102 replies to this topic

[Chuck Jager]

Levi Porphyrogenitus, on 09 February 2016 - 09:37 AM, said:

Just the opposite. Aiming in this game is too easy. It's down right trivial.

Only if folks know that they need to turn down mouse sensitivity or have a mouse with adjustable dpi and macros. Also true if folks build for alpha strikes and do not chain fire.

I am a decent player now, but it was a long hard battle to get there. Turning down the mouse sensitivity and learning to shoot and scoot made the biggest difference in my in game results. The mouse issue also include learning to use arm lock on and off for better convergence and maneuverability. Of course the runner up is using seismic and heat vision as legal wall hacks. All of these things are counter intuitive to getting better through practice. They are more like getting better by GOOGLE.

I am all for increasing ttk, but we though the skill tree would do this. All it did was make more mechs less competitive. GH does address limiting boating, but we know how popular this is. I would be very happy with making arm lock always be off, with the arm centering speed when slowing and stopping becoming faster for lights and assaults (speed survivable for lights and assaults already have too much time taking damage over giving it). This way we could introduce cone of fire mechanisms without completely changing the game (whiner perception).

My current cellphone camera has very accurate distance range focusing and SLR cameras are almost instant. I have a hard time seeing highly advanced machines not having algorithms and gyros to do a similar operation (do understand need for game balance).

The issue is with lasers so we could adjust heat scale limit or cooling (I like slower cooling after a certain percent to make shoot and scoot less effective). We could also look at convergence to all weapons or else nerf laser range/damage/heat with a buff to AC tonnage/ammo amount/ROF.

I think any change will have folks yelling and screaming, and it will also effect existing balances especially at first.

[Aresye]

Davers, on 09 February 2016 - 12:42 PM, said:

PGI at least pretended to want the community to fix ECM. But they have never seemed to support any of these ideas, even the ones that were rather brilliantly conceived.

The problem wasn't that PGI wouldn't support any of the community's ideas for fixing ECM. The problem was the community itself wouldn't support any particular method for fixing ECM. Every special snowflake wanted their own special way of fixing ECM to be THE ONE, and completely refused to accept any other method.

It's the same thing with these convergence topics. If you look through most of the threads, you'll find one person arguing for cone of fire, another person arguing for fixed convergence, another person arguing for manual convergence, etc. You'll even see them arguing with each other.

If PGI wanted to have some lulz again, all they'd need to do is come out and say, "We have decided we're going to look into fixing convergence, but want to hear your ideas. If the community can agree on a way of fixing convergence, we'll look into implementing it."

Then the forums would explode, because nobody is willing to compromise.

Edited by Aresye, 09 February 2016 - 01:45 PM.

[MysticLink]

People want it to be nothing but two teams run into each other, and then dishing it out and see who is left standing so that it's a "close" game. People will end up with more missiles than lasers or ballistics, if we going this route.

The not so close games means there was a strategy involved. It means the other team outsmarted your team.

[MischiefSC]

Aresye, on 09 February 2016 - 11:01 AM, said:

MechWarrior: Perfect Pinpoint Convergence
MechWarrior 2: Perfect Pinpoint Convergence
MechWarrior 2 Mercenaries: Perfect Pinpoint Convergence
MechWarrior 2 GBL: Perfect Pinpoint Convergence
MechWarrior 3: Perfect Pinpoint Convergence
MechWarrior 3 Pirate's Moon: Perfect Pinpoint Convergence
MechWarrior 4 Vengeance: Perfect Pinpoint Convergence
MechWarrior 4 Black Knight: Perfect Pinpoint Convergence
MechWarrior 4 Mercenaries: Perfect Pinpoint Convergence
MechWarrior Living Legends: Perfect Pinpoint Convergence

The ONLY similarities MechWarrior has to BattleTech is the lore and setting. The whole argument of, "Well in BT the mechs weren't supposed to be this accurate," is a completely moot point because this isn't BattleTech, it's MechWarrior, and every official MechWarrior game that has ever been released has had perfect convergence. Hell, MWO is actually a step above most other MW games already simply by implementing 2 separate crosshairs for the arms and torso.

Except that single player balance /= mp balance. You know that. They also had mixed tech, op clans, etc.


Single player needs broken balance to make the players a hero. It needs ladder progression on gear too.

You know this. I don't have a big object to perfect twitch precision - I've got a nice gaming mouse and this isn't my first fps. I struggle way more with good positioning than I do accuracy. However perfect constant precision breaks a lot of the game and PGI isn't up to fixing that for pvp. Having some sort of convergence mechanic would help a number of factors of balance and mechanics in the game.

[Aresye]

MischiefSC, on 09 February 2016 - 02:05 PM, said:

Except that single player balance /= mp balance. You know that. They also had mixed tech, op clans, etc.

MWO has the best balance between the two techs than any other MW game before it.

[Gorgo7]

I've said it before...No lock, no pinpoint.

Lock, pinpoint.

Pinpoint ends at 90 meters unless weapons are in the arms.

easy.

[MischiefSC]

Aresye, on 09 February 2016 - 02:15 PM, said:

MWO has the best balance between the two techs than any other MW game before it.

Not arguing that at all, quite the opposite. That's what I'm saying about perfect precision - it worked in the other games because SP, it doesn't work as well in this one.

I get that it feels like it's trying to degrade the value of having good aim but that's not the point. The point is to make getting that good accuracy require some positioning skill. I'm not a fan of it being just movement related or you'll end up with turret behavior.

I'd be happiest with it being your weapons converge at the range of your target after you get paper doll, otherwise it's a straight line or even better a manual set. You give it a good "generic" default and add more complexity for advanced players.

As we move into a deeper population for filling PSR and split CW queue I'm in favor of adding more OPTIONAL complexity. Look, top performers will attack and master the new mechanics. What it will do is make room for a more graduated set of skills to divide the end of the arc from the middle. The current deviation from the best players from mid range is steep. Too steep in a lot of ways, a lot of the skills are a binary and not a progression so you have almost everyone within arms reach and then a huge leap to "competitive" which consists of a group of interdependent skills that when learned and applied in a group differentiate comp play from regular play.

I'm not in favor of removing precision, not a fan of a general CoF. Some sort of convergence mechanic though I think would improve the game overall. Top tier players will master it and move forward but everyone else will pick up a bit more depth of play and we need that.

[Kuritaclan]

MischiefSC, on 09 February 2016 - 02:49 PM, said:

I'd be happiest with it being your weapons converge at the range of your target after you get paper doll, otherwise it's a straight line or even better a manual set. You give it a good "generic" default and add more complexity for advanced players.

Every advanced player will play ECM Mechs. Why shouldn't you. Nearly most time not targetet yeha (as it stands). And the next thing what will appear everybody who has a laser boat -boat a tag into. 12 Borgs running around.

See picture of the mwo future:
https://thefortresso...ness.jpg?w=1200

Edited by Kuritaclan, 09 February 2016 - 03:06 PM.

[wanderer]

Lots of panels = smaller targets, higher chance of damage not hitting the same spot. Requires rehitboxing every 'Mech in the game.

CoF= same sized target, higher chance of damage not hitting the same spot. Requires using coding already in the game.

Knowing PGI and given similar results, which do you think gets done?

[MischiefSC]

Kuritaclan, on 09 February 2016 - 03:00 PM, said:

Every advanced player will play ECM Mechs. Why shouldn't you. Nearly most time not targetet yeha (as it stands). And the next thing what will appear everybody who has a laser boat -boat a tag into. 12 Borgs running around.

See picture of the mwo future:
https://thefortresso...ness.jpg?w=1200

Possibly. Then again you give mechs with ECM a significantly reduced target time and some mech like lights a much faster one and you're already on to a solution.

[Bobzilla]

Lock or paper doll would kill long range weapons.

[MischiefSC]

Bobzilla, on 09 February 2016 - 03:17 PM, said:

Lock or paper doll would kill long range weapons.

OR require sensor range module or not boated. General idea being you need a spotter for ideal sniping l. Otherwise you get accuracy with 1 erll, not 4. You want all 4 you need a lock.

The point is increasing TTK And reducing pinpoint accuracy *on average* by making it conditional. This means you'll still have pinpoint firing solutions they just won't be constant and effortless and they're will be room for missiles and LBX and burst acs because some damage > no damage.

[Kuritaclan]

wanderer, on 09 February 2016 - 03:10 PM, said:

Lots of panels = smaller targets, higher chance of damage not hitting the same spot. Requires rehitboxing every 'Mech in the game.

CoF= same sized target, higher chance of damage not hitting the same spot. Requires using coding already in the game.

Knowing PGI and given similar results, which do you think gets done?

I don't say that the rehitboxing of 3d models and additional implementation of internal component Hitboxes would make huge requirement. Anyway MWO would be the first and only game as it stands that will go in such a detail. What would be a selling argument.

Anyway i know this is not likely to get implemented as it stands. And the cof thing is "easier" to do - despite that it also is hugh effort to make and have some serious data trafic issues.

MischiefSC, on 09 February 2016 - 03:26 PM, said:

OR require sensor range module or not boated. General idea being you need a spotter for ideal sniping l. Otherwise you get accuracy with 1 erll, not 4. You want all 4 you need a lock.

The point is increasing TTK And reducing pinpoint accuracy *on average* by making it conditional. This means you'll still have pinpoint firing solutions they just won't be constant and effortless and they're will be room for missiles and LBX and burst acs because some damage > no damage.

Requiring Spotters - no this never works. Because someone who spots - is likely spoted and get focused therfore. The spoter has no gain for doing so, but has a higher risk to get killed if doing so.

Also as some suggested - making COF a function of speed - spotters himself cannot shoot accurately while providing someone else accuracy. Or in a better understand of this relation you will hit less yourself only that someone else you need to count on hits better. That is stupid.

There some serious drawbacks in such a relationship. That therefore also needs to fixed with a overhauling of match score system. To count in the effort of "spotting" and doing less damage.

I would say it has at least a equally long string of consequences attached to it.

Edited by Kuritaclan, 09 February 2016 - 04:28 PM.

[MischiefSC]

Kuritaclan, on 09 February 2016 - 03:27 PM, said:

I don't say that the rehitboxing of 3d models and additional implementation of internal component Hitboxes would make huge requirement. Anyway MWO would be the first and only game as it stands that will go in such a detail. What would be a selling argument.

Anyway i know this is not likely to get implemented as it stands. And the cof thing is "easier" to do - despite that it also is hugh effort to make and have some serious data trafic issues.


Requiring Spotters - no this never works. Because someone who spots - is likely spoted and get focused therfore. The spoter has no gain for doing so, but has a higher risk to get killed if doing so.

Also as some suggested - making of a function of speed - spotters himself cannot shoot accurately while providing someone else accuracy. Or in a better understand of this relation you will hit less yourself only that someone else you need to count on hits better. That is stupid.

There some serious drawbacks in such a relationship. That therefore also needs to fixed with a overhauling of match score system. To count in the effort of "spotting" and doing less damage.

I would say it has at least a equally long string of consequences attached to it.

Except if Lights have a fast acquisition time and are slower to be acquired that fixes a lot. Also gives good balance for lights vs assaults. IW mechanics are a very cool concept and would create a great role Warfare in the game, especially if a light gets payout for damage to targets that they locked first. Could create a ton of bonuses for scouting behavior. Have some mechs better and some worse at target acquisition. When we had laser range falloff this wasn't hard to manage at all and a good spotter on your team made a big difference.

The point exactly is to make role warfare and make it ciable. Right now we have to give restrictions to force people not to take the biggest mech they can. If however mediums are in a great sweet spot for faster IW performance and can still take a good loadout to use it how cool is that?

[Mcgral18]

Gas Guzzler, on 09 February 2016 - 01:23 PM, said:

If only the forums knew their left torso from the right torso in this game, then maybe the opinions and suggestions generated here might be worth listening to. If only.

Not even Betty knows that.

Aresye, on 09 February 2016 - 01:44 PM, said:

The problem wasn't that PGI wouldn't support any of the community's ideas for fixing ECM. The problem was the community itself wouldn't support any particular method for fixing ECM. Every special snowflake wanted their own special way of fixing ECM to be THE ONE, and completely refused to accept any other method.

How about a 30 second test:

'targetingfactor="0.5'

Bam, less powerful, still useful, doesn't gimp the worst weapon system in the game as much (400M base sensor detection, not the LRM min range)

[oldradagast]

Kristian Radoulov, on 09 February 2016 - 09:31 AM, said:

How much if it is down to you guys complaining because you don't have good aim? Honest question here as I get the feeling a lot of what I read stems from people trying to close the skillgap via mechanics to even the playing field.

Do you think it will make for closer games? Have you thought about how increasing TTK will skew the mechanics of current fights (IE focused fire even more important than now pushing people towards deathballing/nascaring even harder)?

Nothing shows a person's deep understanding of a topic more than watching them start their argument with groundless, sweeping accusations, such as what you've done. If you bothered to read the posts, plenty of elite players support removing instant, perfect convergence.

Convergence is not skill. If the only thing separating you from the unwashed masses of the "steering-wheel underhive" is that you know about boating lasers and clicking on a mech with them for instant damage, you were never skilled to begin with.

Instant, perfect convergence has been at the heart of nearly every balance problem in the game. Everything from ghost heat to jump-jet nerfs to Gauss nerfs, to PPC nerfs has been forced because of the catastrophic and unbalancing effect of being able to put a stupid amount of damage on a single point on a mech with no real effort - or skill -whatsoever. Hell, even the need to rescale mechs and evaluate them so heavily by their hitboxes has been forced on us because of how easy it is to carve off components at long ranges with little to no real effort.

What, exactly, is unreasonable about proposing a solution to fix one of the most obvious and serious problems in the game? Note that a cone of fire not only fixes this problem, but is also within the game engine's ability to handle AND makes the game behave somewhat more like Lore, where mechs were not perfectly accurate. I don't expect an answer since people who launch flame posts never have solutions, just whining.

Edited by oldradagast, 09 February 2016 - 04:04 PM.

[Kuritaclan]

MischiefSC, on 09 February 2016 - 03:50 PM, said:

Except if Lights have a fast acquisition time and are slower to be acquired that fixes a lot. Also gives good balance for lights vs assaults. IW mechanics are a very cool concept and would create a great role Warfare in the game, especially if a light gets payout for damage to targets that they locked first. Could create a ton of bonuses for scouting behavior. Have some mechs better and some worse at target acquisition. When we had laser range falloff this wasn't hard to manage at all and a good spotter on your team made a big difference.

The point exactly is to make role warfare and make it ciable. Right now we have to give restrictions to force people not to take the biggest mech they can. If however mediums are in a great sweet spot for faster IW performance and can still take a good loadout to use it how cool is that?

It all plays into another. And thats the biggest issue. PGI never presented a round idea where the game is heading to. So all you claims about what would make the game cooler (despite that this is only your opinion) do not translate, because many other issues are interdependent with it. And PGI (Russ) do not see it. It is like the shot in the feet with this half thought out rescaling. Which is not in concept with other changes which also needs to be done. So they most likely will end up doing it twice i will guess.

[MischiefSC]

Kuritaclan, on 09 February 2016 - 04:02 PM, said:

It all plays into another. And thats the biggest issue. PGI never presented a round idea where the game is heading to. So all you claims about what would make the game cooler (despite that this is only your opinion) do not translate, because many other issues are interdependent with it. And PGI (Russ) do not see it. It is like the shot in the feet with this half thought out rescaling. Which is not in concept with other changes which also needs to be done. So they most likely will end up doing it twice i will guess.

I should clarify -

I'm game with a convergence system that's part of a role warfare IW package.

[cazidin]

If we had a proper heat scale then we wouldn't see laser boats alpha striking all they survey.

[Troutmonkey]

Mister Blastman, on 09 February 2016 - 10:18 AM, said:

Well what I'm worried about is the size of those hitboxes.

[sic]

Effectively you'd need to melt the same amount of armor with bad aim to down a spider (well, any aim, really) versus great aim downing an Atlas. So the spider can't have the same number of boxes due to them being so small and ease of spreading the damage versus the larger robot.

Wait, did you just debunk your own great idea that you have absolute confidence in?