143 replies to this topic

[adamts01]

Dracol, on 30 April 2016 - 07:41 PM, said:

Would light mechs be exempt from this? cause that would, in my opinion, but light mechs at a very unfair disadvantage.

I drive lights and they absolutely shouldn't be exempt. Running full speed yeah you're shot's would be slightly off, but at close range it wouldn't matter. At long range, slow down and cool off to eliminate cof and take your perfect shot like everyone else. And if you're worried about being 1 shot, don't, as the enemy has the same handicap.

[Bobzilla]

A cockpit 'bob' from walking, would work to replace cof from movement.

[Tarl Cabot]

Some of the things others forget about or are not aware of when lining up weapons to be fired. Review Myomer bundles and Battle Computer sections. Also remember these are walking/running constructs trying to to fire multiple types of weapons at the same time, not a rolling weapons platform.

http://mwomercs.com/...y-an-education/

[Zerberus]

pbiggz, on 30 April 2016 - 07:19 AM, said:

This is very simple. If your game is about shooting, and you make shots NOT go where people aimed, people will not play your game.

Which is why every 3d shooter post-Half Life was a huge commercial failure and the genre is currently absolutely dead with zero interest from Players and publishers to revive it.... To think, all of this horror just becasue every 3d shooter that came after Quake II has a CoF mechanic in the form of the expanding crosshair.

Edited by Zerberus, 01 May 2016 - 06:09 AM.

[The Flying Gecko]

pbiggz, on 30 April 2016 - 07:19 AM, said:

This is very simple. If your game is about shooting, and you make shots NOT go where people aimed, people will not play your game. I oppose super pixel perfect pinpoint convergence, but there are people out here who want to go equally extreme in the opposite direction, like super aggressive link fire only or zero convergence or just zero convergence altogether.

Meanwhile, in Counter-Strike, one of the most successful FPS titles of all time....

[oldradagast]

Gas Guzzler, on 30 April 2016 - 07:45 AM, said:

How does the SRM meta apply to single pixel damage at long ranges?

There is no "SRM meta" - there are simply 2 mechs that happen to be able to wield SRM's effectively, and one of them - the Oxide - has really, really good quirks. Quirks, by the way, were introduced to help mechs better compete in the stupidly low TTK environment... caused by pinpoint, long range damage.

Just because a weapon can be used effectively on a few chassis does not make it "meta." If we're going with that "logic," every weapon in the game (except flamers and machine guns) is probably "meta" because there's one build somewhere that can use it.

The statement of fact still stands - pinpoint, long range damage has dominated nearly minute of this games existence. The only exceptions where times when missiles were bugged in some way (missile splash damage, LRM-ageddon days, etc.) which were all fixed, and the brief time when AC40 mechs were really scary... which is really nothing but pinpoint short-range damage... hardly a compelling argument against what I stated.

Edited by oldradagast, 01 May 2016 - 06:13 AM.

[Alan Davion]

dwwolf, on 01 May 2016 - 12:39 AM, said:

I think people are too scared about CoF mechanics.

This. So much this.

People have become too dependent on pin-point accuracy that the thought of their shots deviating even as little as 5 pixels from where they aim probably has some people pissing themselves.

I mean hell, MW4 had a chance for your weapons to go flying off to Who-The-F***-Knows-Where, but that was mostly when you were running at high heat to begin with. And generally only happened if you were running an all laser loadout.

I always ran mixed builds in MW4 and I almost never had any problems with heat and my laser shots going way the F*** out into left field, only when I got into serious melees with a group of enemy mechs, such as while doing the Solaris arena fights, did I start having any sort of heat troubles.

But hey, people want their generic e-sports game yo, gotta give the people what they want right?

I can't help but wonder how many people are going to jump ship when HBS' Battletech game comes out next year. That game is going to have all the depth and complexity that this game should have had.

[oldradagast]

Davers, on 30 April 2016 - 08:30 PM, said:

Yes, but they are also the same people who think that light mechs shouldn't be viable in combat, LRMs are good weapons, and that exposing yourself to half the enemy team shouldn't hurt much.

Groundless assumptions much? Read my posts. I've been a long-time supporter of a Cone of Fire, and I've also posted regularly about how lights need to be viable in combat, how LRM's are generally useless, how you shouldn't mindless stand out in the open, etc.

I have yet to see a single decent argument against a small, weighted cone of fire to scatter some damage at long ranges. Every argument is something like:

• "You must be a bad player to like this idea even though I have no facts to support this statement."
  
• "A cone of fire would make all my weapons scatter everywhere and nobody could hit anything even though that is specifically NOT the type or or size of cone of fire being proposed."
  
• "No successful FPS games have a cone of fire, even though nearly all actually do."
  
• "MWO is different than other games, so we clearly shouldn't include successful mechanics from those games."
  
• "Change is bad."

We've been over this a thousand times. Pixel-perfect long-range damage is stagnating this game and has a choke-hold on the meta. Mechs live or die by stupid little difference in geometry. We have ghost heat now and "power draw" coming - more illogical complexity. The game has been and will continue to be "slap on the most pinpoint, long range weapons you can to stay under the random limits imposed by PGI (ghost heat, power draw, etc.) and win!"

Why do people want this? It's not good for the game - that much is obvious - and certainly isn't Battletech. It makes me laugh how people want more Lore and respect for the original rules in the game, but they also want pixel-perfect long-range damage and endless alphas, which is anathema to tabletop's game mechanics and Lore. You can't have both.

Edited by oldradagast, 01 May 2016 - 06:23 AM.

[Alan Davion]

oldradagast, on 01 May 2016 - 06:22 AM, said:

Groundless assumptions much? Read my posts. I've been a long-time supporter of a Cone of Fire, and I've also posted regularly about how lights need to be viable in combat, how LRM's are generally useless, how you shouldn't mindless stand out in the open, etc.

I have yet to see a single decent argument against a small, weighted cone of fire to scatter some damage at long ranges. Every argument is something like:

• "You must be a bad player to like this idea even though I have no facts to support this statement."
  
• "A cone of fire would make all my weapons scatter everywhere and nobody could hit anything even though that is specifically NOT the type or or size of cone of fire being proposed."
  
• "No successful FPS games have a cone of fire, even though nearly all actually do."
  
• "MWO is different than other games, so we clearly shouldn't include successful mechanics from those games."
  
• "Change is bad."

We've been over this a thousand times. Pixel-perfect long-range damage is stagnating this game and has a choke-hold on the meta. Mechs live or die by stupid little difference in geometry. We have ghost heat now and "power draw" coming - more illogical complexity. The game has been and will continue to be "slap on the most pinpoint, long range weapons you can to stay under the random limits imposed by PGI (ghost heat, power draw, etc.) and win!"


Why do people want this? It's not good for the game - that much is obvious - and certainly isn't Battletech. It makes me laugh how people want more Lore and respect for the original rules in the game, but they also want pixel-perfect long-range damage and endless alphas, which is anathema to tabletop's game mechanics and Lore. You can't have both.

A-F***ING-MEN

That is all.

[LordKnightFandragon]

cazidin, on 30 April 2016 - 07:05 AM, said:

COF is a terrible idea. I've already been here many times and even made a thread discussing in length the short sightedness of convergence. Fix high damage laser alphas and we're done.

How do you propose to do that? You fail to realize adding a CoF of sorts would do exactly that, since people would be firing slower, less often, or smaller bursts, lowering the alpha.

Just nerfing laser damage alone doesnt fix the Alpha. All people would do is go to w/e is the next best Alpha weapon, probably PPCs, despite them being so bad.

kapusta11, on 30 April 2016 - 08:26 AM, said:

Games that have CoF mechanic have only 2 hitboxes for targets: head and body, MWO has 8. Weapons that have CoF in those games are either ARs or shotguns. They also have respawns and much shorter TTK.

Yeah, yet this game with the way the PPFLD is, TTK isnt that much longer then some shooter games. At least in most shooter games you can at least react to being shot, I was literally 2 shot before I could even do anything last time I played....2 bursts to the back, down my mech goes.

This game could do with a drastically longer TTK.

[Alan Davion]

LordKnightFandragon, on 01 May 2016 - 06:27 AM, said:

Yeah, yet this game with the way the PPFLD is, TTK isnt that much longer then some shooter games. At least in most shooter games you can at least react to being shot, I was literally 2 shot before I could even do anything last time I played....2 bursts to the back, down my mech goes.

This game could do with a drastically longer TTK.

I actually commented on something to that affect back on page 3.

[LordKnightFandragon]

Alan Davion, on 01 May 2016 - 06:20 AM, said:

This. So much this.

People have become too dependent on pin-point accuracy that the thought of their shots deviating even as little as 5 pixels from where they aim probably has some people pissing themselves.

I mean hell, MW4 had a chance for your weapons to go flying off to Who-The-F***-Knows-Where, but that was mostly when you were running at high heat to begin with. And generally only happened if you were running an all laser loadout.

I always ran mixed builds in MW4 and I almost never had any problems with heat and my laser shots going way the F*** out into left field, only when I got into serious melees with a group of enemy mechs, such as while doing the Solaris arena fights, did I start having any sort of heat troubles.

But hey, people want their generic e-sports game yo, gotta give the people what they want right?

I can't help but wonder how many people are going to jump ship when HBS' Battletech game comes out next year. That game is going to have all the depth and complexity that this game should have had.

MW4, I never had any issues with my shots going anywhere. I didnt know that game had COF at all, then again, I fired single shots, or pairs of weapons. At most, I fired like 4 guns at once.

[Davers]

oldradagast, on 01 May 2016 - 06:12 AM, said:

There is no "SRM meta" - there are simply 2 mechs that happen to be able to wield SRM's effectively, and one of them - the Oxide - has really, really good quirks. Quirks, by the way, were introduced to help mechs better compete in the stupidly low TTK environment... caused by pinpoint, long range damage.

Just because a weapon can be used effectively on a few chassis does not make it "meta." If we're going with that "logic," every weapon in the game (except flamers and machine guns) is probably "meta" because there's one build somewhere that can use it.

The statement of fact still stands - pinpoint, long range damage has dominated nearly minute of this games existence. The only exceptions where times when missiles were bugged in some way (missile splash damage, LRM-ageddon days, etc.) which were all fixed, and the brief time when AC40 mechs were really scary... which is really nothing but pinpoint short-range damage... hardly a compelling argument against what I stated.

It's still a meta. The PPC/Gauss combo was considered a meta, even though there was really only 3-4 mechs that dominated it.

[LordKnightFandragon]

oldradagast, on 01 May 2016 - 06:22 AM, said:

Groundless assumptions much? Read my posts. I've been a long-time supporter of a Cone of Fire, and I've also posted regularly about how lights need to be viable in combat, how LRM's are generally useless, how you shouldn't mindless stand out in the open, etc.

I have yet to see a single decent argument against a small, weighted cone of fire to scatter some damage at long ranges. Every argument is something like:

• "You must be a bad player to like this idea even though I have no facts to support this statement."
  
• "A cone of fire would make all my weapons scatter everywhere and nobody could hit anything even though that is specifically NOT the type or or size of cone of fire being proposed."
  
• "No successful FPS games have a cone of fire, even though nearly all actually do."
  
• "MWO is different than other games, so we clearly shouldn't include successful mechanics from those games."
  
• "Change is bad."

We've been over this a thousand times. Pixel-perfect long-range damage is stagnating this game and has a choke-hold on the meta. Mechs live or die by stupid little difference in geometry. We have ghost heat now and "power draw" coming - more illogical complexity. The game has been and will continue to be "slap on the most pinpoint, long range weapons you can to stay under the random limits imposed by PGI (ghost heat, power draw, etc.) and win!"


Why do people want this? It's not good for the game - that much is obvious - and certainly isn't Battletech. It makes me laugh how people want more Lore and respect for the original rules in the game, but they also want pixel-perfect long-range damage and endless alphas, which is anathema to tabletop's game mechanics and Lore. You can't have both.

And I think its the PPFLD which is the biggest turn off for me in this game. I drive my big *** battlemechs to feel semi stompy, tanky and tough. I wanna get into the big drawn out, mobile brawl fests from previous MW games. I loved to just get into big brawls against AI mechs. This game, you do anything but stack up around a corner, in a big blob, you get melted. First sucker to show their face is usually dead. The team who moves first loses this game...

[Davers]

Alan Davion, on 01 May 2016 - 06:20 AM, said:

This. So much this.

People have become too dependent on pin-point accuracy that the thought of their shots deviating even as little as 5 pixels from where they aim probably has some people pissing themselves.

I mean hell, MW4 had a chance for your weapons to go flying off to Who-The-F***-Knows-Where, but that was mostly when you were running at high heat to begin with. And generally only happened if you were running an all laser loadout.

I always ran mixed builds in MW4 and I almost never had any problems with heat and my laser shots going way the F*** out into left field, only when I got into serious melees with a group of enemy mechs, such as while doing the Solaris arena fights, did I start having any sort of heat troubles.

But hey, people want their generic e-sports game yo, gotta give the people what they want right?

I can't help but wonder how many people are going to jump ship when HBS' Battletech game comes out next year. That game is going to have all the depth and complexity that this game should have had.

I am guessing that people who like Battletech will leave and people who like FPS will stay and then maybe everyone will be happy?

oldradagast, on 01 May 2016 - 06:22 AM, said:

Groundless assumptions much? Read my posts. I've been a long-time supporter of a Cone of Fire, and I've also posted regularly about how lights need to be viable in combat, how LRM's are generally useless, how you shouldn't mindless stand out in the open, etc.

I have yet to see a single decent argument against a small, weighted cone of fire to scatter some damage at long ranges. Every argument is something like:

• "You must be a bad player to like this idea even though I have no facts to support this statement."
  
• "A cone of fire would make all my weapons scatter everywhere and nobody could hit anything even though that is specifically NOT the type or or size of cone of fire being proposed."
  
• "No successful FPS games have a cone of fire, even though nearly all actually do."
  
• "MWO is different than other games, so we clearly shouldn't include successful mechanics from those games."
  
• "Change is bad."

We've been over this a thousand times. Pixel-perfect long-range damage is stagnating this game and has a choke-hold on the meta. Mechs live or die by stupid little difference in geometry. We have ghost heat now and "power draw" coming - more illogical complexity. The game has been and will continue to be "slap on the most pinpoint, long range weapons you can to stay under the random limits imposed by PGI (ghost heat, power draw, etc.) and win!"


Why do people want this? It's not good for the game - that much is obvious - and certainly isn't Battletech. It makes me laugh how people want more Lore and respect for the original rules in the game, but they also want pixel-perfect long-range damage and endless alphas, which is anathema to tabletop's game mechanics and Lore. You can't have both.

I asked you once, and you never responded- how much deviation off target are we talking about? I fire my CERPPC at a target 810m away; how many meters will my shot be off?

[Alan Davion]

LordKnightFandragon, on 01 May 2016 - 06:30 AM, said:

MW4, I never had any issues with my shots going anywhere. I didnt know that game had COF at all, then again, I fired single shots, or pairs of weapons. At most, I fired like 4 guns at once.

Exactly, depending on the mech you were using, sometimes you didn't have more than 4 weapons to shoot to begin with.

Generally it was only when you started getting to mechs that could carry 6-8 of the same weapon and you just blasted away like a ninny that you started having issues with heat-induced cone-of-fire.

Your shots wouldn't miss the mech you were shooting at by much, a meter or two, maybe even hitting the ground at their feet occasionally, but you would still miss if you weren't exercising some degree of fire control.

[LordKnightFandragon]

Davers, on 01 May 2016 - 06:36 AM, said:

I asked you once, and you never responded- how much deviation off target are we talking about? I fire my CERPPC at a target 810m away; how many meters will my shot be off?

That would depend on how fast your moving, if you have a target lock, how many guns you fired all at once, and I could see targeting computers also playing a role in that.

[Davers]

LordKnightFandragon, on 01 May 2016 - 06:38 AM, said:

That would depend on how fast your moving, if you have a target lock, how many guns you fired all at once, and I could see targeting computers also playing a role in that.

Shhh. I want 'Old R' to answer.

[LordKnightFandragon]

Alan Davion, on 01 May 2016 - 06:37 AM, said:

Exactly, depending on the mech you were using, sometimes you didn't have more than 4 weapons to shoot to begin with.

Generally it was only when you started getting to mechs that could carry 6-8 of the same weapon and you just blasted away like a ninny that you started having issues with heat-induced cone-of-fire.

Your shots wouldn't miss the mech you were shooting at by much, a meter or two, maybe even hitting the ground at their feet occasionally, but you would still miss if you weren't exercising some degree of fire control.

I pretty much typically chain fired anyway. I had a joystick that had 6 fire group buttons on it. I used every one of them. 1-2-3 were typically my big guns, secondary guns and then I had LRMs at like 6.

I even ran a Nova Cat in it's stock loadout, 3x CERLL and 2x CERPPC and used it in the desert maps where we first get it and I had little heat issues. Just put the guns in fire groups 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 and chain fired.

[Alan Davion]

Davers, on 01 May 2016 - 06:36 AM, said:

1. I am guessing that people who like Battletech will leave and people who like FPS will stay and then maybe everyone will be happy?

2. I asked you once, and you never responded- how much deviation off target are we talking about? I fire my CERPPC at a target 810m away; how many meters will my shot be off?

1. That all depends on how many people stay here. If there's a mass exodus from this game, and only the most hardcore players are left... Is that enough of a playerbase for PGI to sustain the game with?

2. That sounds like a pretty extreme CoF system. I've been advocating for no more than a 5-pixel or so deviation from where you're aiming, so in your case, what mech are you aiming at? A tiny-butt Locust or a barn-door Awesome? Are they moving? Are they standing still?

LordKnightFandragon, on 01 May 2016 - 06:40 AM, said:

I pretty much typically chain fired anyway. I had a joystick that had 6 fire group buttons on it. I used every one of them. 1-2-3 were typically my big guns, secondary guns and then I had LRMs at like 6.

I even ran a Nova Cat in it's stock loadout, 3x CERLL and 2x CERPPC and used it in the desert maps where we first get it and I had little heat issues. Just put the guns in fire groups 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 and chain fired.

What Joystick? I used a Saitek X-52 HOTAS when I played MW4. I always had my missile weapons tied to the cool "missile" button under the little flip-up cover. That felt so damn awesome I'd grin every time I got a lock, flipped that up and gave it a jab, before watching a swarm of LRMs whoosh out from my mech and just knock down some poor SoB a kilometer away.