39 replies to this topic

[LORD ORION]

How to make MWO more awesome

1) No ghost heat for single geat sinks

2) Convergence, set the optimal convergence of weapon mounts by range.
Make convergence of weapons take time when putting the reticle over the target, and indicate on the crosshairs when weapons are fully converged.
The weapons cannot converge any better than the indicated distance.

Working example
AWS-8Q
LT/RT full convergence occurs at 540m (the point when these 2 weapons hit nearly the exact same spot)
It takes 2 seconds to fully converge these weapons by putting the reticle on the target.
You can fire sooner for more space between the weapon hits.
The weapons cannot converge and better than 540m, so if you put your reticle over a target at 300m for 2 seconds, convergence is increased, but shoots as if the target was at 540m.

In this manner you can use all sorts of useful tricks for variants to make them stand apart by converging different mounts at different ranges.

3) Increase chasis stats for carrying less armor (determine by armor weight).
Pretend this is why the stock builds are not always fully armored, they can turn / accelerate better, converge weapons faster, disipate heat more with less armor.
You can use ferro fibrous to design around these limits (eg: A reason to take ferro instead of endo steel... use certain amounts of space with improved chasis performance)

That is all, thanks for reading

Please provide feedback... I don't really care how you provide it, as long as it has some sort of example to consider.

Moronic responses that only include personal feelings without metrics will be promply flamed. This will probably happen to most to you...

[Mcgral18]

SHS aren't good enough to compete; there aren't any weapons that would benefit from missing GH when using SHS. They're too hot on their own (or SHS are simply too bad)

Progressive convergence was taxing with 16 mechs; 24 is simply too much to handle.

Punishing taking max armour? That's bad for TTK. Also, most of the good Clam robots come stock with max, while the less great ones come gimped (Fridge, Myth Lynx, Cute Fox, Thor), along with many of the IS ones (Jager, Banshee, Jenner, FS9)

Edited by Mcgral18, 05 August 2015 - 11:05 AM.

[Deathlike]

Mcgral18, on 05 August 2015 - 11:04 AM, said:

SHS aren't good enough to compete; there aren't any weapons that would benefit from missing GH when using SHS. They're too hot on their own (or SHS are simply too bad)

Back when discussing "DHS is a tax" thing, there were certain odd segments of the population that still thought SHS was useful for some reason.

I understand the niches and certain builds not needing it (no reason for a Gausscat for instance), but people were trying to defend their 4 LL/ERLL builds with a crapton of SHS on an Atlas-RS.

That's why I never take these people for balancing issues seriously. Bad designs are bad.

[Mcgral18]

Deathlike, on 05 August 2015 - 11:07 AM, said:

Back when discussing "DHS is a tax" thing, there were certain odd segments of the population that still thought SHS was useful for some reason.

I understand the niches and certain builds not needing it (no reason for a Gausscat for instance), but people were trying to defend their 4 LL/ERLL builds with a crapton of SHS on an Atlas-RS.

That's why I never take these people for balancing issues seriously. Bad designs are bad.

You do get better cooling with 40SHS than you do 20DHS, but you pay 30 extra tons for that.

[Trev Firestorm]

1) This would make shs desirable on a (very) few builds such as ac40 jager (maybe?) but I still think ghost heat in general is a terrible abomination that should be removed.

2) Convergence, instant is bad but 2 full seconds sounds overblown. Combine variant specific traits with this: http://mwomercs.com/...ost__p__4102770

3) Like the idea of adding tradeoffs for armor levels and making ferro something other than slapped onto a light mech for an extra half ton.

Edited by Trev Firestorm, 05 August 2015 - 11:20 AM.

[Deathlike]

Mcgral18, on 05 August 2015 - 11:15 AM, said:

You do get better cooling with 40SHS than you do 20DHS, but you pay 30 extra tons for that.

Sure. Forget the AC20. Let's go all laservomit!

[MeiSooHaityu]

Why have progressive convergence if it maxes out at a given range anyway? If my PPCs will slowly wander inward till they lock at 540m, why not set the convergence "fixed" at 540m. Still accomplishes the same thing, but I'm not watching multiple reticules (which would be especially confusing to new comers) meander to a point 540m away. Besides if variable convergence is taxing on the servers, maybe fixed convergence wouldn't be??? Don't know.

Even still, fixed convergence reshuffles the OP mechs a bit anyway, it doesn't really even the playing field. Mechs like the Thunderbolt with it's weapons tightly grouped together in a torso (and centered under the cockpit) isn't going to care as much about fixed or variable convergence as much as say a King Crab with it's gauss rifles far apart on the arms.

Its a nice thought, but it isn't an easy fix where one idea fixes all the big issues. This title is being a bit ambitious when it says it make MWO more awesome, it just creates different headaches.

Still, never hurts to brainstorm anyway.

Edited by MeiSooHaityu, 05 August 2015 - 11:22 AM.

[Felicitatem Parco]

Dynamic convergence requires the HSR system to constantly perform rewind checks throughout the entire convergence process, just as if you had a laser with a burn-time that lasted as long as your reticile is on target. This created too much network traffic, so dynamic convergence was removed from the game when HSR was implemented.

Also, dropping 5 tons of armor and replacing it with a LL should not grant any agility boosts. The only way you could suggest "performance enhancements" by dropping weight is just that - by dropping weight and entering the match undertonned. The developers have shunned this idea because it's not BattleTechy enough for them.

[LORD ORION]

MeiSooHaityu, on 05 August 2015 - 11:20 AM, said:

Why have progressive convergence if it maxes out at a given range anyway? If my PPCs will slowly wander inward till they lock at 540m, why not set the convergence "fixed" at 540m. Still accomplishes the same thing, but I'm not watching multiple reticules (which would be especially confusing to new comers) meander to a point 540m away. Besides if variable convergence is taxing on the servers, maybe fixed convergence wouldn't be??? Don't know.

Even still, fixed convergence reshuffles the OP mechs a bit anyway, it doesn't really even the playing field. Mechs like the Thunderbolt with it's weapons tightly grouped together in a torso (and centered under the cockpit) isn't going to care as much about fixed or variable convergence as much as say a King Crab with it's gauss rifles far apart on the arms.

Its a nice thought, but it isn't an easy fix where one idea fixes all the big issues. This title is being a bit ambitious when it says it make MWO more awesome, it just creates different headaches.

Still, never hurts to brainstorm anyway.

You got that backwards... weapons will converge on the target as if it is at 540m in the example. So until the target is 540m or further away, max convergence cannot be reached (when LT/RT PPCs hit the same spot). The closer the target than 540m, the less benefit of convergence.

Edited by LORD ORION, 05 August 2015 - 11:33 AM.

[Deathlike]

LORD ORION, on 05 August 2015 - 11:32 AM, said:

You got that backwards... weapons will converge on the target as if it is at 540m in the example. So until the target is 540m or further away, max convergence cannot be reached (when LT/RT PPCs hit the same spot). The closer the target than 540m, the less benefit of convergence.

As much as that would "sound great", PGI's netcode has trouble with long range projectiles converging on the same spot at times, and factoring distance only exacerbates the issue.

[LORD ORION]

Prosperity Park, on 05 August 2015 - 11:24 AM, said:

Also, dropping 5 tons of armor and replacing it with a LL should not grant any agility boosts. The only way you could suggest "performance enhancements" by dropping weight is just that - by dropping weight and entering the match undertonned. The developers have shunned this idea because it's not BattleTechy enough for them.

[redacted]
Adding 5 tons of armor to a stock build should decrease performance. Which is the actual way to word it.

Edited by Marvyn Dodgers, 05 August 2015 - 03:41 PM.
Unconstructive

[LORD ORION]

Deathlike, on 05 August 2015 - 11:35 AM, said:

As much as that would "sound great", PGI's netcode has trouble with long range projectiles converging on the same spot at times, and factoring distance only exacerbates the issue.

Sounds like projectiles are the problem.

We all know Dual Gauss builds have no problem murduring mechs by poking and hitting the same area if the chasis geometry allows it.

More velocity for less convergence. Tradeoffs etc...

Should probably just turn projectiles into a mock lasers anyways considering the number of people using hacks in this game (PGI knoiws, and they do nothing because it would tank their business, except when the mobs with pitchforks come out and scapegoats need to be made).

Delay of fire the more range of target

Target at 500m? You have a 500ms delay on the gun before the "laser" bullet flies out
Target at 1009m? You have a1000ms delay on the gun before the "laser" bullet flies out.

[Deathlike]

LORD ORION, on 05 August 2015 - 11:43 AM, said:

Sounds like projectiles are the problem.

We all know Dual Gauss builds have no problem murduring mechs by poking and hitting the same area if the chasis geometry allows it.

More velocity for less convergence. Tradeoffs etc...

I don't think you get the point that it affects all builds, including the ever popular dual Gauss ones, vs even stationary/slow mechs like Dire Wolves at point blank.

It's freaking magical.

Edited by Deathlike, 05 August 2015 - 11:53 AM.

[TyphonCh]

Mcgral18, on 05 August 2015 - 11:04 AM, said:

SHS aren't good enough to compete; there aren't any weapons that would benefit from missing GH when using SHS. They're too hot on their own (or SHS are simply too bad)

Too hot, and too bad. There is currently no reason to not upgrade to DHS. It's a c-bill sink, and should be up there on the list of 'reworks' with FF <-> Endo, and skill trees.

Edited by Team Chevy86, 05 August 2015 - 11:46 AM.

[Elizander]

You know the old convergence system was pretty horrible. It took awhile to converge on the crosshair but you have to lead your shots if you use projectiles so the crosshair converges at the wrong distance.

[CDLord HHGD]

You've got some interesting ideas. I love the no GH for SHS one. Still won't make them better than DHS, but it's anti-meta and that pleases me.

[Elizander]

cdlord, on 05 August 2015 - 11:47 AM, said:

You've got some interesting ideas. I love the no GH for SHS one. Still won't make them better than DHS, but it's anti-meta and that pleases me.

I previously suggested making SHS a little less horrible by boosting them up to 1.25-1.4 in the engine because all our old trial mechs had SHS in the past.

[MeiSooHaityu]

LORD ORION, on 05 August 2015 - 11:32 AM, said:

You got that backwards... weapons will converge on the target as if it is at 540m in the example. So until the target is 540m or further away, max convergence cannot be reached (when LT/RT PPCs hit the same spot). The closer the target than 540m, the less benefit of convergence.

So if I understand, you basically have a minimum range for convergence? In your example, anything at 540m and farther can have pinpoint convergence if you wait long enough, but anything under 540m would never achieve convergence (weapons would only pull in tight enough for a 540m target)?

The only real problem is that most players complaints are of getting pegged at range with a high alpha. Its one of the reasons ballistics ranges were reduced, Forrest Colony is so dark, and Heat and Night vision stinks so bad (especially heat). It still leaves that major issue open (although slower convergence would make it a bit harder to do)

Besides, a mech like the Thunderbolt I mentioned above would hardly care. If you have a tight bundle of 3 weapons, even at close range with no convergence, there is still a good chance they are striking the same location on an enemy mech. All three weapons are originating from one location, their convergence distance they need to travel is very small, it gives that load out a huge advantage over mechs with spread out hard points.

That's if variable convergence is even possible (since Prosperity pointed out it might not be with the HSR system in place).

Don't get me wrong, its good that people are always thinking about this, but it is a complicated issue and there are no easy answers.

Edited by MeiSooHaityu, 05 August 2015 - 11:52 AM.

[Trev Firestorm]

LORD ORION, on 05 August 2015 - 11:36 AM, said:

Why because you're a functionally illiterate moron?
Adding 5 tons of armor to a stock build should decrease performance. Which is the actual way to word it.

Totally uncalled for, also he makes a good point, 5 tons of armor vs 5 tons of laser is still 5 tons. I'd like the idea of making FF worthwhile in some way but pointing out 'weight is weight' is valid here.

[LORD ORION]

Trev Firestorm, on 05 August 2015 - 12:12 PM, said:

Totally uncalled for, also he makes a good point, 5 tons of armor vs 5 tons of laser is still 5 tons. I'd like the idea of making FF worthwhile in some way but pointing out 'weight is weight' is valid here.

Did you have anything to add? It doesn't really sound like it but Im not sure.

5 tons of armor for less chasis performance.
5 tons of equipement/weapons and less armor for more chasis performance.

[redacted]

Edited by Marvyn Dodgers, 05 August 2015 - 03:42 PM.
Unconstructive