is no delay!

This is not a weapon system that 'feeds' only 1 round as needed, it's belt fed, and the belt is NEVER empty until your 'out of ammo'.

9erRed

True, but take for example my Grasshopper, it has an SRM4 in the head and the ammo is in the foot, nearly 11 meters below. There are many actuators and joints along that 11 meter distance, which are moving most of the time. At the very least the ammo belts (which are not used for missiles) have a very good chance of binding, tangling, or failing in some other manner.

[9erRed]

Greetings,

The design and layout of 'Mechs and 'just how ammo is moved' needs a bit of BattleTech magic for some of the designs.

- We need to 'wave the hand' on areas that just couldn't pass ammo through there design or movement restrictions.

But the previous statement about feed guides and linked belts should still be correct. Even if it's missiles or ballistic ammo, its still 'processed' along all the linked storage locations it could be held in.
- Considering that a some point a small amount of ammo could be sitting between locations from the feet to the shoulders. But the game needs a set location to calculate collateral damage we never see the effect of 'linked ammo' all through the 'Mechs body.

9erRed

[NocturnalBeast]

Alright, I get that this is an unpopular idea that is unlikely to ever be implemented, so I will just say that it is 1037 year in the future tech that is beyond my comprehension and I will not waste any more of my time replying to this thread.

[bad arcade kitty]

Ed Steele, on 17 April 2015 - 09:39 AM, said:

For example, if your mech has an SRM launcher in its head and the ammo for the SRM launcher is in the mech's foot, then that launcher would reload more slowly

honestly i cannot imagine how it even loads from a foot to, say, an arm at all
there should be some very weird feeds across the robot body

[WonderSparks]

Ed Steele, on 20 April 2015 - 01:51 PM, said:

Alright, I get that this is an unpopular idea that is unlikely to ever be implemented, so I will just say that it is 1037 year in the future tech that is beyond my comprehension and I will not waste any more of my time replying to this thread.

I did not read all of the stuff prior to this post, but most of what I gather is the main antagonist you face in terms of the idea's popularity is a certain Suspect... who appears to be ignoring a lot of what is being said.
Maybe I am wrong. As I said, I did not feel like reading all of his walls of text, but I saw bits and pieces of what looked like unwarranted negativity.

In my opinion, the whole "ammo that is further away takes longer to reload" does make sense, although one might consider the possibility that the ammunition is theoretically already on its way to the weapon prior to firing? (Which makes no sense when the ammo is hit and explodes, where if the same hit landed but did not hit the ammo suddenly it is already in the breech; as 9erRed said, "BattleTech magic")

So yeah. It might never happen in this game, but I do agree that it sounds logical enough.