Jump to content

Band-**** And How To Kiss It Better


3 replies to this topic

#1 Veev

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 251 posts
  • LocationWhere ever I am

Posted 07 August 2015 - 07:34 AM

I am not a fan of the band **** that PGI has been using on MWO since its inception. Can we please replace the band **** with something that follows the "keep it simple stupid" methodology?

Weapon convergence is something that should be in game. I know the premise scares a lot of people. MWO tried auto weapon convergence and upset a lot of people. That combined with some designed limitations, such as delayed fire on ballistics and missiles combined with poor coding that caused your shot to head towards where you were aiming when it was originally fired instead of where you were at the current time.

What I propose is so simple it will scare you. It also supports role warfare. Set your weapon convergence in the Mechbay.
If you want to brawl you set your weapon convergence at 200 meters. That means your weapons will be pin point accurate at 200 meters and less so before and after that.
For your mid rangers they set it at 400 meters and it means at 200 meters the weapon in right arm will shoot past them completely while the weapon in the right arms hits the center torso.
Sniper builds set it where-ever they want to engage at.

Bada bing bada boom. We just increased TTK. We got rid of the need for Ghost heat and Gauss delay. We also added to role warfare.

To make it more interesting PGI can add a mechanic that adds auto convergence, but it has some limitations and costs tonnage and slots to implement.

#2 FlipOver

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Bad Company
  • 1,135 posts
  • LocationIsland Continent of Galicia, Poznan

Posted 07 August 2015 - 07:41 AM

For something like that to work and not scare away new players, there would be the need for auto-convergence.
If PGI makes auto-convergence work, then all those options would be just that, option a player could chose from to better setup his machine.

I like it.

#3 Tarogato

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Civil Servant
  • Civil Servant
  • 6,557 posts
  • LocationUSA

Posted 07 August 2015 - 07:59 AM

You do realise what we have now... is "auto convergence", right? It's what is in the game right now. All weapons "automatically" "converge" on the point that your reticle is aimed at, instantly. Auto-convergence.

What I want to see is delayed convergence, or non-instant convergence. Convergence over time. Which I believe was in beta.

Edited by Tarogato, 07 August 2015 - 08:00 AM.


#4 Veev

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 251 posts
  • LocationWhere ever I am

Posted 07 August 2015 - 10:10 AM

View PostTarogato, on 07 August 2015 - 07:59 AM, said:

You do realise what we have now... is "auto convergence", right? It's what is in the game right now. All weapons "automatically" "converge" on the point that your reticle is aimed at, instantly. Auto-convergence.

What I want to see is delayed convergence, or non-instant convergence. Convergence over time. Which I believe was in beta.

It was played with a little bit during open beta. Other problems made people angry at the delayed convergence. Most of them did not realize what it was that was creating the problems. *Firing delays on ballistics and failure of the software to update tracking trajectory data*
What I am discussing is delayed convergence and boosts to auto convergence based on tonnage spent. Think targeting computer.
I am also discussing what the alternative to that would be.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users