209 replies to this topic

[Big Tin Man]

Nik Reaper, on 14 September 2015 - 12:11 PM, said:

Interesting point, but wouldn't that make jesus box the best thing ever and/or force everyone to mount a tag just to be able to fire at things at more than 300m range?

If the jeebus box gets nerfed down to 90m as Paul had previously hinted at, it may not be quite the issue any longer.

@Rebas: increasing ghost heat... come on man, you've been around long enough to chase the meta's tail for quite some time. This does nothing to fix the importance of lights going out and scouting, holding targets, etc.

[Rebas Kradd]

wanderer, on 14 September 2015 - 12:46 PM, said:

So, tell me. How does making laservomit hotter make your sensor perks worth anything?

Sensor perks will be useless as long as they match up with weapon ranges. Anything a player sees at 600m without a blue dorito will simply get shot at by the player, convergence or no. That's basic player behavior.

If you want to validate the sensor game, my link contains my 7-step proposal, starting with doubling sensor ranges so info can actually get looked at before engagements.

Unfortunately, making scouting an actual role is not going to be simple and will require a lot of work, because more than half of MWO's gameplay elements (including maps and gamemode design) are working against info warfare right now.

Edited by Rebas Kradd, 14 September 2015 - 12:56 PM.

[Tahawus]

This also reduces the other p2w factor of people with ultra spec machines being able to snipe from further than us mere mortals can see. Also reduces the incentive to play games with gamma settings.

Now that I think about it, it probably also reduces the effectiveness of wall hacks.

[Tahawus]

Have to call bs on the hsr argument, if it can handle the spread of the lbx weapons, it can handle this.

[Anyone00]

Tahawus, on 14 September 2015 - 12:57 PM, said:

Have to call bs on the hsr argument, if it can handle the spread of the lbx weapons, it can handle this.

Could be bs, could be valid: very few of us have worked or seen the (possibly somewhat tangled mess) of the game's net code.

[Tahawus]

It certainly indicates that the ability to handle semi randomly perturbated oblects moving in a spreading cone over distance can be managed.

[Hans Von Lohman]

I like this idea

[Pjwned]

I do like that idea, but if convergence is tied to target locks then ECM will become even more broken than it already is if ECM is also not changed.

[Big Tin Man]

Rebas Kradd, on 14 September 2015 - 12:53 PM, said:

Sensor perks will be useless as long as they match up with weapon ranges. Anything a player sees at 600m without a blue dorito will simply get shot at by the player, convergence or no. That's basic player behavior.

If you want to validate the sensor game, my link contains my 7-step proposal, starting with doubling sensor ranges so info can actually get looked at before engagements.

Unfortunately, making scouting an actual role is not going to be simple and will require a lot of work, because more than half of MWO's gameplay elements (including maps and gamemode design) are working against info warfare right now.

If a Timmy wants to build up its heat and laser vomit all over my mech, spreading ineffective damage over 5 sections while I close in to punch it in the face, or my other lance is flanking and about to start brawling with them, that's fine with me. The current basic behavior on shooting any enemy within 600m is based upon inflicting pinpoint damage on the mech, and all shots landing. Removing convergence on untargeted mechs will increase TTK.

Knowing that your damage is going to be spread everywhere, that you're building unnecessary heat and that you're wasting ammo, will fight the urge to fire at anything that isn't your own team. Top players will figure out when to shoot to suppress because they'll have time to cool, and when to wait the additional couple seconds for a lock and to apply focused damage because the brawl is about to start. Heat generated due to spread damage will be a bigger deal as this will increase TTK.

This whole idea does rely on lights receiving sensor/stealth buffs above and beyond all other mechs. Sensor ranges and lock times of other mechs will need tweaking, but isn't that what this is all about?

And yes, for scouts and those holding targets for mechs that cannot "see" them, locked target damage similar to the LRM target spotting/tag assist c-bill bonus will need to become a thing, and rewarded better than the current payout.

This whole idea covers the first 3 steps of your program Rebas, just not to the extent you wrote. As far as changing maps and gamemodes... that's for another day.

[wanderer]

Quote

Anything a player sees at 600m without a blue dorito will simply get shot at by the player, convergence or no. That's basic player behavior.

That's great. Without direct convergence, they're firing iron-sighted shots at a target and will have to be lucky to -hit- with half their weapons, much less accurately aim them at a single point.

Amusingly enough,the current sensor suite of a base heavy chassis is 500m.

If unlocked, they'd be firing those big guns either at a point over a thousand meters behind the target, or about 100m off-target, or some point in between (if it's based on equipped weapons). Doubling those sensor ranges as per your suggestion means even the worst base sensor range would be 1000m- and 2000m for lights, even before module and BAP bonuses.

On the other hand, that -scout- has a base sensor range of twice that. They're the eyes that let the heavy fire accurately, if they can keep them on-target and acquired quickly. With sensor quirks, 'Mechs may very well end up "farsighted", "nearsighted", or "better than 20/20" depending on their target-acquisition...and with a change like this, that red lockbox matters for everyone.

[Deathlike]

Not that this couldn't work, but I don't believe PGI is capable of producing the code to make this possible.

[CDLord HHGD]

Anyone00, on 14 September 2015 - 01:08 PM, said:

Could be bs, could be valid: very few of us have worked or seen the (possibly somewhat tangled mess) of the game's net code.

Looks fine to me!

[wanderer]

Quote

Not that this couldn't work, but I don't believe PGI is capable of producing the code to make this possible.

MWO already gives you range-to-red-box as it is, constantly.

Whatever red box you lock onto becomes your convergence point. If not, it reverts to one of the suggested defaults instead, immediately.

Or, to put it simply, it'll converge just like normal if you have a locked target. If not, your guns are "iron sighted"- firing as if there was nothing there save the usual distant point they're aimed at when aimed at nothing at all. While this means you won't have perfect convergence (obviously) it'll mean your guns perform predictably when not locked on.

Both are already part of the game. The significant changes are that convergence won't change if you're tracking across unlocked targets, terrain, etc. and that if you fire with a target locked and don't hit the target, shots will still converge at that range.

[quantaca]

Big Tin Man, on 14 September 2015 - 11:20 AM, said:

Agreed that it doesn't have to be infinity, but differing convergence for mixed loadouts may be tough to code, max sensor range is strange to explain and remember as it's different from mech to mech (and modules affect this), but just shooting in a straight line without a target is pretty simple and really pacifies the OMG immersion crowd.

Simple may be better.

Well you could have a fixed point say 500m for clans and 300 for IS what would be even cooler but would require some mechlab UI adjustments as well woud be if we could set that (primary fixed) convergence point ourselves

[Deathlike]

wanderer, on 14 September 2015 - 02:19 PM, said:

MWO already gives you range-to-red-box as it is, constantly.

Whatever red box you lock onto becomes your convergence point. If not, it reverts to one of the suggested defaults instead, immediately.

Or, to put it simply, it'll converge just like normal if you have a locked target. If not, your guns are "iron sighted"- firing as if there was nothing there save the usual distant point they're aimed at when aimed at nothing at all. While this means you won't have perfect convergence (obviously) it'll mean your guns perform predictably when not locked on.

Both are already part of the game. The significant changes are that convergence won't change if you're tracking across unlocked targets, terrain, etc. and that if you fire with a target locked and don't hit the target, shots will still converge at that range.

While true, but the problem is its interaction with HSR... especially at higher pings, will be far more chaotic.

[Tennex]

Well, this would make ballistics, laser weapons just as dependent on visual targetting acquisition as much as Missiles. So at least it would level that playing field.

Maybe if this change went in they will finally reconsider how OP ECM is.

[Hans Von Lohman]

Pjwned, on 14 September 2015 - 01:16 PM, said:

I do like that idea, but if convergence is tied to target locks then ECM will become even more broken than it already is if ECM is also not changed.

Easy. Just make ECM work into information warfare as well. Make the ECM coverage field a lock on delay feature instead of a lock on prevention feature.

quantaca, on 14 September 2015 - 02:21 PM, said:

Well you could have a fixed point say 500m for clans and 300 for IS what would be even cooler but would require some mechlab UI adjustments as well woud be if we could set that (primary fixed) convergence point ourselves

Or let it be fixed when you get a mech (say at infinity), but user defined ranges for each mech when you unlock the currently useless Elite Skill of Weapon Convergence.

[Hans Von Lohman]

Deathlike, on 14 September 2015 - 02:24 PM, said:

While true, but the problem is its interaction with HSR... especially at higher pings, will be far more chaotic.

Isn't that a good thing though? I mean the entire idea here is to promote getting lock-ons even in situations you don't need one right now.

If HSR becomes a problem when trying to hit the enemy without a lock-on, wouldn't that make people really, really want that lock on really, really badly?

If you want a lock on badly, then good and fast lock-ons provided by the new information warfare superiority is also something you want really badly as well.

Or is my logic flawed here?

[Sythe]

wanderer, on 14 September 2015 - 10:39 AM, said:

Convergence focuses on a point at maximum range unless pointing at a locked target in LOS..

Sure as long as they update the HUD to give me a reticle point like Elite does.

Shoot how about an indicator that your weapon has a clear shot like there is in the MekTek version of MW4.

[1453 R]

Normally I despise the whackos who keep shrieking about how 'FEEXING CONVURRGEENS!!1!" will magically solve every problem in MWO, never mind the whole "a shooter in which you can't aim your weapons is a shooter nobody plays" issue.

But this...I can almost see this. it would need to be thoroughly vetted first, go through its own round of PTS, methinks...but that whole "Infotech is never going to be even a tenth as important as FIAHPOWAH!" thing going around would become significantly less true if you required at least some basic competence in Infotech to direct that firepower.

Which is what Infotech/EWAR/Information Warfare was always supposed to be about - directing your fire to maximum effect, and denying your enemy effective usage of their own firepower. Or, to put it shortly: "You can't hit what you can't see."