1094 replies to this topic

[ComradeHavoc]

Beaching Betty, on 04 March 2016 - 10:02 PM, said:

well because.

That... doesn't answer my question.....

[ComradeHavoc]

Didn't there used to be convergence in MWO?

[CDLord HHGD]

Why would a CoF have to be applied universally? And for that matter, why can't it be dynamic based on number of weapons fired in group?

Fire one weapon, no CoF.
Fire two weapons, 5 degree.
Fire three weapons, 10 degree.
Fire four or more weapons, 20 degree.

[FupDup]

cdlord, on 16 March 2016 - 07:51 AM, said:

Why would a CoF have to be applied universally? And for that matter, why can't it be dynamic based on number of weapons fired in group?

Fire one weapon, no CoF.
Fire two weapons, 5 degree.
Fire three weapons, 10 degree.
Fire four or more weapons, 20 degree.

Why do people always suggest basing it on the quantity of weapons?

Let me show you an example of why that's bullocks.

2 Gauss Rifles = 5 degrees RNGesus zone, 30 damage, 660m default range
4 Small Lasers = 20 degrees RNGesus zone, 12 damage, 135m default range

In a nutshell, you penalize mechs that rely on a large quantity of smaller guns, while having much less effect on mechs that can build themselves around a small number of big guns.

[Mystere]

ComradeHavoc, on 16 March 2016 - 07:46 AM, said:

Didn't there used to be convergence in MWO?

We used to have delayed convergence. But that caused "technical issues" with HSR.

[pbiggz]

Stop bumping this terrible terrible thread.

[Scout Derek]

pbiggz, on 16 March 2016 - 08:24 AM, said:

Stop bumping this terrible terrible thread.

It's not terrible actually considering how much work was put into making the images as well as explaining the concept.

Most don't even get past the part of real context usually.

[Mead]

FupDup, on 16 March 2016 - 08:21 AM, said:

Why do people always suggest basing it on the quantity of weapons?

Because ghost heat set the bar for arbitrary sh*t like that.

pbiggz, on 16 March 2016 - 08:24 AM, said:

Stop bumping this terrible terrible thread.

All you have to do is control yourself long enough to not click on it. No one's smashing it into your eyeballs forcing you to read it.

[FupDup]

Mead, on 16 March 2016 - 08:43 AM, said:

Because ghost heat set the bar for arbitrary sh*t like that.

Ghost Heat at least factors in the firepower of each weapon, at least for lasers. Medium Lasers for example are set to 6, while Large Lasers are set to 3 (2 if you're Clan). What that guy above was suggesting was, to compare, similar to giving Medium Lasers the same limit of 3 or 2 as the Large Laser.

[Mead]

FupDup, on 16 March 2016 - 08:45 AM, said:

Ghost Heat at least factors in the firepower of each weapon, at least for lasers. Medium Lasers for example are set to 6, while Large Lasers are set to 3 (2 if you're Clan). What that guy above was suggesting was, to compare, similar to giving Medium Lasers the same limit of 3 or 2 as the Large Laser.

Doesn't make it any less arbitrary or stupid.

[Mystere]

pbiggz, on 16 March 2016 - 08:24 AM, said:

Stop bumping this terrible terrible thread.

Automatic, near-instant, and pixel-perfect convergence involving multi-ton weapons that move in perfect unison is an even more terrible concept.

[FupDup]

Mead, on 16 March 2016 - 08:47 AM, said:

Doesn't make it any less arbitrary or stupid.

Different limits per weapon are in fact less stupid than a shared limit across all weapons, because it actually considers the different usages and utilities of the different weapons.

I'm not saying it's optimal or preferred, just that having every weapon with the same max threshold would suck a lot harder.

[CDLord HHGD]

FupDup, on 16 March 2016 - 08:21 AM, said:

Why do people always suggest basing it on the quantity of weapons?

Let me show you an example of why that's bullocks.

2 Gauss Rifles = 5 degrees RNGesus zone, 30 damage, 660m default range
4 Small Lasers = 20 degrees RNGesus zone, 12 damage, 135m default range

In a nutshell, you penalize mechs that rely on a large quantity of smaller guns, while having much less effect on mechs that can build themselves around a small number of big guns.

And to make my point, it's not the dual gauss that is the problem. It's the stacked small weapons that are, the Small Laser uber scalpel of the ACH and FS9s. I did forget to mention my usual caveat though, my figures are just conjecture used as an example to get the general point across. Whether those quantities of weapons and numbers of degrees are the final product, I don't have the ability to test. Just theorycraft.

[FupDup]

cdlord, on 16 March 2016 - 08:54 AM, said:

It's the stacked small weapons that are, the Small Laser uber scalpel

Um, no. The actual "problem" builds today use a mixture of "small" and "large" weapons. The most infamous combination is 4 [ER] Medium Lasers plus 2-3 Large Pulse Lasers. Another example is 5-6 ERML plus a Gauss Rifle.

Stacked Small Lasers are not the issue or an issue in general, especially not on light mechs. Especially not on Inner Sphere light mechs, because seriously they only deal 3 damage each...basically half of the Clan version. A Firestarter using 8 Small Lasers will have an alpha strike of only 24 damage...that's not very powerful, especially considering the very short range it has.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

FupDup, on 16 March 2016 - 08:59 AM, said:

Um, no. The actual "problem" builds today use a mixture of "small" and "large" weapons. The most infamous combination is 4 [ER] Medium Lasers plus 2-3 Large Pulse Lasers. Another example is 5-6 ERML plus a Gauss Rifle.

Stacked Small Lasers are not the issue or an issue in general, especially not on light mechs. Especially not on Inner Sphere light mechs, because seriously they only deal 3 damage each...basically half of the Clan version. A Firestarter using 8 Small Lasers will have an alpha strike of only 24 damage...that's not very powerful, especially considering the very short range it has.

Not to mention we would just be back to spamming Gauss/PPCs/LPLs with a change like this, anything that needs to be boated to be useful would be sidelined for being a bad weapon with this sort of rule.

[1453 R]

Mystere, on 16 March 2016 - 08:49 AM, said:

Automatic, near-instant, and pixel-perfect convergence involving multi-ton weapons that move in perfect unison is an even more terrible concept.

Let me ask you a question, Mystere. Just for kicks, since you’re the most poignant to pick on sort of a leading figure in this whole so-called ‘debate’.

Do modern MBTs hit what they shoot at?

To the best of my knowledge, a modern tank is able to put its shells on a target at least equivalent to the center torso of an average BattleMech at distances far in excess of anything but the very longest-ranged of MWO weapons. They can do so reliably, with every single shot they fire. They can do so on the move – in point of fact, I recall a slice of documentary I saw a while ago that listed the Abrahms as able to compensate for its full nominal throttle value and still hit targets with every shot they fire, assuming a competent crew and no active enemy interference (i.e. electronic warfare or other…distractants, maybe?).

Now, I am fully cognizant of the fact that BattleTech is in general a property where precision is fundamentally, philosophically a disfavored concept – technology in the BattleTech universe is anachronistically generally worse than current norms, with the exception of mostly-lostech jumpships regarded as priceless and irreplaceable treasures of the golden past. That said…a modern tank crew which is unsure of its shot is not actually going to take that shot. They don’t fire their weapon when the weapon has a high chance of missing its mark – they wait for a better shot.

Yes yes, I know, I know, I KNOW – that’s what you keep saying you’re trying to force players to do. ‘Wait for the better shot’. Try and get them to stop firing more than two small lasers at once and get back to the BattleTech™, where firing one large laser a turn was considered a perfectly acceptable level of combat engagement for an assault ‘Mech…but here’s my thing.

The systems you and the other Cone of Balance™ folks are describing make those better shots impossible. There is no waiting for the better shot – the better shot will never come. Outside of actually, physically ramming your ‘Mech up your enemies’ rectums and firing your weapons at zero-range engagements, you will never have more than spotty odds at best of hitting whatever you’re shooting at. You can never get your fire to go more than vaguely in the general direction of where the crosshair points, because fire going where it’s supposed to Just Isn’t BattleTech™

Modern militaries have spent a great deal of time, effort, and defense budget dollars into ensuring that ordnance goes where it’s supposed to. Why is it acceptable for ‘Mech-delivered ordnance to go wherever it feels like going, no matter what the pilot does to try and compensate?

[Thunderbird Anthares]

1453 R, on 16 March 2016 - 09:28 AM, said:

Let me ask you a question, Mystere. Just for kicks, since you’re the most poignant to pick on sort of a leading figure in this whole so-called ‘debate’.

Do modern MBTs hit what they shoot at?

To the best of my knowledge, a modern tank is able to put its shells on a target at least equivalent to the center torso of an average BattleMech at distances far in excess of anything but the very longest-ranged of MWO weapons. They can do so reliably, with every single shot they fire. They can do so on the move – in point of fact, I recall a slice of documentary I saw a while ago that listed the Abrahms as able to compensate for its full nominal throttle value and still hit targets with every shot they fire, assuming a competent crew and no active enemy interference (i.e. electronic warfare or other…distractants, maybe?).

Now, I am fully cognizant of the fact that BattleTech is in general a property where precision is fundamentally, philosophically a disfavored concept – technology in the BattleTech universe is anachronistically generally worse than current norms, with the exception of mostly-lostech jumpships regarded as priceless and irreplaceable treasures of the golden past. That said…a modern tank crew which is unsure of its shot is not actually going to take that shot. They don’t fire their weapon when the weapon has a high chance of missing its mark – they wait for a better shot.

Yes yes, I know, I know, I KNOW – that’s what you keep saying you’re trying to force players to do. ‘Wait for the better shot’. Try and get them to stop firing more than two small lasers at once and get back to the BattleTech™, where firing one large laser a turn was considered a perfectly acceptable level of combat engagement for an assault ‘Mech…but here’s my thing.

The systems you and the other Cone of Balance™ folks are describing make those better shots impossible. There is no waiting for the better shot – the better shot will never come. Outside of actually, physically ramming your ‘Mech up your enemies’ rectums and firing your weapons at zero-range engagements, you will never have more than spotty odds at best of hitting whatever you’re shooting at. You can never get your fire to go more than vaguely in the general direction of where the crosshair points, because fire going where it’s supposed to Just Isn’t BattleTech™

Modern militaries have spent a great deal of time, effort, and defense budget dollars into ensuring that ordnance goes where it’s supposed to. Why is it acceptable for ‘Mech-delivered ordnance to go wherever it feels like going, no matter what the pilot does to try and compensate?

because this is a damn PC game

[CDLord HHGD]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 16 March 2016 - 09:22 AM, said:

needs to be boated to be useful

This right here is that actual problem. The thought that a SL or other weapon isn't useful unless it's boated. Of course it's useful singly,just not as effective as two or more of the same weapon (GASP, SHOCKING!). It's the boating mentality that has to change and if that means nerfing it into the ground, so be it. Mechs designed to boat can be quirked to reduce the boating drawbacks if need be.

[1453 R]

Thunderbird Anthares, on 16 March 2016 - 09:57 AM, said:

because this is a damn PC game

It's a PC game remarkably few people will play if there's no way to reliably hit their targets. Missing all the ****ing time For Great Balance™, regardless of your own ability to target and engage enemies, is not fun, eh?

Game Not Fun? Game not played.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

cdlord, on 16 March 2016 - 10:04 AM, said:

This right here is that actual problem. The thought that a SL or other weapon isn't useful unless it's boated. Of course it's useful singly,just not as effective as two or more of the same weapon (GASP, SHOCKING!). It's the boating mentality that has to change and if that means nerfing it into the ground, so be it. Mechs designed to boat can be quirked to reduce the boating drawbacks if need be.

So you want a weapon that isn't even good boated (because no mech can boat enough) to be nerfed harder so that PPC/Gauss/LPL boats become stronger to kill the boating mentality (even though it doesn't)? There is nothing wrong with wanting to use weapons that synergize well with each other, and trying to defeat that mentality, well this isn't going to do it because the need for synergy will always be there. All you are doing is disproportionately hurting smaller weapons which have more need to be boated to be as effective as their larger more singular cousins.

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 16 March 2016 - 10:19 AM.