35 replies to this topic

[NocturnalBeast]

The reload time for ballistic / missile weapons should be modified by the distance (amount of critical spaces / locations) between the weapon and the ammo for the weapon. 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 than an SRM launcher mounted in the same location as the ammo for it. This would make CASE worth taking on IS mechs

If my suggested change is ever implemented, then CASE should be modified to protect XL engines from ammo explosions if the ammo is in the same location as an XL critical slot and CASE.

[NocturnalBeast]

No comments good or bad? Come on guys, I thought you were all about buffing / nerfing things and this addresses one of the silliest aspects of the game (in my opinion).

[Astarot]

Really there is no comment at all, I doubt there will ever be one. A: The battletech TT didn't care about where the ammo was located to reload and B: No other mechwarrior/mech commander game cared where the ammo was loaded either.

[Kenyon Burguess]

the suggestion of one location away from the launcher limitations was brought up a few times in alpha, beta, and in tabletop itself. nothing has ever come from the discussions.

[Astarot]

The question is always. "Will this mechanic be fun for other players?"

Honestly, I don't think it will, plus I suspect it will be a ***** to program.

[NocturnalBeast]

Astarot, on 18 April 2015 - 12:02 PM, said:

The question is always. "Will this mechanic be fun for other players?"

Honestly, I don't think it will, plus I suspect it will be a ***** to program.

I agree that it should not be a top priority, but it makes sense. If the ammo is 12 meters away from the weapon and has to be routed through joints and around components, it seems kind of ridiculous that it would reach the weapon instantly, if at all.

[sycocys]

Not a bad idea, but pgi's programmers would honestly never be able to pull it off.

[Omi_]

Hypothetically speaking, it should be possible. PGI currently has weapons draw ammunition from specific critical slots at a time, so having the reload rate of the weapon be based on the component of said ammo critical should be a natural extension of the system. PGI has created much tougher bits to date than this (such as the matchmaker).

[B L O O D W I T C H]

just think of podspace in the legs as 2 slots which are connected to the legs form the torso, not 2 slot IN the actual leg.

[Idealsuspect]

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

The reload time for ballistic / missile weapons should be modified by the distance (amount of critical spaces / locations) between the weapon and the ammo for the weapon.

AC2 reload time isn't fast enough for ya ?

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...

You ask for comment you have mine


And for CASE in XL engine side torson one idea... don't put ammo into... or take standard engine. Simple and no changes requiered.

[NocturnalBeast]

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

AC2 reload time isn't fast enough for ya ?

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...

You ask for comment you have mine


And for CASE in XL engine side torson one idea... don't put ammo into... or take standard engine. Simple and no changes requiered.

My point was that any weapon which uses ammo, should reload more slowly the farther away from that weapon that the ammo is stored. I also think that if you are willing to risk putting your ammo in the same location as your weapon (if possible), that you should be rewarded by having a faster-than-normal reload time.

Also, I am well aware of how engines and ammo work in this game, I have played since early in closed beta, but if you have ever read some of my other posts, I have historically advocated adding more "realism" to MWO.

sycocys, on 18 April 2015 - 07:22 PM, said:

Not a bad idea, but pgi's programmers would honestly never be able to pull it off.

Well, if they keep hearing people say that they are inept, they will be less likely to try.

Edited by Ed Steele, 18 April 2015 - 09:55 PM.

[sycocys]

Or maybe they will stop wasting money on 3-d printers and hire more competent programmers.

Things like lbx ammo modifications are dead to improvement because the guy who programmed it left the company = they are staffed with people that can't read code well enough to go back and sort it out.

Also the same reason we have such a simple CW and no actual game mode additions since just after going live. The guys they have just aren't very good programmers, I'm sure they don't want to hear that but its the unfortunate truth.

Edited by sycocys, 18 April 2015 - 10:17 PM.

[NocturnalBeast]

sycocys, on 18 April 2015 - 10:14 PM, said:

Or maybe they will stop wasting money on 3-d printers and hire more competent programmers.

Things like lbx ammo modifications are dead to improvement because the guy who programmed it left the company = they are staffed with people that can't read code well enough to go back and sort it out.

Also the same reason we have such a simple CW and no actual game mode additions since just after going live. The guys they have just aren't very good programmers, I'm sure they don't want to hear that but its the unfortunate truth.

It is sad that they have lost one of their most talented programmers, especially since I would like to see them get Clan LBxs working they way they should (with toggle mode) and I hope that they will get back to it some day. I also agree that professional programmers should be documenting all of their code so that if they leave the company, other people can know what they were doing. I am far from a programmer, but I did take programming in college and we did more flowcharts, pseudocode and documentation than actual coding (which is done so others can pick up where you left off).

[Idealsuspect]

Well i'am not sure you had take time for read my post... anyway

Ed Steele, on 18 April 2015 - 09:56 PM, said:

My point was that any weapon which uses ammo, should reload more slowly the farther away from that weapon that the ammo is stored. I also think that if you are willing to risk putting your ammo in the same location as your weapon (if possible), that you should be rewarded by having a faster-than-normal reload time.

What is the risk to put ammo in weapon location ? Most of weapons are in arms or side torso, it's less risky to put ammo in central torso, head or legs in your opinion?

For my part i always put ammo in weapon location, i don't wanna take risk to blow of my left side torso energy weapons with ammo explosion in my left arm or left leg and keep my AC-5 in right arm but no ammo left Right ?

Ed Steele, on 18 April 2015 - 09:56 PM, said:

Also, I am well aware of how engines and ammo work in this game, I have played since early in closed beta, but if you have ever read some of my other posts, I have historically advocated adding more "realism" to MWO.

Yea nice for you, me too i play since closed beta, did all mech game since 20 year including computers games, tableboard game and even paper RPG game in this universe.
Well i even created my own paper RPG of this game with economical/strategy work about innersphere map.. ( look like CW in fact but for RPG or tableboard like RISK game ).

Ed Steele, on 18 April 2015 - 09:56 PM, said:

Well, if they keep hearing people say that they are inept, they will be less likely to try.

Yep you are true, they aren't incompetent for my part.
But they take some bad ways specially about new players to this game ( theirs futurs customers ) in CW for example PUGs are still rollstomped by large premades like they were in regular for 2 full years...

Well anyway they don't want understand cause of that, this game will be played only by hardcore battletech fans in futur and not large public this universe deserve...



And it's just one example... we should talk about lack of real tutorials too or lack about real voice ip for 3 years.. And what about poor maps design in some mode ( alpine for example ) also about poor spawn location for assaut lance in some maps and lots of others things.

Edited by Idealsuspect, 19 April 2015 - 10:02 AM.

[NocturnalBeast]

Idealsuspect, on 19 April 2015 - 08:46 AM, said:

Well i'am not sure you had take time for read my post... anyway


What is the risk to put ammo in weapon location ? Most of weapons are in arms or side torso, it's less risky to put ammo in central torso, head or legs in your opinion?

For my part i always put ammo in weapon location, i don't wanna take risk to blow of my left side torso energy weapons with ammo explosion in my left arm or left leg and keep my AC-5 in right arm but no ammo left Right ?




Yea nice for you, me too i play since closed beta, did all mech game since 20 year including computers games, tableboard game and even paper RPG game in this universe.
Well i even created my own paper RPG of this game with economical/strategy work about innersphere map.. ( look like CW in fact but for RPG or tableboard like RISK game ).



Yep you are true, they aren't incompetent for my part.
But they take some bad ways specially about new players to this game ( theirs futurs customers ) in CW for example PUGs are still rollstomped by large premades like they were in regular for 2 full years...

Well anyway they don't want understand cause of that, this game will be played only by hardcore battletech fans in futur and not large public this universe deserve...



And it's just one example... we should talk about lack of real tutorials too or lack about real voice ip for 3 years.. And what about poor maps design in some mode ( alpine for example ) also about poor spawn location for assaut lance in some maps and lots of others things.

Incase you did not read my earlier posts, I did say that this should not be a top priority, it should just be on the list of priorities. I would like to see map updates, knockdowns, melee, better physics...etc. We do not need better tutorials, there are videos everywhere and testing grounds where you can practice all day long.

[Idealsuspect]

Damn people are strange, like talking to a wall...

Idealsuspect, on 19 April 2015 - 08:46 AM, said:

Yep you are true, they aren't incompetent for my part.

And you feel like i didn't read you
OK also

Idealsuspect, on 19 April 2015 - 08:46 AM, said:

No you are wrong

Happy?


Anyway
Weapon Reload Time Vs Ammo Location

is stupid ...

Edited by Idealsuspect, 19 April 2015 - 10:45 AM.

[Kissamies]

I wouldn't mind this. I have thought of this idea as well. As an additional idea I think the launchers should use the ammo that's closest to them first. When I was mastering the Adders, I was running the stock Adder variant that has LRMs and the ammo for them in its arms. Several times I had one of the arms blown off just to discover all of my unused ammo went with it. So both of the launchers were using ammo from the one arm first. That really makes no sense and is bad for redundancy.

[NocturnalBeast]

Kissamies, on 19 April 2015 - 11:44 AM, said:

I wouldn't mind this. I have thought of this idea as well. As an additional idea I think the launchers should use the ammo that's closest to them first. When I was mastering the Adders, I was running the stock Adder variant that has LRMs and the ammo for them in its arms. Several times I had one of the arms blown off just to discover all of my unused ammo went with it. So both of the launchers were using ammo from the one arm first. That really makes no sense and is bad for redundancy.

Yes, I agree that launchers should use the ammo closest to them first as well. If PGI ever implements my idea, then adding your idea would not take much additional programming.

[NocturnalBeast]

Idealsuspect, on 19 April 2015 - 10:43 AM, said:

Damn people are strange, like talking to a wall...




And you feel like i didn't read you
OK also


Happy?


Anyway
Weapon Reload Time Vs Ammo Location

is stupid ...

It is an idea that would add "realism". Please give intelligent reasons why it is a bad idea, other than devs being taken away from other tasks to implement this idea. If you just want to put your fingers in your ears and say "nya nya", go ahead you will just look like a douche.

Edited by Ed Steele, 19 April 2015 - 01:51 PM.

[Idealsuspect]

Ed Steele, on 19 April 2015 - 01:51 PM, said:

It is an idea that would add "realism". Please give intelligent reasons why it is a bad idea, other than devs being taken away from other tasks to implement this idea. If you just want to put your fingers in your ears and say "nya nya", go ahead you will just look like a douche.

I did it with first post, 3 posts later you even don't understand what we are talking about also read this i didn't change mind also no need to rewrite it.

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

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

The reload time for ballistic / missile weapons should be modified by the distance (amount of critical spaces / locations) between the weapon and the ammo for the weapon.

AC2 reload time isn't fast enough for ya ?

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...

You ask for comment you have mine

.... You look like a douche too when you don't read.

----------------------------------------------------------
Argue about devs was respond from another question from

sycocys, on 18 April 2015 - 10:14 PM, said:

Or maybe they will stop wasting money on 3-d printers and hire more competent programmers.

Things like lbx ammo modifications are dead to improvement because the guy who programmed it left the company = they are staffed with people that can't read code well enough to go back and sort it out.

Also the same reason we have such a simple CW and no actual game mode additions since just after going live. The guys they have just aren't very good programmers, I'm sure they don't want to hear that but its the unfortunate truth.

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