141 replies to this topic

[Mister Blastman]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 08 February 2016 - 09:19 AM, said:

That doesn't mean there is no convergence in TT........just means it isn't automated and perfect.

You are grasping at straws man! Please stop. Thanks.

Mystere, on 08 February 2016 - 09:20 AM, said:

But, but, but, they keep insisting that the one and only true way to fight such a mech is to also use the same mech.

HGN 733C POWER MASTER!!!!!!!!

Fear 733C! Everyone must take or die!

:-|

There's so much discombobulation around here it is nuts.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Mister Blastman, on 08 February 2016 - 09:31 AM, said:

You are grasping at straws man! Please stop. Thanks.

I'm not, pretty sure you are because you'd have to have some level of convergence if an enemy is front facing and your right weapon hits their right side, the dice make it required. Cone of fire makes more sense than no/fixed convergence in the BT side of things.

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 08 February 2016 - 09:35 AM.

[Koniving]

ACH75, on 07 February 2016 - 04:29 AM, said:

Arms and Torso Crossairs are part of MWO Gameplay and Arm-Lock function breaks it

turning it most-like a canonic shooter game.


Removing this option will drastically reduce the effectivness of laser boating and will

encourage again multiple weapon systems loadouts.

The day they put it in I had this same notion. Tried a three month campaign before I gave up.

I salute you sir.

[XX Sulla XX]

It would not help and its something that is just not a big issue.

[Mister Blastman]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 08 February 2016 - 09:33 AM, said:

I'm not, pretty sure you are because you'd have to have some level of convergence if an enemy is front facing and your right weapon hits their right side, the dice make it required. Cone of fire makes more sense than no/fixed convergence in the BT side of things.

Random our convergence is not. True it is. My point is convergence versus what Battletech has.

Stop the madness. Straws are on the table.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Mister Blastman, on 08 February 2016 - 09:41 AM, said:

My point is convergence versus what Battletech has.

Your point may have been that, but you example however was false, as there has to be convergence in TT for mechs to function according to the rules.

Either way, messing with convergence screws over mechs with poor mounts so the only madness going on is people suggesting it like it is some panacea to all of MWO's ailments.

[Mister Blastman]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 08 February 2016 - 09:48 AM, said:

Your point may have been that, but you example however was false, as there has to be convergence in TT for mechs to function according to the rules.

Either way, messing with convergence screws over mechs with poor mounts so the only madness going on is people suggesting it like it is some panacea to all of MWO's ailments.

Nonsense. All of it nonsense.

[Ultimax]

Mister Blastman, on 07 February 2016 - 10:33 PM, said:

You won't be running the same loadouts. For 'mechs that have spread out hardpoints, you'll run bigger guns in some to provide higher FLD. Or you'll run SRMs. You'll adapt.

Or people won't run them, just like they don't run mechs that don't meet whatever pressure points are creating the meta.

Instead they'll run the mechs that now have the gift of best convergence based on hardpoint location.

You will trade one so called problem, for a brand new problem that will probably penalize more mechs as opposed to improving things.

Mister Blastman, on 07 February 2016 - 10:33 PM, said:

That hunch will have six medium lasers at medium range and will still be as vulnerable as before. Besides, it is a medium unquirked 'mech thus will be weaker by proxy of size and lack of armor alone. It takes care of itself.

How can the hunch be vulnerable if you can't converge your weapons on to it?

You keep hand-waiving this away, the only way you could focus it is by using another mech gifted with the same style of convergence.

So...hooray? Still using convergence to deal with a mech that has convergence.

Your solution is not well thought out at all.

TexAce, on 08 February 2016 - 01:56 AM, said:

Why would it be out? Shoot with arm-mounted weapons, where you do the converging by yourself.

So what you're saying is, its OK for some mechs with a crapton of weapons in one location to have excellent convergence but not other mechs.


How is that any kind of a solution?

Mister Blastman, on 08 February 2016 - 07:42 AM, said:

You're looking at it wrong. There are many past and present MWO players who refuse to spend any money at all until this game makes progress. PGI makes progress--they spend money!

Man that is a whopper of a logical fallacy.


The release day for pre-pay packs has seen matches LITTERED with those pre-pay mechs.

Just like many other games, players often bluster about how they refuse to spend money and then they go ahead and do it anyway.

You've got guys who we all know that spend days literally ranting about everything PGI does on MWO Reddit (not HPG) and yet there they are, plunking down cash for everything that is released.


I bet the amount of people who are actually faithful to their pledge to not spend money is significantly smaller than the amount of people boasting that pledge.



Go ahead, post some actual numbers of people who refuse to spend money, specifically because of convergence issues.

Edited by Ultimax, 08 February 2016 - 10:17 AM.

[Mister Blastman]

Ultimax, on 08 February 2016 - 10:16 AM, said:

stuff

Have a nice day. I'll see you on the battlefield.

Edited by Mister Blastman, 08 February 2016 - 10:19 AM.

[Koniving]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 08 February 2016 - 09:33 AM, said:

I'm not, pretty sure you are because you'd have to have some level of convergence if an enemy is front facing and your right weapon hits their right side, the dice make it required. Cone of fire makes more sense than no/fixed convergence in the BT side of things.

Battle tech's tech manual and bg.battletech.com have entries stating that in the cockpit is a target interlock controller which allows for manual setting of ranged convergence for torso weapons with increase/decrease and reset. There is also further distinction on cockpits at bg.battletech.com stating that arms can be used independently to strike different trargets or set to converge if possible with joint limitations. There is also head turning capabilities. However in most cases arm and torso weapons do not converge well.

Tabletop also suffers horrendously from an over simplified damage summary of complex combat. You have all actions within a ten second time frame. This includes assumed actions such as stationary target evasive/blocking maneuvers. (You shoot your right arm weapon at my front, I block with right arm during defensive twist and counter fire left arm weapons). Tabletop's pinpoint frontloaded damage is divided up by dice rolls to allow for assumed defensive measures (why do you think aimoing is only permitted when enemy is incapacitated? Pilot can't evade or block! No assumed defensive action!)

From weapons like Victor's Pontiac 100 being an ac/20 that fires a cloud of munition with each cassette ("round") of its 6 per ton ammo bin containing over a hundred 30mm shells to fire within one to two second bursts and aa 5 second reload time by extruding the new cassette through the door on right chest to insert manually or the back-up 3 second reload through port in right shoulder requiring right arm to contract and keep vibrations to a minimum during reload or jam risk...
To weapons like the 60+ unique medium laser variants which vary from the quick distinctly blue beam of the Rassal Blue Beam, heavily front loaded and rare due to the negative problems it suffers including EM Interference to user's sensors (but supposedly one of the most front loaded MLs to exist with a 0.2 second burst and requiring just one shot and a long cool off time to prevent damage). To the moree standardized Diverse Optics models with their weak short bursts and more frequent fire times, to this one Bright Blossom something (will edit name in soon) which fires a wide beam non-stop for several seconds. All of these fall under the generic category of "medium laser". None of them behave quite like tabletop would have us believe. Yet...

Even armed with the above some mechs are supposed to be armed with convergence, some would find it impossible. The only happy medium we will get is the removal of armlock. And we probably won't even get that.

[Aresye]

Bishop Steiner, on 08 February 2016 - 06:29 AM, said:

always the same "skill players" desperately scrabbling about defending it and having to resort to personal attacks, because they got no valid argument, lol. It is a crutch. Not as huge a one as during poptarting but still a crutch.

If using armlock is advantageous, then it stands to reason that EVERY single player that plays MWO competitively would be using armlock, however since we know that this is NOT the case, and that we have proof through streaming sites that shows no particular bias towards any mode in particular amongst the competitive crowd, we can assume that any advantages for any particular mode are 1: Marginal (at best), and 2: Not important enough to warrant a switch from what a player is comfortable with.

That's a very valid argument based off common sense reasoning, and the proof can be found by simply watching the dozens of players who regularly stream the game.

I'd very much like to hear an ACTUAL argument from your side to refute this simple question:
If armlock has an advantage, then why aren't 100% of competitive players using it?

Bonus Question:
If armlock is a crutch, then why was I personally able to switch from using armlock all the time, to never using armlock, with no impact on my performance or in-game statistics?

[Mystere]

Ultimax, on 08 February 2016 - 10:16 AM, said:

Or people won't run them, just like they don't run mechs that don't meet whatever pressure points are creating the meta.

Instead they'll run the mechs that now have the gift of best convergence based on hardpoint location.

Just what percentage of players actually do that? Did you do an actual count?

[Aresye]

Mystere, on 08 February 2016 - 12:27 PM, said:

Just what percentage of players actually do that? Did you do an actual count?

Not many, but it isn't the players who "find" the meta that are the problem. It's the gigantic chunk of the player base that copy+pastes those mechs. Just look at how many players run the same laser vomit builds today.

[Mystere]

Aresye, on 08 February 2016 - 12:35 PM, said:

Not many, but it isn't the players who "find" the meta that are the problem. It's the gigantic chunk of the player base that copy+pastes those mechs. Just look at how many players run the same laser vomit builds today.

The online gaming world is rife with "monkey see, monkey do" types. MWO is no different. As such, I can consider them irrelevant -- especially if they're still horrible in the game anyway.

Edited by Mystere, 08 February 2016 - 12:39 PM.

[1Grimbane]

you know personal playstyle fits in however if i see a player in any given game excelling... i'm gonna wonder what he's doing to get there and chances are i might just emulate what ever magic he's got if possible.

[pwnface]

I'm not sure how other people use arm lock but I have a general rule that I use.

Typically when I'm piloting something that is less agile, I'll leave arm lock off for the faster torso twisting to track targets.
When I'm piloting something that is a little more agile, I'll leave arm lock on for the mindless convergence.

In both instances, I try to toggle arm lock on and off to fit the appropriate circumstance. If you know an enemy is going to peak a particular corner, leave arm lock on to get more focused damage. If you need to shoot up a hill or knock out a UAV, toggle it off. Being comfortable toggling arm lock on and off mid-combat can give you a slight advantage at the cost of having one more thing to think about besides positioning and aiming.


In any case, removing arm lock isn't going to make the players that are winning have a harder time winning. It literally will have 0 affect on who is good and who isn't.

Edited by pwnface, 08 February 2016 - 01:09 PM.

[Malcolm Vordermark]

Mystere, on 08 February 2016 - 12:27 PM, said:

Just what percentage of players actually do that? Did you do an actual count?

What percentage of players will take whatever the new best mechs in the game are? Well, I don't see Dragon Slayers much anymore and we are in a thread about Laser Vomit.

[Ultimax]

Mystere, on 08 February 2016 - 12:27 PM, said:

Just what percentage of players actually do that? Did you do an actual count?

Its readily apparent in the matches I play seeing the mechs that are brought, and the builds that are played.

Or do you want to state you think people don't play primarily stronger mechs with meta builds once you're in T2+?

It might not be actual data, but its not fantasy speculation either.



Regardless, this is all extremely off topic.

Changing arm-lock will not impact the game in any significant way, it will simply remove an option.

Edited by Ultimax, 08 February 2016 - 09:02 PM.

[1Grimbane]

just one less check box to uncheck

[Ratpoison]

The effect it has on play is too negligible to be considered significant, especially compared to what it means as a quality of life learning tool for new players. Don't forget that no armlock confused the hell out of people.