78 replies to this topic

[CMDR Sunset Shimmer]

VompoVompatti, on 04 March 2016 - 06:57 AM, said:

The original suggestion here is ridiculous.
TTK low... Haha... I don't know how long a one on one fight should last according to these guys who want longer ttk.


On a less related note: Doesn't Arma series still use the same old system from original OFP where the reticle just jumps around the screen when you are moving. It's not cof and basically timing your shot just right allows you to hit where you want even when sprinting. (not sure if that has changed in the later versions of the series) It was meant as a more sim like where bullets don't fly into random directions but follow their trajectory.

It changed back with ArmA2, and ArmA3 has a much more refined modern shooter feel.

Widowmaker1981, on 04 March 2016 - 06:57 AM, said:

Ive explained this to Jonny before.

Hes either too dense to understand that the ability to cancel a shot is more important than not having to remember to let go of the fire button (which is incredibly easy) or hes being deliberately disingenuous.

JohnnyZ: Once again. The Gauss macro is a hindrance, and good players dont use it.

Is he seriously still on about Macro's and cheating?

I'm a huge Anti-Macro advocate, but I basically got told "STFU, macro's arn't cheating" enough that I've gone on to ignore it [I guess a turbo button isn't cheating either, despite MLG regs.]

But yeah, he clearly doesn't understand the difference between Mechanics, and cheat protection.

[Lily from animove]

Well this would destroy one of the BT and core features of Mechwarrior. And in fact would just make it a rather stupid arena shooter with HP bar.

[GRiPSViGiL]

I am not hating the front and back total armor idea. However I think the legs would need there own quadrant as well. So essentially you would have upper and lower halves on the front and back. Once one of those quadrants of armor are removed only then the individual internal components would be exposed.

I am sure most hate this idea but I would definitely try it. I don't really mind how it is now though so meh.

Edited by GRiPSViGiL, 04 March 2016 - 07:39 AM.

[Bullseye69]

In table top there was different types of armor. There was reflective,reactive,generic and ferro just implent those problem decrease. Say reflective reduces damage NY aset number same for other types you still take damage but less. Drawback is take more tonnage to completely armor up.

[JC Daxion]

To me, I think this could work..

Every section or armor adds a reduction to how much damage internals take.

So for example, if you removed the rear center torso armor, you still have 3 front, and 2 rear sections left. So it could carry a -5 modifier. What that actual number is, would not be 5.. but would represent a buff to structure damage resistance.

So now the mechs would get bonus resistance for structure, just for having armor. Sure it is not complete real world sense, but in some ways perhaps a bit. Having armor on one side, would beef up that area of the mech, so it would not crumble, as armor is kinda like structure in some sense.

Perhaps it would still be 3 sections, but link them front and rear, even that could buff the structure resist.

Not only would this make it harder to take down structure, it would also be more rewarding for those lights, and fast mechs, to actually maneuver to the rear to take out armor, to remove more resists.

basically it would all boil down to making it rewarding for removing armor, to help take down mechs, verse the pin-point holes, and instant destruction deaths from high alpha's


Your not just making a total HP bar, as legs, and arms, and head would get no buffs at all,, So strats could start to get people to focus on arms first, or even legs, and then work on torso area. It basically is a structure buff over all.. But instead of just buffing numbers, it would use armor to give meaning to how much of a buff it has.

One point, would be would this be a % thing, so if you remove half the armor on each side, would that mean the buff would get smaller? or would you remove all armor first? I'd think that would be a balance thing, and the coding.. But i have been pondering this concept for a while.


So aiming and hitting the same spot, would still be the fastest way to kill a mech,, But would also make it take a bit longer, and give more reasons to hit for arms, and legs, to make mechs less dangerous while the torso gets a damage resistance buff. So twisting, and aiming and movement are all a big part of the game.

Edited by JC Daxion, 04 March 2016 - 09:26 AM.

[CDLord HHGD]

I think I'd rather see armor doubled again (x4 total) instead of one lump sum armor. Maybe, maybe, remove the front/rear thing to counter the laser boat light gankers, but that's not a very good solution either.

[Mystere]

slide, on 04 March 2016 - 02:14 AM, said:

Cone of fire is never going to happen, it's been shouted down to many times.

By whom, the most vocal of the vocal minority?

[xe N on]

There are many solution.

For example:

- just increase the speed of firing weapons while lowering it's damage. Same DPS, lesser alpha strike, natural more spread.

- remove arm lock

- Convergence of weapon based on target lock

Edited by xe N on, 04 March 2016 - 09:41 AM.

[Mystere]

VompoVompatti, on 04 March 2016 - 06:57 AM, said:

On a less related note: Doesn't Arma series still use the same old system from original OFP where the reticle just jumps around the screen when you are moving. It's not cof and basically timing your shot just right allows you to hit where you want even when sprinting. (not sure if that has changed in the later versions of the series) It was meant as a more sim like where bullets don't fly into random directions but follow their trajectory.

Some of the more scientifically inclined among us find that several multi-ton weapons having their lines of fire all jump in coordinated unison to be a bit silly. We'd rather have CoF instead of that.

[Felicitatem Parco]

I like Mechwarrior games because of damage compartmentalization.

I would not support the OP's idea that repeated shots to the left pinky finger can drain all the armor from your center torso. That's Armored Core mechanics, right there.

Edited by Prosperity Park, 04 March 2016 - 09:44 AM.

[Last Of The Brunnen-G]

First, you are right in understanding the problem.
Second, your way to solve the problem has to much drawbacks to be implemented.

My solution is the opposite of yours. Instead of combining the armor of the bodyparts, you should splitt them up more. The smaller the Armor parts, the more difficult it is to take out a part and the more realistic it is.

You could split a side torso into sections that represent nearly the same area on every mech (example 20cm x 20cm). Than you can choose which internals are protected by what armor parts/plates. If the internal slots behind a section are empty only the internal structur behind this section could be damaged. Therefore it would be nice to be able to choose where every item is placed.

If you balance the armor strength of the sections wisley dependend on the lore armor (to compare mech to mech, or center torso to side torso) the result would be a higher durability in most cases. An alpha strike would be nearly impossible to be placed on one or two sections, unless the target stands still.

The total armor points of all sections in a center torso for example has to be higher than the hole center torso armor points before this change. But each section would be alot weaker than the hole center torso before this change.

Comparsen:
The smaller the sections the better (infinite small would be great but needs completely different game mechanic). The smaller the sections the more difficult to aim them but the less armor they have, so it would be rewarding to shoot hole in hole. Welcome weapon convergence and wapon spread, bye bye ghost heat.

[Anyone00]

What about a static (well, semi-static in case of the arms) and mechlab configurable convergence system?
So on a HBK-4B (close the the base configuration): the six (or seven) mlas on hunch (and on on the head) would converge out to range set in the mechlab no matter the range of the enemy targeted and/or in the crosshair and the two mlas in the arm would pretty much converge like they do now because the HBK arms has both upper and lower arm actuators and there is only one weapon in each arm. Get significantly inside of the body mlas convergence range with weapons setup with a shorter convergence range and you would be at a greater advantage.
If it that sort of system would play nice with the HSR is unknown to me though.

Makes things a bit more sim like but less newbie friendly *shrug*

Edited by Anyone00, 04 March 2016 - 10:10 AM.

[-Vompo-]

Mystere, on 04 March 2016 - 09:41 AM, said:

Some of the more scientifically inclined among us find that several multi-ton weapons having their lines of fire all jump in coordinated unison to be a bit silly. We'd rather have CoF instead of that.

Lol. So when the weapon is pointed in a way where the shot should hit point a and fired you want it to hit point a, b, c, or d instead randomly because that is more scientific? You might want to leave science out of this.

[Mystere]

VompoVompatti, on 04 March 2016 - 10:36 AM, said:

Lol. So when the weapon is pointed in a way where the shot should hit point a and fired you want it to hit point a, b, c, or d instead randomly because that is more scientific? You might want to leave science out of this.

As opposed to what, 4 2-ton, 2 4-ton, and 2 10-ton weapons all hitting the same exact point in 3-dimensional space while all shaking in perfect unison due to movement and other factors? Yes, science needs to be brought in. But then again by your post you probably do not know what CEP, R95, or normal distributions are.

Hilarious!

Edited by Mystere, 04 March 2016 - 11:38 AM.

[Zerberus]

Bullseye69, on 04 March 2016 - 09:09 AM, said:

In table top there was different types of armor. There was reflective,reactive,generic and ferro just implent those problem decrease. Say reflective reduces damage NY aset number same for other types you still take damage but less. Drawback is take more tonnage to completely armor up.

Comes later in the timeline, as do weapons like Rotary Autocannons, Heavy gauss, Long Tom, MultiRangeMissiles....

As far as TTK goes: we already have jumpjet and impact screenshake. ANd we have movement speed reduction fopr losi.ng a leg or a clan XL losing a side torso...

SO, what the devs need to do in my opinion (and this would also go a decent way to curbing "large alpha - coolshot - large alpha - coolshot - override -large alpha - cooldown" builds) is figure out h a way to tie teh mechs current heat into a lore-inspired version of heatscale.....

Ideally this would be a linear or slightly exponential rise.. at low levels (say under 50%) not too much, but get to say 95% and it´s like having an AC2 mech pepper you constantly, just w/o the damage and with a movement speed reduction of, say, 50-60%.

Yeah, I think that actually sounds about right, at 95% heat screenshake (almost?) equivalent to 2 AC2s and 50% movement speed reduction, and a linear decrease to 0 at say 20-25% heat. And at 100% of course automatic (but overridable) shutdown, but an exponential increase in shake and speed reduction for every % over 100. So at 120% the screen would shake like a jumpjetting light getting hit LRMs, and a heavy or assault would be more or less nailed to the spot for a few seconds with an 85-90% movement speed decrease

That´s just my take on it.

Edited by Zerberus, 04 March 2016 - 11:52 AM.

[Mystere]

xe N on, on 04 March 2016 - 09:38 AM, said:

- Convergence of weapon based on target lock

"But this uses RNJesus and as such is no different from a cone of fire!".

<I agree with your suggestion. But some people on the forums totally do not comprehend what you mean.>

Edited by Mystere, 04 March 2016 - 12:57 PM.

[SplashDown]

to the OP i have to say i like the idea....lower alpha and more armor could imho make the game more fun

[xe N on]

Mystere, on 04 March 2016 - 11:42 AM, said:

"But this uses RNJesus and as such is no different from a cone of fire!".

<I agree with your suggestion. But some people on the forums totally do not comprehend what you meann>

Hm. You can argue against Anti-RNJesus-crowd by using a mechanism I like would call grouped convergence. Weapon that are installed in the same mech part have the same convergence. Thus, without locked target you get multiple cross hairs, quite like currently torso and arm weapons, but they don't converge 100%, but create some cone of fire (I used the evil COF word, oh no).

Convergence groups would be: left arm, right arm, side torsos and CT to a maximum of 4 separate crosshairs.

Using any of the crosshairs to aim at your enemy will give perfect convergence for all weapons grouped.

However, to fire all weapons after each other you need to slightly twist to align each crosshair separately. You could not Alpha, but without large spread.

As soon as you can get a lock, all weapons converge to one focal point.

There would be no randomness in this system by definition. And, in contrast, it would require much more skill to use all your weapons without lock.

Technically and physically seen, instant convergence as now is quite ridiculous. Not only the mech's sensor constantly need to evaluate quite different distances but also small servo motors (or micro myomers what ever) would need to adjust the alignment of the weapons for convergence.

At least some "blur" of 1 to 2 seconds before perfect alignment would be realistical. Every time your distance switch, e.g. because you loose the enemy mechs silhouette and point into the sky, weapons would be realigned to the new focus point. That would be highly inefficient and cost time.

Realistically the "lock" method would provide advantage, because the mech's targeting system would prevents "convergence hopping" and automatically pre-align weapons based on the own movement and the distance of the enemy mech.

Edited by xe N on, 04 March 2016 - 01:16 PM.

[Mystere]

xe N on, on 04 March 2016 - 01:01 PM, said:

Hm. You can argue against Anti-RNJesus-crowd by using a mechanism I like would call grouped convergence. This means weapon that are installed in the same part have the same convergence. Thus, without locked target you get multiple cross hairs, quite like currently torso and arm weapons.

I would propose: left arm, right arm, side torsos and CT to a maximum of 4 separate crosshairs.

Using any of the crosshairs to aim at your enemy will give perfect convergence for all weapons grouped. However, to fire all weapons you need to slightly twist to align each crosshair separately. You could not Alpha, or at least not without large spread.

As soon as you can get a lock, all weapons converge to one focal point.

There would be no randomness in this system. In contrast, it would require much more skill to use all your weapon groups without lock.

Although I like your idea, I think you missed my point.

Edited by Mystere, 04 March 2016 - 01:05 PM.

[xe N on]

Mystere, on 04 March 2016 - 01:04 PM, said:

Although I like your idea, I think you missed my point.

Yeah, I know, it was meant sarcastic