Let's face it. "Info warfare" in this game is pretty much pointless as things currently stand, with the one major exception being lrms.
So my proposal which I'm sure would get lots of hate, is make the weapons fire randomly in a cone unless you have a "lock" on a target.
I'm not sure what else could hope to balance information war vs pewpew to the face/torso etc.
And I think ecm should be looked at majorly if this system is taken or even if it isnt. Delay target locks. Don't refuse them entirely.
0
Target Or Have Large Cones Of Fire?
Started by Ordate, Sep 17 2015 07:32 PM
5 replies to this topic
#2
-
-
- The Infernal
- 4,762 posts
Member
Posted 17 September 2015 - 07:57 PM
Ordate, on 17 September 2015 - 07:32 PM, said:
Let's face it. "Info warfare" in this game is pretty much pointless as things currently stand, with the one major exception being lrms.
So my proposal which I'm sure would get lots of hate, is make the weapons fire randomly in a cone unless you have a "lock" on a target.
I'm not sure what else could hope to balance information war vs pewpew to the face/torso etc.
And I think ecm should be looked at majorly if this system is taken or even if it isnt. Delay target locks. Don't refuse them entirely.
So my proposal which I'm sure would get lots of hate, is make the weapons fire randomly in a cone unless you have a "lock" on a target.
I'm not sure what else could hope to balance information war vs pewpew to the face/torso etc.
And I think ecm should be looked at majorly if this system is taken or even if it isnt. Delay target locks. Don't refuse them entirely.
Cones of fire have been denied since they were removed from CBT. Other ways you can do something similar is damage and/or crit buffs for having targeting data or having those debuffed for not having targeting data.
#3
-
-
- The Blazing
- 57 posts
Member
Posted 17 September 2015 - 09:59 PM
Simply not allowing your weapons to converge would be better. You would be able to use your skill to make damage as opposed to cone of fire dice rolls. Without convergence your damage will spread out. Causing a desire for information warfare as well as reducing ttk. The 2 alpha strike kills are real.
#4
-
-
- Bad Company
- 894 posts
Member
- LocationUK
Posted 18 September 2015 - 12:45 AM
This is an idea along with others that might work.
The problem as I see it is that when there is cover people are better off sitting back at long range sniping (under the cover of ecm). No one seeks to advance, because if they do they get shoot to bits.
this game play makes short range and lrm builds sit for 5 minutes waiting for someone to move.
This problem is understandable because it is a good military tactic i.e. shoot from a position you can't be shot. However, if this game was all about realism we wouldn't be running around in Mechs. So I think it has to change.
The problem is caused because as we all know if you can see it at 1000m you can hit it with long range direct fire. As those always hit where you point.
Add to this the long range weapons seem to cause large pinpoint damage from a single hit. e.g.. if a gauss rifle hits for 20 and an LRM hit for 40 you would be better off with the gauss because the lrm damage is spread all over the mech but the gauss is in a single spot.
No doubt large damage at range in the TT worked because there was a greater change at range of missing the target. In MWO your chance of missing the target is really down to how well you can squint at the screen.
the proposals that make it more difficult to get pinpoint damage if there is no lock are good because they deal with the problem but also mean the sniper can succeed if they work as a team.
I think that snipers usually work in a team in reality so you might say this is also adding realism too.
The problem as I see it is that when there is cover people are better off sitting back at long range sniping (under the cover of ecm). No one seeks to advance, because if they do they get shoot to bits.
this game play makes short range and lrm builds sit for 5 minutes waiting for someone to move.
This problem is understandable because it is a good military tactic i.e. shoot from a position you can't be shot. However, if this game was all about realism we wouldn't be running around in Mechs. So I think it has to change.
The problem is caused because as we all know if you can see it at 1000m you can hit it with long range direct fire. As those always hit where you point.
Add to this the long range weapons seem to cause large pinpoint damage from a single hit. e.g.. if a gauss rifle hits for 20 and an LRM hit for 40 you would be better off with the gauss because the lrm damage is spread all over the mech but the gauss is in a single spot.
No doubt large damage at range in the TT worked because there was a greater change at range of missing the target. In MWO your chance of missing the target is really down to how well you can squint at the screen.
the proposals that make it more difficult to get pinpoint damage if there is no lock are good because they deal with the problem but also mean the sniper can succeed if they work as a team.
I think that snipers usually work in a team in reality so you might say this is also adding realism too.
#5
-
-
- Philanthropist
- 4,833 posts
Member
Posted 18 September 2015 - 02:39 PM
A narrow cone of fire - enough to prevent 50+ pinpoint alpha at 500+ meters idiocy - is strongly recommended for this game, IMHO. The cone can narrow or wide a hair based on sensors, lock-on, etc. It should never be large enough to make "aiming pointless," but never small enough to revert the game back to its current idiocy pinpoint meta.
I also recommend that weapons with scatter built-in - SRM's, LBX's, and LRM's - have little to no cone of fire. They already cannot deal pinpoint damage unless you're ramming an enemy, so no point in making them weaker.
While they possibly can't get convergence to work, this idea does work within the game engine since we already see a cone of fire when jumpjets are active and from machine guns. Obviously, the jump-jet version is far too wide / random, but it can be done within the game's current abilities.
I also recommend that weapons with scatter built-in - SRM's, LBX's, and LRM's - have little to no cone of fire. They already cannot deal pinpoint damage unless you're ramming an enemy, so no point in making them weaker.
While they possibly can't get convergence to work, this idea does work within the game engine since we already see a cone of fire when jumpjets are active and from machine guns. Obviously, the jump-jet version is far too wide / random, but it can be done within the game's current abilities.
Edited by oldradagast, 18 September 2015 - 02:40 PM.
#6
-
-
- Civil Servant
- 11,152 posts
Member
- LocationStomping around in a giant robot, of course.
Posted 18 September 2015 - 05:27 PM
Ordate, on 17 September 2015 - 07:32 PM, said:
Let's face it. "Info warfare" in this game is pretty much pointless as things currently stand, with the one major exception being lrms.
So my proposal which I'm sure would get lots of hate, is make the weapons fire randomly in a cone unless you have a "lock" on a target.
I'm not sure what else could hope to balance information war vs pewpew to the face/torso etc.
And I think ecm should be looked at majorly if this system is taken or even if it isnt. Delay target locks. Don't refuse them entirely.
So my proposal which I'm sure would get lots of hate, is make the weapons fire randomly in a cone unless you have a "lock" on a target.
I'm not sure what else could hope to balance information war vs pewpew to the face/torso etc.
And I think ecm should be looked at majorly if this system is taken or even if it isnt. Delay target locks. Don't refuse them entirely.
Honestly, the only reason there should be COF is if the 'Mech is suffering from some kind of heat overload. Folks should already know what my thoughts are on the matter of convergence (that is, no lock = default convergence set to a long-distance point).
2 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 2 guests, 0 anonymous users
