Jump to content

Make Every Weapon A Clan Erppc - A Fix For Convergence


2 replies to this topic

Poll: So they can't easily change convergence , a hacky solution. (5 member(s) have cast votes)

Is this a good idea

  1. Yes, if they cant fix convergence. (2 votes [40.00%])

    Percentage of vote: 40.00%

  2. No, I want things to stay as is on live. (3 votes [60.00%])

    Percentage of vote: 60.00%

  3. Maybe, but see below. (0 votes [0.00%])

    Percentage of vote: 0.00%

  4. How about w just give 20% damage bonus if you are locked on? (0 votes [0.00%])

    Percentage of vote: 0.00%

Vote Guests cannot vote

#1 maxdest

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Veteran Founder
  • Veteran Founder
  • 137 posts

Posted 07 November 2015 - 04:21 PM

Sorry for the outragous title.

I think there is quite rightly a lot of support surrounding the idea of convergence being affected by targetting, but unfortunatly for whatever reeason this is very high cost for PGI to impliment and therefore not likely short term.

So here is a fix that uses existing MWO functionality to do nearly the same thing by spreading damage (like a clan ERPPC) where no lock.

Details follow (numbers just an example and subject to balance):

When a shot is taken the current players target is recorded.
When the shot hits a mech (instant for lasers) the mech hit is checked vs the target recorded.
  • If they match and shooting player had target info then damage is as per now.
  • If they match and shooting player had target lock (but no info) then 20% of damage is spread from hit location (like clan ERPPC)
  • If they don't match then 40% of damage is spread from hit location.
Obviously would need protections in place to prevent unwanted effects e.g.
  • Damage to limbs does not spread to torsos (to still allow arm shielding)
  • Damage to torso does not spread to head.
  • Perceent of damage spread would be reduced at shorter ranges (to allow brawls to be effective)
  • Wouldn't effect LRM or SSRM as they already spread (and would have had a lock).

Edited by maxdest, 07 November 2015 - 06:35 PM.


#2 Jack Shayu Walker

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The God
  • The God
  • 1,451 posts

Posted 07 November 2015 - 05:59 PM

View Postmaxdest, on 07 November 2015 - 04:21 PM, said:

Sorry for the outragous title.

I think there is quite rightly a lot of support surrounding the idea of convergence being affected by targetting, but unfortunatly for whatever reeason this is very high cost for PGI to impliment and therefore not likely short term.

So here is a fix that uses existing MWO functionality to do nearly the same thing by spreading damage (like a clan ERPPC) where no lock.

Details follow (numbers just an example and subject to balance):

When a shot is taken the current players target is recorded.
When the shot hits a mech (instant for lasers) the mech hit is checked vs the target recorded.
  • If they match and shooting player had target info then damage is as per now.
  • If they match and shooting player had target lock (but no info) then 20% of damage is spread from hit location (like clan ERPPC)
  • If they don't match then 40% of damage is spread from hit location.
Obviously would need protections in place to prevent unwanted effects e.g.
  • Damage to limbs does not spread to torsos (to still allow arm shielding)
  • Damage to torso does not spread to head.
  • Perceent of damage spread would be reduced at shorter ranges (to allow brawls to be effective)
  • Wouldn't effect LRM or SSRM as they already spread (and would have had a lock).


Ghost damage has been canned by PGI. I certainly don't want it back in any form.

#3 Brandarr Gunnarson

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Bad Company
  • Bad Company
  • 847 posts

Posted 07 November 2015 - 06:51 PM

Sorry, I have to disagree. Some weapons should have splash, some should be scatter, others pinpoint.

Making all weapons function like this leads into sameness and thus un-fun.

Also, it suffers the same problem as the laser targeting ghost heat mechanic; that is, its nonsensical.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users