LordKnightFandragon, on 13 February 2016 - 12:08 PM, said:
Except when you get hit with an 50 point alpha, you get hit before you even realize your being hit....against those AI mechs in the battlegrounds, I can never twist away enough damage to matter. Its walk around the corner, get alphad...turn back to shoot, get alphad again....
The whole point is lower the damage output so twisting actually means something. A Mech like the Mauler? Twisting away is impossible, since not only does it move slow, but it doesnt even turn that far....
Twisting awway a huge laser alpha doesnt really save you, since the lasers are instant....and even if you tist away half the 50 point alpha, that is still 25 to w/e he hit....your mech wont take many of those...
1. There are not many mechs that can put a more than a couple of 50+ alpha one after another and not overheat without trading for something. So you can't take a particular situation and generalize it.
2. a mauler has enough armour+internals to survive at least a couple of alpha in side torso. and if you got hit once...you back pedal then you show in the exact same spot and same position and get hit again in the same part of yourmech then its your fault not the game mechanics. (and anyway if you backpedal in a mauler you are doing it wrong )
Blaming the game for something you cant do but other can and asking for a change in mechanics to give you the same ability will not change much. you will still need to get better in order to face those people who didnt had a problem with twisting.
Troutmonkey, on 14 February 2016 - 12:46 AM, said:
With 300ms of lag you pretty much absorb the entire alpha before you even know that you're being shot at.
I understand making it in the game and working with HSR is harder than righting the demo, but the people generating content are different from the people working on code and bugfixing. At least they should be
I have less then 90 ping usually, my FPS is like 30-40. BUt yeah, this game is annoying to play due to alpha wars, making big *** battlemechs feel just as weak as a panzy *** soldier with a rifle.
I hate how I roll out in my Warhawk, thinking, hey, 85t, max armor, maybe I can do something....crest a ridge twice, and im cored.....peak around a different corner and my arm is gone. Back up to try to go somewhere else, my ST is gone.....ofc, that is on a good day, on a normal day, its crest a ridge once, my CT is orange, crest it twice im dead....
I even once fixed up the AS-7S and took it for a spin, it died inside of 6 shots from a KGC, I dealt less then 200 damage before being *****. As for twisting, has anyone tried to move around in an Atlas? Its first off how battlmechs should move, but secondly, it turns like a fat guy slogging through molasses...your not twisting away anything.
I so want this OP's mechanics in this game. It might make for some RNGesus, but I dont think it would be that bad, since our guns dont deviate and deviate some more, like in WOT, which has innate shell deviation, and hten deviation on top of the deviation because WG knows how much we all love RNG. 1 round of mild RNG on the shots would just be wonderful, the PPFLD if you slowly chain fire, vs bad RNG if you lolpha....oh happy days would be had in this game.
This game I rate right down there with Warthunder and WoWS in terms of boring and pointless gameplay that I dont see how anyone finds it fun..
Edited by LordKnightFandragon, 16 February 2016 - 06:28 AM.
The novels and "lore" et al describe the BattleMech systems as working but not working well/poorly optimized.
Even though there might not be a perfect contemporary analog available, my imagination can easily accept bad computers under extreme loads producing lasers that squiggle a little.
Different BattleMechs could have better computers than others (i.e. quirkable and able to add variety in general).
Player skill is not "nerfed" or dumbed down unless attempting to rawr-melt-face (my opinion, I admit, so please don't try to convert me because I've already read many of the arguments already presented and I still don't agree with them).
This system is still perfectly compatible with Ghost Heat so unless it's deemed to be sufficient to replace Ghost Heat, we could continue to prevent high alphas of small weapons (i.e. we already have a way to avoid a new face-hug meta if we need it).
That said, I'm not entirely convinced we need this since we haven't tried any of the following yet:
Fixed convergence.
Convergence only with a target lock (so locking on one target while firing at another would phoque up your convergence).
No convergence.
No convergence for torso weapons with immediate convergence for arm weapons.
No convergence for torso weapons with arm convergence only with a target lock.
I suspect "No convergence" is probably the easiest for PGI to try out and the data about TTK we could gather from that alone would probably help determine whether removing "absolute pin-point" has any effect at all. But that's an uneducated guess.
That said, I'm not entirely convinced we need this since we haven't tried any of the following yet:
Fixed convergence.
Convergence only with a target lock (so locking on one target while firing at another would phoque up your convergence).
No convergence.
No convergence for torso weapons with immediate convergence for arm weapons.
No convergence for torso weapons with arm convergence only with a target lock.
I suspect "No convergence" is probably the easiest for PGI to try out and the data about TTK we could gather from that alone would probably help determine whether removing "absolute pin-point" has any effect at all. But that's an uneducated guess.
1. Hurts all builds regardless of balance. Cross eyed effect after fixed point. Counter intuitive. Mechs with clustered hard points become better. Major secondary issues caused
2. Doesn't solve the issue. 90% of the time people have locks anyway
3. Hurts all builds regardless of balance. Wide mechs literally unable to hit smaller mechs. Counter intuitive. Mechs with clustered hard points become better. Many mechs become obsolete based on hardpoint positions. Major secondary issues caused.
4. Same as 3. But mechs with good arm mounts become meta.
5. Same as 3.
Edited by Troutmonkey, 17 February 2016 - 04:54 PM.
I'm not actually invested in this so I'm not going to read your thread. I'm just going to take your preview at face value.
Troutmonkey, on 17 February 2016 - 04:53 PM, said:
Here's a brief preview:
1. Hurts all builds regardless of balance. Cross eyed effect after fixed point. Counter intuitive. Mechs with clustered hard points become better. Major secondary issues caused
Fixed convergence is a wide category much like "Cone of Fire" is a wide category. Counter intuitive is a pretty large blanket statement since I didn't actually reference a specific implementation (i.e. I didn't say where the convergence would occur. Max range? Optimal Range? Configurable in the MechLab but set for the entire match?). Since War Thunder has fixed convergence and is itself pretty successful, I don't really think we can apply a label like counter intuitive without even trying it or something like it.
The Cross eyed effect would only be an issue if firing weapons from both sides of your Mech at the same time. If firing one side only, you'd have to get a feel for how much to lead a target based on how far away it is arguably increasing the skill requirement (which is something people are calling for) while simultaneously discouraging alpha striking.
Do clustered hard points become much better than they already are? Last time I watched a competitive stream, asymmetrical builds were already very prevalent. I'm not saying clustered hardpoints won't be better. My point is that we don't know how things will behave because we haven't tried anything that's similar.
Troutmonkey, on 17 February 2016 - 04:53 PM, said:
2. Doesn't solve the issue. 90% of the time people have locks anyway
You're telling me that 90% of the time you only shoot at the Mech you have targeted? You don't ever take opportunity shots at Mechs standing around your target? Without any actual data, I wouldn't be surprised if the number is more like 70%.
Also you're ignoring the large Information Warfare run we had on the Public Test. Convergence only when locked significantly changes the landscape when locks are harder to get.
How would your Cylinder of Fire enhance Information Warfare?
Troutmonkey, on 17 February 2016 - 04:53 PM, said:
3. Hurts all builds regardless of balance. Wide mechs literally unable to hit smaller mechs. Counter intuitive. Mechs with clustered hard points become better. Many mechs become obsolete based on hardpoint positions. Major secondary issues caused.
Wide mechs literally unable to hit smaller Mechs...unless they twist slightly to angle the weapon they are firing (FTFY). Wide mechs literally unable to ALPHA smaller mechs (FTFY), but isn't that what your Cylinder of Fire does too?
No convergence would be a good test to run because it's very nearly literally the exact opposite of what we have right now. By gathering data at both extreme ends of the spectrum we have a better idea where something in the middle will land. If no convergence plays out pretty much exactly the way pinpoint does, we know pinpoint isn't really the problem. Or if face hugging thoroughly dominates we have a pretty good indicator that something partial like your Cylinder of Fire isn't going to solve the problem either.
Troutmonkey, on 17 February 2016 - 04:53 PM, said:
4. Same as 3. But mechs with good arm mounts become meta.
Arm mounts are usually pretty low so wouldn't that be better than what we have now where Mechs with low hardpoints are considered DOA without major quirks? If low mounted arms become meta, isn't that also an indirect buff to all Mechs with low hardpoints?
Troutmonkey, on 17 February 2016 - 04:53 PM, said:
5. Same as 3.
Again, you're ignoring Information Warfare. If you can't lock easily, that drastically changes the equation.
And finally, the one really big thing these convergence ideas have going for them is that there is 0% randomness involved. That's a huge selling point for a very vocal portion of the community.
I'm not actually invested in this so I'm not going to read your thread. I'm just going to take your preview at face value.
I've already debunked all of those responses in my other thread. Just suffice it to say that all of those idea's will have profound (and mostly negative) impacts on how the game is played, not just how it is balanced. MWO plays great as it is, it just needs the smallest of possible changes to improve balance. From a player perspective, a little bit of inaccuracy at times (only during alphas) has a much smaller impact than "I need to always aim down and to the left on my HBK" because of Zero convergence.
Troutmonkey, on 17 February 2016 - 08:04 PM, said:
I've already debunked all of those responses in my other thread. Just suffice it to say that all of those idea's will have profound (and mostly negative) impacts on how the game is played, not just how it is balanced. MWO plays great as it is, it just needs the smallest of possible changes to improve balance. From a player perspective, a little bit of inaccuracy at times (only during alphas) has a much smaller impact than "I need to always aim down and to the left on my HBK" because of Zero convergence.
Okay, I'll bite. I just went back and read all your posts. To save time I did not read comments from anyone else unless you quoted them.
I'm sorry to have to say, I remain unconvinced that you've debunked everything I said or proven that all other ideas are
Troutmonkey, on 17 February 2016 - 04:53 PM, said:
absolutely terrible
Troutmonkey, on 08 February 2016 - 02:27 AM, said:
Sometimes it hits behind what you're looking which would be very confusing for players which is why I'm against it.
This is precisely the kind of statement I'm against making because we don't actually know this is true. Your suspicion is that it would be confusing and that's fine. I could just as easily say I think your Cylicder of Fire will confuse players. Does that make it a bad idea? I reject that it does. We can't know what's confusing until we've actually put it into players hands.
After reading this comment, I am still unconvinced.
Troutmonkey, on 08 February 2016 - 03:19 AM, said:
Try the demo. I think you might change your mind. Fixed convergence is actually worse than no convergence because if you set your convergence point to short your shots will always miss. I made this demo to visually demonstrate just how bad no convergence and fixed convergence are.
Sorry, I'm not going to try the demo, I'm going to focus on what you've so kindly documented for us in your video. And based on that, I would agree that fixed convergence has the potential for some very strange behaviors. But I note that you're setting the fixed convergence right in front of your face. Of course the crossing effect is going to be ridiculous. I don't think anyone who likes the idea of fixed convergence is envisioning settings like that.
After reading this comment, I am still unconvinced because the example you provide feels contrived and misleading (not necessarily intentionally so).
Troutmonkey, on 08 February 2016 - 05:32 AM, said:
Did you see the video's or try the demo? With fixed convergence you're shots with fly off wildly to the side if your convergence distance is closer than the target. As for manual convergence just download the game files and see how quickly you can move around while setting the convergence point and still hit stuff.
Again, same problem as the previous comment. You appear to be picking unrealistically close convergence points. I remain unconvinced.
As for manual convergence, I never said I'd like to try that. Convergence with Target lock is a better way to accomplish that IMHO.
Troutmonkey, on 08 February 2016 - 05:37 AM, said:
I'm very much in the Cone of Fire camp, but believe it should be done as per Homeless Bill's suggestion where you only get it if your breach your "Targetting Computer Limit" by firing too many weapons at once. That it's a choice between accuracy and instant damage.
I'm pretty neutral on the subject but if I were heavily in the Cone of Fire camp, I'd agree with you that it should only be when taxing your targeting computer heavily.
Regarding other types of convergence suggestions, this seems unrelated. I remain unconvinced.
Troutmonkey, on 08 February 2016 - 06:06 AM, said:
Which is why I'm against CoF for movement. I only want it to be brought in to tackle the issue of high alphas.
Shoot every at once: Inaccurate
Pace your shots: Accurate
No other metric should affect the CoF. Moving and shooting isn't a problem that needs solving, and neither is firing while hot as it's punished in it's own way.
Troutmonkey, on 08 February 2016 - 06:24 AM, said:
It's not the literal count of weapons, but the total value of fire being put down range. Basically each weapon will effect the CoF a different amount, the larger the weapon the larger the effect. Shooting 4LLs will have a much bigger impact on your CoF than say shooting 5MLs. It's better than Ghost Heat because you can't avoid it with different weapon combinations or weapon types. The only way around it is to stagger your fire, and by stagger I don't mean shoot them one at a time, I mean just don't try and fire all 6LLs from your Stalker 4N if you want to hit the one spot. Instead, try in groups of 2. Now there's nothing stopping people from still firing all their weapons if they want, they'll still do a lot of damage, just not all to one component
Again, reasonable arguments, but unrelated to debunking other suggestions. I remain unconvinced.
Troutmonkey, on 08 February 2016 - 03:20 PM, said:
Setting it to infinity == fixed convergence.
Manual convergence is worse because of Murphy's Law - what can go wrong, will go wrong. If you expect players to be able to manually adjust range while running around at 100+kph while trying to manage heat and weapon cooldowns you're dreaming. If there was manual convergence the vast majority would simply max out the distance and leave it their as it's one more thing to worry about in the heat of battle. Or maybe they'd just quit in frustration because all their weapons just can't hit.
Again, this is manual convergence which I've conceded is probably not in everyone's best interests.
Troutmonkey, on 08 February 2016 - 03:20 PM, said:
As for No convergence unless locked, it's a terrible system that poses many problems. For instance, if I lock onto one mech but shoot another, do I still have perfect convergence? And if not, when is convergence lost? Is it when my mouse is no longer over the locked mech? Then how will I lead targets? If the system just adjust a fixed convergence point to the distance of the target, from which point of the target are we measuring distance from? There's lots to be address and it still doesn't solve the issue - mechs will still be hit with 80 point alpha to a single pixel, instead it will just happen 1 second later.
You're just complicating balancing here by throwing a massive spanner into the works. Now mechs without good arm mounts become significantly worse. You're actually going to reduce the quantity of viable mechs because the majority of the time non-converged weapons will not hit where you aim.
Well we already have a CoF for MGs and JJs. And lets not forget the PPC in this video that everyone got so excited about all these years ago
This has some actual meat to it, so let me attempt to highlight why this does not debunk things for me.
Troutmonkey, on 08 February 2016 - 03:20 PM, said:
As for No convergence unless locked...<questions>
Let me try to answer these for you.
If I lock onto one mech but shoot another, do I still have perfect convergence? Yes, but probably not at the actual point you want it.
And if not, when is convergence lost? It isn't.
Is it when my mouse is no longer over the locked mech? It is only lost if you cancel your target.
Then how will I lead targets? Same way you do now.
If the system just adjust a fixed convergence point to the distance of the target, from which point of the target are we measuring distance from? What ever the game currently uses when you hold "Q" or look in the corner of the red targeting box. This is meant to minimize impact on the code because this number is already calculated somewhere and hopefully is accessible.
There's lots to be address and it still doesn't solve the issue - mechs will still be hit with 80 point alpha to a single pixel, instead it will just happen 1 second later. And here's where you're not taking Information Warfare into the equation. You're trivializing something you can't know for certain. You may have your suspicions but you're not offering any actual proof.
Troutmonkey, on 08 February 2016 - 03:20 PM, said:
You're just complicating balancing here by throwing a massive spanner into the works. Now mechs without good arm mounts become significantly worse. You're actually going to reduce the quantity of viable mechs because the majority of the time non-converged weapons will not hit where you aim.
Again, I can see how you think this might be the case, but it doesn't address the fact that lots of arm mounts are low. We already know low mounts are not optimal. I'm willing to concede you may be right but you haven't actually proven anything.
I remain unconvinced.
Troutmonkey, on 08 February 2016 - 03:25 PM, said:
Um, you understanding of how this would all work is flawed. All that would happen is exactly what would happen now when using Jump Jets, except only when firing over a certain limit.
Troutmonkey, on 08 February 2016 - 03:40 PM, said:
It depends on how harsh you set the limit from which the cone starts to open up.
4 Medium lasers? Fine, 100% accuracy
8 Medium lasers? Yeah your shots are going to spread between the CT and ST of an Atlas
2 PPCs? Slight nerf to accuarcy
8 PPC direstar? Yeah your shots are going to go friggin wild. You'll be lucky if you get 2 or 3 hits on the target mech at all
"Reasonable" alpha say under 25 won't be affected. 25-30 would have a slight cone, 30-50 would have a good sized cone, 50+ and shots start spraying real wide.
Except that the CoF will be pre-emptive and affect accuracy at the moment of firing. You won't be able to cheat by firing massive pin point alpha before the CoF happens.
Please I ask everyone to actually read Bill's proposal instead of assuming the worst possible implementation of CoF http://www.qqmercs.c...ence-and-clans/
Several more comments detailing your CoF not debunking other suggestions.
Troutmonkey, on 08 February 2016 - 03:58 PM, said:
It's not a red herring. It's a legitimate concern and a very likely possibility. You can't just ignore the fact players will manage to scew up and set their manual convergence distance to bad range and shoot allies with their cross eyed shots.
You're still adding another layer of complexity to an already complex system. People do not want to mess around with another control in real time just so they can hit their target at all. If you use preset values you'll run into same issues where anything past the convergence distance is impossible to hit because of the cross eyed effect, and anything too close will be hard to hit to because of the spacing between hardpoints. It's not a fun mechanic, it's not easy to use, and it's just frustrating. In a game, fun is a very important metric that needs to be accounted for in any mechanic.
More manual convergence discussion.
Troutmonkey, on 08 February 2016 - 03:58 PM, said:
Which part of the mech? The Centre torso? If you do that you're still going to wind up with convergence issues where shots cross eye over when shooting parts of the mech further away than the CT.
If you can update your video to show this in action, I might believe you. Set the convergence to the center of your target and see how far off things are when firing from several angles. If possible, please include varying ranges. All your examples so far have seemed very close range.
Something to consider though is that if the point is to get people firing fewer weapons at a time, then convergence being a little off could actually be a good thing since people would be enticed to fire fewer weapons at a time so they can manually adjust as needed.
Troutmonkey, on 08 February 2016 - 03:58 PM, said:
This don't even account for unlocked fire where if I lock on the the wrong mech just before firing - ie one that's really close while shooting one that's far away - my shots are not going to hit anything at all except maybe the dirt on either side of me.
I'm okay with this. Sometimes I target the wrong Mech while in a furball and get the wrong paperdoll so I place my opening volley wrong. I say "ah dammit" and then move on with my life.
If targeting the wrong Mech is throwing you off, then don't target things. Go with zero convergence for that one shot if you're in a hurry. Otherwise, take the time to target the right Mech. This is a trade off you'll need to learn to manage.
If you choose to go with the snapshot, because you won't be able to rely on convergence, you'll probably want to limit what you fire to weapons that are close together. Again, this sounds like desirable behavior for our current discussion.
Now factor in Information Warfare. People will probably get used to firing without a lock so holding off targeting probably won't feel as awkward as that may sound to you and me right now (we're both arguably biased because we have so much already invested in the current system).
Troutmonkey, on 08 February 2016 - 04:30 PM, said:
I can understand why people suggest heat (lore), but why does everyone keep suggesting that movement needs to be penalized at all? Mechs shooting while moving isn't an issue that's needs addressing. Heat really isn't either because heat punishes itself and is already a limiting factor. CoF should only be brought into to combat high alpha, and thus should not apply to movement, heat, or firing off a "reasonable" amount of damage at once. Perfect convergence is fine until ~30 dmg, but then 40, 50 and even 80 point alpha's start to break the system. CoF can be brought in to surgically address that issue without affecting any other mechanic. It's the lowest risk change possible and requires the smallest change in player behaviour.
This is primarily off topic but I do want to highlight at least one point you make.
Troutmonkey, on 08 February 2016 - 04:30 PM, said:
It's the lowest risk change possible and requires the smallest change in player behaviour.
A small change in player behavior is good, but it's not necessarily the primary cost we need to be looking at. People adapt to change. If coding this is incredibly difficult, then it doesn't really matter how easy it is on the average player's psyche. Dumping tons of effort into an unknown isn't smart when you can try easier things to gauge what the likely impact will be. I don't know PGI's system, but I am willing to bet setting all convergence values to infinity is an easier short-term solution than what you're proposing. And if a short-term solution turns out to be really effective, there's no need to spend the time on the more costly long-term one.
Troutmonkey, on 11 February 2016 - 05:13 PM, said:
Fixed delayed convergence. After my CoF proposal, this is my next favourite suggestion. As you can see here jump sniping and corner peaking are much less effective as the convergence point takes a second or two to focus properly.
Unfortunately, PGI have already state that this can't work for HSR reasons
Again, not really debunking anything. And if I'm not mistaken, that's the last comment you made in the thread.
So, for the reasons I've detailed above, I do not feel like you have adequately debunked things as well as you seem to think you have. That's unfortunate but I think the best thing would be for us to agree to disagree and move on.
EDIT:
To summarize:
Do I like your idea? Yes
Do I think that all other ideas are "absolutely terrible"? No
Do I think your idea is more costly than other ideas? Yes
Do I think your idea offers enough benefit over other suggestions that its additional cost is justified? I'm on the fence but leaning slightly towards "no". And the only thing that could change my mind is if a PGI programmer weighed in on the topic.
I like the idea. It doesn't have to be as severe as OP described and can be applied only to ridiculous alphas at first, meaning that certain abount of weapons can still be fired with no spread.
It would also add a bunch of variables to help making targeting and C3 computers do what they supposed to be doing.
Do I think that all other ideas are "absolutely terrible"? No
Do I think your idea is more costly than other ideas? Yes
Do I think your idea offers enough benefit over other suggestions that its additional cost is justified? I'm on the fence but leaning slightly towards "no". And the only thing that could change my mind is if a PGI programmer weighed in on the topic.
Thanks for taking the time to read. If that hasn't convinced you that the other ideas are terrible than I don't know what will outside of seeing them in game and playing them. I'm a game developer myself and I look at various mechanics, theorise and imagine how they would work in various games. I look for the worst and best case scenarios, how they've worked in other games, how fun they are, and how easy they would be for new players to understand. When you look at possible balance fixes you have to look at the problem at hand, and how each possible solution will solve that problem. You then have to think about the flow on effects that such as system would create.
1. Fixed/No convergence is absolutely terrible for new players and is in no other FPS outside of hardcore sims or niche titles where it makes sense (WWII fighter jets). It completely changes the way aiming works into a convoluted system where you might have to NOT aim at a target to hit it. It changes gameplay so much that technically the problem is "solved" because it no longer exists. We're playing an entirely different game at this point which will need to be rebalanced from scratch. Whether that game is good or not is irrelevant to this discussion.
2. When I talk lock-on for convergence I always ignore info-tech, because info tech doesn't exists yet. Until then it doesn't solve the problem and adds more problems about what happens when not locked on or locked on to the wrong target.
3. Arm convergence only also doesn't solve the issue. It's like problem 1 except now only mechs with arm actuators are good. Non converged weapons seriously suck. I made the demo, I tried shooting stuff. It's not fun. The negatives for "low slung arms" is nothing compared to non convergence
We both know however that none of these ideas (including mine) will ever get added to the game, so while I do enjoy these debates our discussions are a mute point Maybe when I get a big enough budget I'll have to make my own "Mech" game
Edited by Troutmonkey, 18 February 2016 - 04:02 AM.
I like the idea. It doesn't have to be as severe as OP described and can be applied only to ridiculous alphas at first, meaning that certain abount of weapons can still be fired with no spread.
It would also add a bunch of variables to help making targeting and C3 computers do what they supposed to be doing.
Yep. Clan Targeting computers and the Command Module could provide bonuses to allow for higher accuracy during alphas. It's a system that can be used to value add anywhere, or to bring down OP mechs without breaking too much on them
Troutmonkey, on 18 February 2016 - 04:01 AM, said:
Thanks for taking the time to read. If that hasn't convinced you that the other ideas are terrible than I don't know what will outside of seeing them in game and playing them.
Seeing them on the test server would suffice. And I believe I've mentioned my suspicion is that setting everything to infinity is probably the easiest change to try out. Don't change anything else and just gather some data. Is Pinpoint really the problem? If that requires as little as a weeks worth of work, I think that's better than spending several months (hopefully not years) making your change.
Troutmonkey, on 18 February 2016 - 04:01 AM, said:
1. Fixed/No convergence is absolutely terrible for new players and is in no other FPS outside of hardcore sims or niche titles where it makes sense (WWII fighter jets). It completely changes the way aiming works into a convoluted system where you might have to NOT aim at a target to hit it. It changes gameplay so much that technically the problem is "solved" because it no longer exists. We're playing an entirely different game at this point which will need to be rebalanced from scratch. Whether that game is good or not is irrelevant to this discussion.
I definitely understand it's not common. But when people describe MWO, it's incredibly common to see the word "niche" used. You're worried it will feel weird to have to aim "not at a target to hit it" but we already do that right now. We have to lead targets for things like SRMs and Ballistics. I don't see it being that much of a stretch to make you lead a target every time you fire especially when I see other people doing exactly what I do anyway which is correct my aim after I pull the trigger with lasers. As for ballistics, leading a target is already something you have to get the feel for. This should just change what the feel...umm...feels like.
Will it be for the better? I don't know. But if it's really easy to try out do I think we should? Yes. If I found out it's actually incredibly hard would I still think we should try it? Absolutely not.
Troutmonkey, on 18 February 2016 - 04:01 AM, said:
2. When I talk lock-on for convergence I always ignore info-tech, because info tech doesn't exists yet. Until then it doesn't solve the problem and adds more problems about what happens when not locked on or locked on to the wrong target.
Okay, that's fair. I take the opposite approach. I try to factor in everything that's been stated up to now. The last comments from Russ said Info Warfare would be coming back.
Troutmonkey, on 18 February 2016 - 04:01 AM, said:
3. Arm convergence only also doesn't solve the issue. It's like problem 1 except now only mechs with arm actuators are good. Non converged weapons seriously suck. I made the demo, I tried shooting stuff. It's not fun. The negatives for "low slung arms" is nothing compared to non convergence
We both know however that none of these ideas (including mine) will ever get added to the game, so while I do enjoy these debates our discussions are a mute point Maybe when I get a big enough budget I'll have to make my own "Mech" game
I understand how you can feel that way. I still have some hope though. During one of the NGNGTv streams, Mike Forst was hanging out in chat. The convergence discussion came up and I mentioned I'd like to see fixed convergence because it's more fair across the board (Mech geo and hardpoint placement isn't as much of a factor) and he said that's too complicated for players. He countered with no convergence for the CT with arm convergence with lock. I said that seemed like it would make arm mounts too powerful. He countered again with armor and structure nerfs for the over performers.
So a PGI employee talked about various solutions and advocated one of them. That makes me think the discussion is happening at the PGI offices. I haven't seen anything that makes me doubt they're trying to make something happen. I'd be pleasantly surprised if it's something like your Cylinder of Fire, but I won't be disappointed if it's a change to convergence (provided it actually works so I hope they'd try it out on test before releasing it).
1. There are not many mechs that can put a more than a couple of 50+ alpha one after another and not overheat without trading for something. So you can't take a particular situation and generalize it.
2. a mauler has enough armour+internals to survive at least a couple of alpha in side torso. and if you got hit once...you back pedal then you show in the exact same spot and same position and get hit again in the same part of yourmech then its your fault not the game mechanics. (and anyway if you backpedal in a mauler you are doing it wrong )
Blaming the game for something you cant do but other can and asking for a change in mechanics to give you the same ability will not change much. you will still need to get better in order to face those people who didnt had a problem with twisting.
Yeah, so basically once you start getting shot, your pretty much stunlocked, since anytime you try to turn back to fire, you get nuked again. Or you try to plod your way into cover....only to try to poke out somewhere else and get nuked again.
tortuousGoddess, on 09 February 2016 - 08:23 AM, said:
Dude...computers aren't magic boxes that just do whatever you tell them. The engines and tools aren't related at all. Just because you can mock up a 3D demo in a day, does not mean that adding such a system to existing code in a different engine will be easy. UI has to be changed and added, entirely new stats added into the existing system, existing code has to be made to play nice with it, and whenever you get something working is when you start testing it and revising the design. For MONTHS. It's a HUGE amount of work to add such a thing to this game.
The amount of coding required for convergence to be made instant.
bool convergencetorso = true; // Converges torso weapons to + crosshair. If false uncomment the
// following. Note this creates
// a series of + crosshairs per section. Having all false creates one + per weapon. Hogs screen.
//bool convergenceltor = true;
//bool convergencector = true;
//bool convergencertor = true;
bool convergetorsodelay = 1; // Delay in seconds upon settling upon an objectref.
bool convergencearms = true; // Converges arms to o crosshair.
bool convergearmsdelay = 1; // Delay in seconds upon settling upon an objectref.
Change to...
bool convergencetorso = true; // Converges torso weapons to + crosshair. If false uncomment the
// following. Note this creates
// a series of + crosshairs per section. Having all false creates one + per weapon. Hogs screen.
//bool convergenceltor = true;
//bool convergencector = true;
//bool convergencertor = true;
bool convergetorsodelay = 0; // Delay in seconds upon settling upon an objectref.
bool convergencearms = true; // Converges arms to o crosshair.
bool convergearmsdelay = 0; // Delay in seconds upon settling upon an objectref.
o.O;
Complexity!
Granted that'd be pre-HSR from a saved final closed beta install.
Fun, no?
The HUD already has the ability to handle non-convergence. Evidently it covers the screen in crosshairs however. PGI is removing Scaleform scripting from the game anyway.
Meaning they have to rescript the entire HUD, rescript how it interacts with the player, rescript what we see on screen.
If while they are at it they can manage to tack in a few lines of extra code in there, and insert an XML line on weapon types giving them a "load" reference.. it would be pretty damn easy.
Perhaps if you have target lock you always have pinpoint (as the computer is targeting that mech and adjusting) and if not then the cone of fire and targeting computer overload thing could kick in.
Troutmonkey, on 17 February 2016 - 04:08 PM, said:
Currently flamers generate exponential heat after 4.5 seconds.
Chain firing or using Macro's can avoid this heat. This is an exploit that get around the heat.
Russ however has stated that he doesn't see it that way.
If Flamers not generating heat is A-OK because of Macros (because otherwise no one would use them), then flamers should have their heat removed altogether. Having to use macro's or chainfire or other unconventional methods of firing just to use flamers "properly" and generate zero heat is stupid. If they were intended to be used in a way that generated zero heat, then they should generate zero heat.
Personally, I would be all for zero/very low heat flamers that cancel out dissipation while they're being fired. You could lock down an enemy but you couldn't cool off your mech, meaning you would have to stop firing your flamers every no and again if you wanted to fire your own weapons. Exponential heat is stupid
This is not a "flamer OP" thread. This is "flamers shooting mechanics shouldn't have to be exploited to make flamers good" thread.
EDIT:
Russ has now "fixed" the issue by making the expo heat not reset on flamers for 4.75 seconds, meaning unless you fully stop firing for the full time period your flamers will remember how much heat they were generating before and add heat from there. http://mwomercs.com/...pstmidnight-utc
This fix is given yesterday.
InnerSphereNews, on 18 February 2016 - 03:14 PM, said:
Greetings MechWarriors,
We will be rolling out a hot-fix today, Thursday February 18th, scheduled for 4:00 PM PST [Midnight UTC], with the following fixes:
• Flamers will now remember the rate at which they were generating heat within the firing 'Mech, for a period of 4.75 seconds after a Flamer is disengaged. If a Flamer is engaged within that 4.75 second time frame, the rate at which the Flamer generates heat in the firing 'Mech will continue from where they left off. After that 4.75 second time frame (if no Flamer has been engaged) the heat generation value will decrease as usual, according to the cooling efficiency of the 'Mech.[indent]
• Note: The rate at which a Flamer generates heat in the firing 'Mech is a shared value, and applies to all equipped Flamers.[/indent][indent]• This adjustment should address the issue where pilots could 'feather' or macro-ize Flamer trigger inputs to a point where they effectively became 'heat neutral'. A graph showing the approximate effect of this 'feathering', along with the effect of the above change, can be found here.[/indent]
• Fixed an issue with DirectX auto-detection with certain GPUs.
• Fixed an issue where grouping of Weight Classes was not working correctly in Solo queue.
• Fixed an issue where the LCT-1V [P] was missing the Machine Gun Rate of Fire +20% Quirk.
• Fixed an issue where Energy Quirks for certain Inner Sphere variants were greater than 10%:[indent]
• HGN-733P
• RVN-4X
• WHM-6D
• WHM-BW
• ZEU-9S
[/indent]
• Fixed an issue where the Beam Range Boost for the Targeting Computer MKII was 4% instead of 5%.
• Stalker: Fixed an issue with the appearance of LRM-5 and SRM-6 weapons.
• Stalker: Fixed an issue with the appearance of hardpoint caps in the Right and Left Arm.
The maximum estimated downtime required for this hot-fix will be approximately 30 minutes.
When services are restored you will be required to apply a small patch.
They are capable of adding new, simple scripts very quickly. They can do this within two days and detailed testing within a week.
The amount of coding required for convergence to be made instant.
bool convergencetorso = true; // Converges torso weapons to + crosshair. If false uncomment the
// following. Note this creates
// a series of + crosshairs per section. Having all false creates one + per weapon. Hogs screen.
//bool convergenceltor = true;
//bool convergencector = true;
//bool convergencertor = true;
bool convergetorsodelay = 1; // Delay in seconds upon settling upon an objectref.
bool convergencearms = true; // Converges arms to o crosshair.
bool convergearmsdelay = 1; // Delay in seconds upon settling upon an objectref.
Change to...
bool convergencetorso = true; // Converges torso weapons to + crosshair. If false uncomment the
// following. Note this creates
// a series of + crosshairs per section. Having all false creates one + per weapon. Hogs screen.
//bool convergenceltor = true;
//bool convergencector = true;
//bool convergencertor = true;
bool convergetorsodelay = 0; // Delay in seconds upon settling upon an objectref.
bool convergencearms = true; // Converges arms to o crosshair.
bool convergearmsdelay = 0; // Delay in seconds upon settling upon an objectref.
o.O;
Complexity!
Granted that'd be pre-HSR from a saved final closed beta install.
Fun, no?
The HUD already has the ability to handle non-convergence. Evidently it covers the screen in crosshairs however. PGI is removing Scaleform scripting from the game anyway.
Meaning they have to rescript the entire HUD, rescript how it interacts with the player, rescript what we see on screen.
If while they are at it they can manage to tack in a few lines of extra code in there, and insert an XML line on weapon types giving them a "load" reference.. it would be pretty damn easy.
But then it makes me wonder, hbk 4p, thing which basically replaced 1 ac20 for 6 mlas and fired them in alpha.
This thing would require some beastly targeting computer or it wont ever be prefered over 4g.
6
LordKnightFandragon, on 13 February 2016 - 12:08 PM, said:
)
