92 replies to this topic

[TheCharlatan]

Hello Mechwarriors,
There is a lot of discussing in the forums about using convergence and/or CoF to solve the High-Alpha problem in MWO.
In this thread, i'll try to point out the problems with these ideas, hoping to either find solutions to them.
Let's start:

Convergence
The idea of fixed convergence has been in the forums since forever. The basic idea is that every weapon shoots at a fixed point, rather than at the center of the crosshair.
There are two main problems with this idea:

• Technical problems: it has been pointed out often that the engine MWO runs on is not optimized to register dozens of weapons shooting together, each one at a different spot. It might be that MWO is particularly complex, or that the engineers that first worked on the engine cut some corners and now things are what they are. Either way, PGI would have to pour a lot of resources in this system.
  
• Hardpoit problem: let's say PGI manages to get the hit-reg working on fixed convergence. Now there is a new problem: we did nothing about the high alphas. They are still there: they will just be moved to mechs with either most weapons in the arms (if arms have perfect convergence) or with weapons clumped together in 1-2 components. TTK will not change: the meta will just shift to mechs that have the perfect hardpoint distribution.

CoF
The CoF mechanic has many possible iterations: the basic idea is that weapons converge on a semi-random point, whose distance from the center of the crosshair is based on movement, heat, tonnage, etc.
Problems are:

• Camp-warrior: if the CoF is tied to movement, we find ourselves with an advantage given to immobile mechs. If you are standing still, you have a better CoF than a moving mech, which gives you a HUGE advantage. Moreover, high alphas are still there: say hello to matches where you walk around the corner and find you opponents perfectly still, in a fireing line, and prepare to eat countless 40+ damage alphas. You want to shoot back? Too bad, your CoF is still wide, and your shots will miss. Unless of course you want to stand still in the open to get your CoF to narrow down.
  
• Randomness: let's say the first problem finds a solution, and people don't start standing still to shoot. There are two mechs brawling: mech 1 shoots, misses by a mile or hits a non vital component. Mech 2 shoots... headshot. GG. It can happen. And it WILL happen. To avoid this, we need a mechanic to be able to narrow down the CoF... but how? Speed is out of the question (look at problem number 1)... time on target? That means that you will have to stare down opponents, meaning that DPS builds will rule (while you are aiming, they are tearing you apart). And even if you find an intresting way to get people to narrow down their CoF without staring at the opponent or standing still, you still have huge alphas patiently waiting for the moment in which CoF is the narrowest.

You could of course use both CoF and Convergence, but that dosen't fix thier problems, which need to be resolved first.



My opinion is that we should first fix the Heat-scale to curb super-alphas, and then add one or both of CoF and Convergence (after, of course, we find a way to fix their problems), but you know what is said about opinions...

Edited by TheCharlatan, 07 November 2015 - 03:50 AM.

[kapusta11]

Whoa, so unlike people who suggest those ideas you actually gave a thought to the matter and found some pitfalls?

[Levi Porphyrogenitus]

If you make a precision reduction mechanic (or a Cone of Fire if randomization is enough easier to implement), tie it not to heat, not to movement, and not to massed weapons fire. Tie it to all three at once. Have the size of the cone (or the precision reduction) be very small when considering any single source, but firing at max throttle while running at 70% heat and unloading an alpha with 30+ damage in it will cause your shots to deviate significantly (or the cone to be pretty big).

That said, a cone of fire or precision reduction mechanic should be designed so that, somewhere near the 400m mark, even at max deviation all your shots will be likely to land on, say, a Daishi or an Awesome or something (really big profile assault, in other words). The closer you get, the smaller the relative deviation will be, given the same absolute values, meaning sniping will require more careful resource management, especially the farther away your target gets, while brawling can often still land hits on the same component, let alone the same mech, even while pushing heat, throttle, and alpha size, depending on just how close they are to the target (and how big the target is).

[oldradagast]

Disagree with the OP completely.

With regard to cone of fire, nobody said anything about improving accuracy when standing still or when staring down a target. Nobody also said that the cone of fire would be some sort of huge, crazy circle of random shots being sprayed everywhere. Those are strawman arguments - not created or supported by anyone behind the cone of fire - that are being used to shoot down the idea.

A cone of fire (or proper convergence, though that may be outside the ability of the game engine as implemented) does NOT have to be huge to work. We're not talking about World of Warships here. All it has to be is large enough to add some probable damage scatter or a few misses at long ranges when firing multiple weapons. In short, if you boat a pile of whatever, you shouldn't be getting pixel perfect hits at long ranges all the time. Such accuracy is not realistic and is against the theme of Battletech, where semi-random hit locations were vital to the armor and mech sectioning system working.

Additionally, the current game engine can handle a cone of fire just fine since it already exists (in a much larger form than we're looking for) when using jump-jets, MASC, and machine guns. Finally, a cone of fire works in nicely with "info-tech" and sensors. Got a sensor lock? Cool - the cone of fire tightens a bit, but still exists. Note that the size of the cone can be adjusted by weapons, by the number of weapons fired, etc. Heck, I'd be fine with a cone effect of 0 for a single weapon fired - the point isn't to "make everything random," but to end the stupid, huge, pinpoint accuracy alphas that have dominated this game for years and been the only meta worth mentioning.

Edited by oldradagast, 07 November 2015 - 06:37 AM.

[TheCharlatan]

Levi Porphyrogenitus, on 07 November 2015 - 06:14 AM, said:

If you make a precision reduction mechanic (or a Cone of Fire if randomization is enough easier to implement), tie it not to heat, not to movement, and not to massed weapons fire. Tie it to all three at once. Have the size of the cone (or the precision reduction) be very small when considering any single source, but firing at max throttle while running at 70% heat and unloading an alpha with 30+ damage in it will cause your shots to deviate significantly (or the cone to be pretty big).

That said, a cone of fire or precision reduction mechanic should be designed so that, somewhere near the 400m mark, even at max deviation all your shots will be likely to land on, say, a Daishi or an Awesome or something (really big profile assault, in other words). The closer you get, the smaller the relative deviation will be, given the same absolute values, meaning sniping will require more careful resource management, especially the farther away your target gets, while brawling can often still land hits on the same component, let alone the same mech, even while pushing heat, throttle, and alpha size, depending on just how close they are to the target (and how big the target is).

Good answer, but what makes MWO unique when compared to other FPS games is that hitting=/=doing meaningful
damage.
In MWO, if at 400 meters i hit a Dire Wolf in the arm or a leg, that damage is basically wasted, expecially if the Dire Wolf was standing still at resting heat (so 0 CoF) and unloaded a 50+ damage alpha in my CT.
Moreover, while the Cof increase linked to number of weapons fired sounds intresting, it would become pretty convoluted when put on paper, basically a new Ghost Heat mechanic.

[oldradagast]

kapusta11, on 07 November 2015 - 03:43 AM, said:

Whoa, so unlike people who suggest those ideas you actually gave a thought to the matter and found some pitfalls?

No, he created a bunch of strawman arguments against convergence and cone of fire, and used them to "prove" how "bad" they are. I'm very tired of everyone assuming cone of fire means "it's going to work exactly like this one other game that has super-random shot scatter, and I hate that game, so it'll never work."

[TheCharlatan]

oldradagast, on 07 November 2015 - 06:35 AM, said:

Disagree with the OP completely.

With regard to cone of fire, nobody said anything about improving accuracy when standing still or when staring down a target. Nobody also said that the cone of fire would be some sort of huge, crazy circle of random shots being sprayed everywhere. Those are strawman arguments - not created or supported by anyone behind the cone of fire - that are being used to shoot down the idea.

A cone of fire (or proper convergence, though that may be outside the ability of the game engine as implemented) does NOT have to be huge to work. We're not talking about World of Warships here. All it has to be is large enough to add some probable damage scatter or a few misses at long ranges when firing multiple weapons. In short, if you boat a pile of whatever, you shouldn't be getting pixel perfect hits at long ranges all the time. Such accuracy is not realistic and is against the theme of Battletech, where semi-random hit locations were vital to the armor and mech sectioning system working.

Additionally, the current game engine can handle a cone of fire just fine since it already exists (in a much larger form than we're looking for) when using jump-jets, MASC, and machine guns. Finally, a cone of fire works in nicely with "info-tech" and sensors. Got a sensor lock? Cool - the cone of fire tightens a bit, but still exists. Note that the size of the cone can be adjusted by weapons, by the number of weapons fired, etc. Heck, I'd be fine with a cone effect of 0 for a single weapon fired - the point isn't to "make everything random," but to end the stupid, huge, pinpoint accuracy alphas that have dominated this game for years and been the only meta worth mentioning.

All you are solving that way is reducing effectiveness of the long range huge alphas. Which is absolutely needed, but does very little to help at lower ranges.
Either the CoF is big enough to matter, or the high-alpha problem will just move to closer ranges.

[Levi Porphyrogenitus]

TheCharlatan, on 07 November 2015 - 06:37 AM, said:

Good answer, but what makes MWO unique when compared to other FPS games is that hitting=/=doing meaningful
damage.
In MWO, if at 400 meters i hit a Dire Wolf in the arm or a leg, that damage is basically wasted, expecially if the Dire Wolf was standing still at resting heat (so 0 CoF) and unloaded a 50+ damage alpha in my CT.
Moreover, while the Cof increase linked to number of weapons fired sounds intresting, it would become pretty convoluted when put on paper, basically a new Ghost Heat mechanic.

Assuming all of my mechanics are implemented as suggested, and you're running at max while hot and firing a large alpha, then you and the Daishi pilot are both just playing the odds, and the Daishi pilot came out ahead (assuming your random/deviated shots all hit different limbs, or worse, went between gaps and missed, while the Daishi pilot got lucky and none of his shots deviated out of your CT despite having a significant deviation penalty for 50+ damage at once).

The better way to engage said Daishi is to seek cover and cool down, then re-engage under more favorable circumstances. Unless you are also in a Daishi, or a King Crab, or something else of similar sluggishness, you generally control the terms of the engagement. Deliberately putting yourself into a worst-case position against someone who is otherwise making himself very vulnerable by trying to minimize his own deviation sources is just not a great idea.

[oldradagast]

TheCharlatan, on 07 November 2015 - 06:37 AM, said:

Good answer, but what makes MWO unique when compared to other FPS games is that hitting=/=doing meaningful
damage.
In MWO, if at 400 meters i hit a Dire Wolf in the arm or a leg, that damage is basically wasted, expecially if the Dire Wolf was standing still at resting heat (so 0 CoF) and unloaded a 50+ damage alpha in my CT.
Moreover, while the Cof increase linked to number of weapons fired sounds intresting, it would become pretty convoluted when put on paper, basically a new Ghost Heat mechanic.

What??

Most first person shoots have people killing opponents in a handful of shots, or often one shot if a successful head hit is scored. Battletech, on the other hand, is about mechs slowing shooting each other apart, as their performance degrades and the pilots struggle on to survive and fight with what little they have left. Otherwise, why have all those separate mech sections and the location hit table in the game? Just give every mech one section with "hitpoints," roll a single die that determine if you hit or not, and then subtract those hitpoints from the pool. No, a defining feature of Battltech is that NOT all damage is "meaningful" and "goes where you want it go." I swear - everyone complains about how far PGI has deviated from Lore and the tabletop game, but the moment somebody suggests adding in a toned-down form of damage scatter - a mechanic that is VITAL to tabletop - everyone gets their undies in a wad and whines about "wasted damage" and "but I want my 60+ point alpha to go on one component at 700+ meters range very time." UGH!

Second of all, in your example, why is YOUR alpha magically going to the Dire Wolf's legs - even with a cone of fire, that requires either extreme range or really bad aim - while his is magically hitting your center torso? Did he turn his cone of fire option off in this example? The results would be symmetrical, you realize - if this huge cone you're afraid of causes your center torso shots to hit legs, the Dire Wolf is going to be in just as a bad a situation.

Finally, linking the size of the cone to the number of weapons fired is perfectly believable based on heat / recoil reducing perfect sensor accuracy, just as how achieving a sensor lock logically increases accuracy by decreasing the cone. It's easy to explain, applies consistently to all weapons, and makes a hell of a lot more sense than "ghost range."

Edited by oldradagast, 07 November 2015 - 06:50 AM.

[l33tworks]

oldradagast, on 07 November 2015 - 06:35 AM, said:

Disagree with the OP completely.

With regard to cone of fire, nobody said anything about improving accuracy when standing still or when staring down a target. Nobody also said that the cone of fire would be some sort of huge, crazy circle of random shots being sprayed everywhere. Those are strawman arguments - not created or supported by anyone behind the cone of fire - that are being used to shoot down the idea.

A cone of fire (or proper convergence, though that may be outside the ability of the game engine as implemented) does NOT have to be huge to work. We're not talking about World of Warships here. All it has to be is large enough to add some probable damage scatter or a few misses at long ranges when firing multiple weapons. In short, if you boat a pile of whatever, you shouldn't be getting pixel perfect hits at long ranges all the time. Such accuracy is not realistic and is against the theme of Battletech, where semi-random hit locations were vital to the armor and mech sectioning system working.

Additionally, the current game engine can handle a cone of fire just fine since it already exists (in a much larger form than we're looking for) when using jump-jets, MASC, and machine guns. Finally, a cone of fire works in nicely with "info-tech" and sensors. Got a sensor lock? Cool - the cone of fire tightens a bit, but still exists. Note that the size of the cone can be adjusted by weapons, by the number of weapons fired, etc. Heck, I'd be fine with a cone effect of 0 for a single weapon fired - the point isn't to "make everything random," but to end the stupid, huge, pinpoint accuracy alphas that have dominated this game for years and been the only meta worth mentioning.

Yes exactly, it should be always on cone of fire based on the weapon alone, not any movement or mech, and it needs to be TINY.

We are talking the difference between hitting a Dire Wolf in the CT or Torso at say 500M. Imagine what that will do for moving mechs and imagine what that will do for light mechs. Its pretty damn powerfull to make a big change to the way damage is dealt , but also insignificant enough to still be able to play the way you do now, just less effectively.

[oldradagast]

TheCharlatan, on 07 November 2015 - 06:43 AM, said:

All you are solving that way is reducing effectiveness of the long range huge alphas. Which is absolutely needed, but does very little to help at lower ranges.
Either the CoF is big enough to matter, or the high-alpha problem will just move to closer ranges.

Which is fine if the high-alpha damage moves to close ranges. That means long-range, pixel perfect sniping will no longer be the perfect answer to all problems at all ranges, as it is today. Right now, there is NO DRAWBACK to boating a pile of perfect accuracy weapons with long ranges and just sniping away with them, blowing 100% accurate holes through mech components all the time using some of the worst game mechanics seen in a shooter in years. The crap on the PTS just requires the sniper to wait a moment to get a target lock, and then the exact same stupid thing happens... except now you can't retaliate quickly with lasers unless you take time to get a lock on whatever shot you... by which time you'll be shot again. Stupid mechanic is stupid...

I couldn't care less if a Dire Wolf has to get up close to stand a good chance of putting all his damage on one spot, because that means I can actually fight back using something other than my own stupid, long-range, pixel perfect, hide-behind-a-rock build to counter him. This change would also mean SRM's and LBX's might see some play again since they obviously wouldn't be affected by the proposed cone of fire and battles would be happening at closer ranges as people try to gain accuracy by getting closer to the target.

Edited by oldradagast, 07 November 2015 - 06:51 AM.

[TheCharlatan]

oldradagast, on 07 November 2015 - 06:45 AM, said:

What??

Most first person shoots have people killing opponents in a handful of shots, or often one shot if a successful head hit is scored. Battletech, on the other hand, is about mechs slowing shooting each other apart, as their performance degrades and the pilots struggle on to survive and fight with what little they have left. Otherwise, why have all those separate mech sections and the location hit table in the game? Just give every mech one section with "hitpoints," roll a single die that determine if you hit or not, and then subtract those hitpoints from the pool. No, a defining feature of Battltech is that NOT all damage is "meaningful" and "goes where you want it go." I swear - everyone complains about how far PGI has deviated from Lore and the tabletop game, but the moment somebody suggests adding in a toned-down form of damage scatter - a mechanic that is VITAL to tabletop - everyone gets their undies in a wad and whines about "wasted damage" and "but I want my 60+ point alpha to go on one component at 700+ meters range very time." UGH!

Second of all, in your example, why is YOUR alpha magically going to the Dire Wolf's legs - even with a cone of fire, that requires either extreme range or really bad aim - while his is magically hitting your center torso? Did he turn his cone of fire option off in this example? The results would be symmetrical, you realize - if this huge cone you're afraid of causing your center torso shots to hit legs, the Dire Wolf is going to be in just as a bad a situation.

Finally, linking the size of the cone to the number of weapons fired is perfectly believable based on heat / recoil reducing perfect sensor accuracy, just as how achieving a sensor lock logically increases accuracy by decreasing the cone. It's easy to explain, applies consistently to all weapons, and makes a hell of a lot more sense than "ghost range."

oldradagast please calm down. I want the exact same thing as you (longer TTK).
What i mean is that everyone wants to kill as fast as possible. It's why we have this meta.
If i start spreading damage while you are hitting my CT 100% of the time, i lose. If i can't hit the intended target because i'm on the move while you can because you are still, you have an advantage. People search for advantages, so people will tend to move less. That's all i'm implying.

[oldradagast]

TheCharlatan, on 07 November 2015 - 06:51 AM, said:

oldradagast please calm down. I want the exact same thing as you (longer TTK).
What i mean is that everyone wants to kill as fast as possible. It's why we have this meta.
If i start spreading damage while you are hitting my CT 100% of the time, i lose. If i can't hit the intended target because i'm on the move while you can because you are still, you have an advantage. People search for advantages, so people will tend to move less. That's all i'm implying.

Fair enough - I'm just in a foul mood because of the idiotic changes in the game lately. The enforced mob mentality in voting, the lunacy on the PTS, the utter refusal by PGI to consider logical solutions to the game's problems, and the ever increasing number of players exhibiting a form of Stockholm Syndrome with PGI; they are willing to accept any illogical rewriting of the game if it means it's "different" for a few weeks before the new, stale meta takes hold and locks things down for at least another year.

Long story short with a cone of fire, it does not have to be huge to work, and it can be tied to the number of weapons fired, total alpha damage, whatever. The key is to end the current pixel perfect sniping meta since that is at the root of nearly all the problems in game balance and as been since the missile splash damage bug was fixed (thus making missiles far weaker.) Until that is addressed, IMHO, everything else is a band-aid.

[TheCharlatan]

oldradagast, on 07 November 2015 - 06:48 AM, said:

Which is fine if the high-alpha damage moves to close ranges. That means long-range, pixel perfect sniping will no longer be the perfect answer to all problems at all ranges, as it is today. Right now, there is NO DRAWBACK to boating a pile of perfect accuracy weapons with long ranges and just sniping away with them, blowing 100% accurate holes through mech components all the time using some of the worst game mechanics seen in a shooter in years. The crap on the PTS just requires the sniper to wait a moment to get a target lock, and then the exact same stupid thing happens... except now you can't retaliate quickly with lasers unless you take time to get a lock on whatever shot you... by which time you'll be shot again. Stupid mechanic is stupid...

I couldn't care less if a Dire Wolf has to get up close to stand a good chance of putting all his damage on one spot, because that means I can actually fight back using something other than my own stupid, long-range, pixel perfect, hide-behind-a-rock build to counter him. This change would also mean SRM's and LBX's might see some play again since they obviously wouldn't be affected by the proposed cone of fire and battles would be happening at closer ranges as people try to gain accuracy by getting closer to the target.

I understand your point better now.
Not sure that SRMs would become viable (they still spread damage, while a wubmaster can still put 50+ damage at 200 meters on a single component), but certainly the range at which we fight would become closer (which is nice).
You are basically advocating for shorter range fights, while I'm advocating for lower TTK, which looks like is why we are arguing.

[Levi Porphyrogenitus]

TheCharlatan, on 07 November 2015 - 06:51 AM, said:

oldradagast please calm down. I want the exact same thing as you (longer TTK).
What i mean is that everyone wants to kill as fast as possible. It's why we have this meta.
If i start spreading damage while you are hitting my CT 100% of the time, i lose. If i can't hit the intended target because i'm on the move while you can because you are still, you have an advantage. People search for advantages, so people will tend to move less. That's all i'm implying.

As for movement, there are some principles to apply that'd make the whole thing easy to balance.

1 - Don't start penalties until, say, 40% throttle, just like alpha-size penalties wouldn't start until, say, 25+, or heat penalties wouldn't start until, say, 30%+. This lets you move slowly without suffering unduly.

2 - Apply the penalty as a % of max throttle, not based on absolute speed. To do otherwise nerfs the crap out of speed, making super-slow Assaults king and turning Lights into a joke. Making it % based keeps speed and engine rating as very important upgrades.

3 - Have JJs apply deviation on top of everything else, and have JJ deviation decay after you stop burning the jets, rather than the instant-on and -off that we have now.

[Sjorpha]

Despite the problems you describe, which I agree with, I still think a dynamic CoF is the best idea.

CoF based on # of weapons fired sounds nice, but it would need a way to prevent being macroed around or you could just make a macro with 10ms between then and for practical purposes still get PPFLD. This could be prevented by adding a time buffer and include all shots within that window or something. Another problem is how do you display it to the player before a shot? Maybe make the reticule size represent the currently selected weapon group would work.

CoF based on movement does have the drawback of encouraging camping, but it could be that the CoF only happens as you exceed walking speed (top speed/2). That would give us a reason to not always run and use the different speeds of our mechs, which would make the game a little more simlike. Then you'd be accurate while walking which shouldn't make camping as strong since there are inherent weaknesses in camping strategies.

CoF based on heat I think is basically not a problem I think, and a great thing to include IMO.

CoF based on targeting, I'd really like that. Shrink the reticule as you target a mech.

It's important to understand that a CoF does not have to mean a huge spread, you can make it as inaccurate or accurate as you want. It could be a really subtle thing that only makes you weapons deviate a little bit even at long ranges.

Another strong argument for a system like this is that it ties in really well with quirks. A sniper energy mech like rifleman can be quirked so it's CoF is not affected much by heat or # of weapons but extra much by movement. A fast brawler might have less CoF effect from movement and heat, some mechs might be better at alpha strikes, some might be better at accurate DPS builds, light scouts might be almost unaffected by movement but more affected by not targeting and so on. You could really use it to encourage roles very well.

To understand what I mean, an example of a game that does dynamic CoF well IMO is M&B Warband. In Warband, your accuracy with bows is displayed by a reticule that shrinks and expands to show your current CoF. There are a number of factors that effect your CoF, archery skill, movement speed, horse archery skill if you're mounted, the quality of your bow and holding the arrow too long without releasing (arms gets tired). On top of that you have to think about the falloff to distance and aim above target as needed.

Despite all this you can learn, and rather intuitively too, to do perfect shots with a bow in Warband. And learning how to headshot a charging knight from a moving horse for example is very satisfying, the CoF system does not reduce the skill component of archery in Warband at all, quite the contrary it creates an environment where YOU are responsible for putting yourself in windows of momentary accuracy based on all the factors and timing that with having a target. It makes sense and feels immersive, and I think it would in MWO as well. Of course the factors affecting CoF would be different ones, but the principle would be the same.

So when I talk about dynamic CoF, that is the kind of system I'm thinking of.

Edited by Sjorpha, 07 November 2015 - 07:25 AM.

[oldradagast]

Sjorpha, on 07 November 2015 - 07:00 AM, said:

Another strong argument for a system like this is that it ties in really well with quirks. A sniper energy mech like rifleman can be quirked so it's CoF is not affected much by heat or # of weapons but extra much by movement. A fast brawler might have less CoF effect from movement and heat, some mechs might be better at alpha strikes, some might be better at accurate DPS builds, light scouts might be almost unaffected by movement but more affected by not targeting and so on. You could really use it to encourage roles very well.

It ties in with quirks and roles well, as you said.

It can also work with everything from targeting computers, ECM, allies targeting things for other allies, etc. It could even be used to balance individual weapons - some might be a hair more or less accurate than others. A proper CoF opens up another whole dimension in game balance and design and meshes nicely with Battltech Lore (weapons were not perfectly accurate there, either) and the new goal of making "info-tech" and sensors matter.

Edited by oldradagast, 07 November 2015 - 07:04 AM.

[ChronoBear]

oldradagast, on 07 November 2015 - 06:45 AM, said:

What??

Most first person shoots have people killing opponents in a handful of shots, or often one shot if a successful head hit is scored. Battletech, on the other hand, is about mechs slowing shooting each other apart, as their performance degrades and the pilots struggle on to survive and fight with what little they have left. Otherwise, why have all those separate mech sections and the location hit table in the game? Just give every mech one section with "hitpoints," roll a single die that determine if you hit or not, and then subtract those hitpoints from the pool. No, a defining feature of Battltech is that NOT all damage is "meaningful" and "goes where you want it go." I swear - everyone complains about how far PGI has deviated from Lore and the tabletop game, but the moment somebody suggests adding in a toned-down form of damage scatter - a mechanic that is VITAL to tabletop - everyone gets their undies in a wad and whines about "wasted damage" and "but I want my 60+ point alpha to go on one component at 700+ meters range very time." UGH!

Second of all, in your example, why is YOUR alpha magically going to the Dire Wolf's legs - even with a cone of fire, that requires either extreme range or really bad aim - while his is magically hitting your center torso? Did he turn his cone of fire option off in this example? The results would be symmetrical, you realize - if this huge cone you're afraid of causes your center torso shots to hit legs, the Dire Wolf is going to be in just as a bad a situation.

Finally, linking the size of the cone to the number of weapons fired is perfectly believable based on heat / recoil reducing perfect sensor accuracy, just as how achieving a sensor lock logically increases accuracy by decreasing the cone. It's easy to explain, applies consistently to all weapons, and makes a hell of a lot more sense than "ghost range."

I think you are a (brother/sister) from another mother ... I could not agree more with your post. Thank you for putting my thoughts into most likely better words than I could.

[Bobzilla]

CoF could weigh on twist/arms not leg movement, so lights retain their speed advantage and evasion is still in play and assaults don't have to be static turrets.

[Bishop Steiner]

Levi Porphyrogenitus, on 07 November 2015 - 06:14 AM, said:

If you make a precision reduction mechanic (or a Cone of Fire if randomization is enough easier to implement), tie it not to heat, not to movement, and not to massed weapons fire. Tie it to all three at once. Have the size of the cone (or the precision reduction) be very small when considering any single source, but firing at max throttle while running at 70% heat and unloading an alpha with 30+ damage in it will cause your shots to deviate significantly (or the cone to be pretty big).

That said, a cone of fire or precision reduction mechanic should be designed so that, somewhere near the 400m mark, even at max deviation all your shots will be likely to land on, say, a Daishi or an Awesome or something (really big profile assault, in other words). The closer you get, the smaller the relative deviation will be, given the same absolute values, meaning sniping will require more careful resource management, especially the farther away your target gets, while brawling can often still land hits on the same component, let alone the same mech, even while pushing heat, throttle, and alpha size, depending on just how close they are to the target (and how big the target is).

sounds about like what I have been saying for about 3 years.

Of note, under say, 75% throttle, etc, one should have no CoF at all (unless heat or other circumstance requires it), though reticle sway should still be a thing. I am not so much a believer that massed weapon fire itself should cause CoF, but a lot of things, like Missiles, Ballistics and PPCs should all have varying degrees of recoil impulse.