425 replies to this topic

[Bishop Steiner]

MeiSooHaityu, on 15 June 2016 - 10:21 AM, said:

I see both sides. I'm not trying to be close-minded about this.

I am open to the idea of CoF, but I do feel unsure if I would like it. An A/C20 for instance might be an extreme example, but it still needs to be taken into account since it is an important weapon in the game and BT universe.

I could see a small CoF being applied, but I'm not sure a small one would be adequate. A larger cone might be better, but would it hurt ranged loadouts too much? EEPPCs/ERLLasers/Gauss would suffer, but even with a CoF, would it effect short range weapons much? Would we see a shift to MPLaser/MLaser builds? Would that nerf the Clan's ranged advantage?

Really, there seem to be far reaching implications that would have to be taken into account. I think a CoF could work, but I'm sure balance would be a nightmare for a few months after.

In any case, I just feel that a CoF would have to be something I would need "seat time" with before I would be sold on the idea. I ain't going to lie though, I THINK it would be a hard sell to me, but I wouldn't know till i try it.

why woould a CoF be one size fits all? In good well designed game,s you have a combination of factors. Movement sway. Varying levels of CoF based on several external factors. If you are trying to cockpit shot a running mech at 540 meters with an AC20.... and miss.... I don't feel bad about that.

For instance, CoFs can be applied any number of ways, with any degree of deviation. And counter to what some people claim, weapons don't all fire off to an exactly predictable path (outside of well tuned lasers, I suppose). There is a reason even with a target shooter, you don't have every bullet going through exact same hole in the paper.

For Instance, weapons in MWO and Battletech have "Optimal" ranges. In MWO we also have the added doubled, Maximum range. A logical point is that the targeting computers are set for the Optimal ranges. Shooting beyond that might incur a deviation that increase the further past optimal range once is aiming. That's all very REAL WORLD with aiming.

Another example is heat. Targeting computers in Btech get heat adled, move slow, etc. You see it in your Smartphone games when the CPUs get hot and laggy. The Reticle might not CoF, per se, but in CB it DID flicker in and out when you were too hot and locking missiles was difficult if not impossible at high heat. Likewise it would probably lag, and sometime respond sluggishly. Again..realism.

Vehicles moving over rough terrain, even with gyro stabilized guns do not have perfect millimeter accuracy. You get bump and sway to your aimpoint.

I'm sorry if I don't feel adding max guns and mashing an alphastrike pixel perfect everytime is really a great representation of skill. It demonstrates A skill. a very sterile, bubble boy skill. Having IRL effects doesn't remove that skill, as good players and shooters again, learn to adapt and actualyl will still be better than unskilled players who either will stop moving to shoot, or as one sees often in WoTs banzai charge all weapons blazing, missing most shots hoping to overcome with spam what they can't achieve with skill.

I gotta say I often wonder how many people have fired weapons IRL, and understand the variables? I know we got at least one Snake Eater on these forums, and even with the Apache Longbows impressive HUD system, that 30mm chaingun was not pinpoint milllimetric repeatably accurate, especially while maneuvering. Abrams and Leopards and Challengers all have great targeting systems, and dropping all their shots, while moving into a 2 meter bucket is considered accurate, against other moving fighting vehicles... and technically, they have better targeting systems than Mechs do.

So yeah, I don't consider spamming fire to a pixel that never gets any outside influence the epitome of skill some do.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

MeiSooHaityu, on 15 June 2016 - 10:35 AM, said:

An example of this (in a way) is the Ultra Jam chance. It's pure RNG and people HATE the lack of control over that mechanic.

I still hate the jam mechanic, partially for a similar reason as brought up in #2 of those videos, UACs can swing fairly far in either the super powerful or piece of crap direction, and it is that far of a swing in nature that makes me dislike the current jam mechanics.

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 15 June 2016 - 10:40 AM.

[Bishop Steiner]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 15 June 2016 - 10:23 AM, said:

That makes sense for a PvE kind of game, but the moment you start talking about PvP, there is a different story. Don't get me wrong, when the dice roll your way in TT, it can be exhilarating, but the frustration from the reverse is not worth it and honestly why I don't play it that often anymore (well that and it takes forever).

So do you not do any IRL sports or activities like archery, target shooting, playing hoops? All have tons of variables to overcome, enough to count as "random" because we sure can't process them in real time"... yet all take a lot of skill, and only the "best" succeed. You don't see wind and sun and rain allowing the neighborhood kid to be Michael Jordan or Tom Brady. They are still the best despite outside factors.

I guess I simply do not understand "competitive gamer" mentality.... because outside of playing arcade tournaments in the early 90s, I have never been a comp gamer. I have on the other hand competed in rifle and pistol shooting tournaments, black powder, archery, basketball, football, etc, fired crew served weapons (not near as often as I would have liked to) and can tell you that dealing with "IRL" doesn't remove skill, or give the Bads a leg up on the Goods, but that the cream still rises to the top.

And my comparatively limited gameplay experience, in those games with CoF and outside factors...is that the best still are the best, and the bad don't simply become good, but that across the board, ALL become less efficient, the worse the outside factors are, period. And if anything, it actually is WORSE for the bad players to compensate, because they never learn how to adapt.

And end of the day, yes, reducing aiming efficiency ACROSS THE BOARD is the goal to reduce focus fire and improve TTK without these idiotic huge structure buffs that have turned what should be fearsome weapons when they hit, into peashooters.

[1453 R]

Mystere, on 15 June 2016 - 09:45 AM, said:

clustered weapon hardpoints are an advantage

They already are an advantage. Again - this is a 'feature' which punishes 'mechs that already have bad/scattered hardpoints rather than HBK-4P weapons batteries.
articulated arm-based weapon hardpoints are an advantage

Again - these weapons are already an advantage for folks with the patience/steady-handedness to make use of the much more agile arm crosshairs. It's an advantage balanced out by arm-mounted weapons being more vulnerable to destruction, and by arm-mounted weapons being, generally, lower than torso-mounted weapons.
big guns are better placed on solitary hardpoints if other weapons are better served on clustered ones

Big, hard-hitting, slow-firing weapons are rendered functionally worthless by a Dumvergence system, regardless of hardpoint placement, as they are denied the precision of shot placement REQUIRED for big, hard-hitting, slow-firing weapons to have any sort of edge whatsoever over small, fast-firing, low-damage weapons. Massed batteries of light weapons already have an alarming number of advantages over singular big guns like AC/20s. Scatter-firing massed light weapons for a good chance for some damage as opposed to firing a single AC/20 with a very high chance for no damage is going to be pretty much 100% superior in all cases in any commonly proposed Dumvergence system

Mechs with scattered weapon hardpoints are at a disadvantage under certain conditions (e.g. no lock in a lock-based convergence system)

Once again - 'Mechs with widely scattered weapons hardpoints are already at a disadvantage. One often accompanied by bad geometry, as you need a widely scattered 'Mech to have widely scattered hardpoints. Why do these 'Mechs need to be MORE disadvantaged than they already are?
each shot per weapon is predictable vs. a CoF system

The one, single benefit fixed convergence has over Cone of Failure. Nevertheless - having weapons on a 'Mech which very literally ignore the crosshair is in no way intuitive, good game design, whether or not that ignorance is steady and predictable. Having a gun that always shoots the same twelve degrees below and fifteen to the right of the crosshair may allow a player to compensate for the weapon's mounting, but eventually that player is going to be super pissedthat there's no way whatsoever for him to correct the appallingly warped aimpoint of his weapon.

People whose weapon sights are THAT badly off in real life correct their weapon sights, or they trade in their weapon if correcting the sights is somehow not an option.

Bishop Steiner, on 15 June 2016 - 10:23 AM, said:

I honestly can't explain it any more in depth than in my 20 previous posts man. I'm sorry if you think being able to make shots in adverse conditions somehow diminishes skill. Screw it, let's keep the aiming for dummies and constantly decreasing TTK, or bandaid mechanics to fix it.

*shrugs*

Not sure what inherent skill click a pixel exemplifies, either, but that's just me, apparently.

Bishop. Bishop. Bishop.

HOW is someone supposed to "learn the skill of making the shot in adverse conditions" if you offer them absolutely no means or method, whatsoever, of compensating for randomized shot placement?

You're not advocating for a system of mitigatable penalties which can be reduced or eliminated by superior piloting or positioning. You're not advocating for the creation of a set of skills players can use to minimize Cone of Failure idiocy sending AC/20 shots wildly off-bore. You're just telling people that hardwired Cone of Failure is more immersive because real-life ballistics are subject to shot deviation, while thoroughly ignoring the years and years and years of both accumulated skill and systems development that have gone into attempting to minimize, compensate for, or otherwise reduce as a factor shot deviation.

How is it more skillful to get a higher number of lucky Cone of Failure dice rolls than whoever it is you're fighting at any given point?

Edited by 1453 R, 15 June 2016 - 10:49 AM.

[kapusta11]

Bishop Steiner, on 15 June 2016 - 10:17 AM, said:

the fact that it has reached 9 pages of discussion that fast actually kind of makes the point on why it shoudl be here. Thanks for playing.

Looks like a yet another circlejerk in my book. With a bunch of people trying to appeal to reason of couse but all to no avail still.

[Bishop Steiner]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 15 June 2016 - 10:40 AM, said:

I still hate the jam mechanic, partially for a similar reason as brought up in #2 of those videos, UACs can swing fairly far in either the super powerful or piece of crap direction, and it is that far of a swing in nature that makes me dislike the current jam mechanics.

And I think that is the similarity and the difference between Gamer and IRL Competitor

Neither likes things that are outside their control. But the Gamer wants to see any variance removed, whereas the IRL Competitor accepts it as part of their discipline and adapts to as best as possible. Which is why, on a rainy windy pistol IPSC tournament course, Jerry Miculek will outshoot me all day, every day. Because he is simply better than me, and dealing with IRL conditions doesn't change that, if anything it magnifies the difference in skill.

1453 R, on 15 June 2016 - 10:42 AM, said:

Bishop. Bishop. Bishop.

HOW is someone supposed to "learn the skill of making the shot in adverse conditions" if you offer them absolutely no means or method, whatsoever, of compensating for randomized shot placement?

tell that to any competitive shooter ever.

the tools are there, you just refuse to acknowledge them.

kapusta11, on 15 June 2016 - 10:44 AM, said:

Looks like a yet another circlejerk in my book. With a bunch of people trying to appeal to reason of couse but all to no avail still.

so go read a different book. Problem solved.

Edited by Bishop Steiner, 15 June 2016 - 10:46 AM.

[TKSax]

Bishop Steiner, on 15 June 2016 - 10:42 AM, said:

So do you not do any IRL sports or activities like archery, target shooting, playing hoops? All have tons of variables to overcome, enough to count as "random" because we sure can't process them in real time"peashooters.

Because IRL you can detect those things like wind or Mirages that affect shooting quite a bit, in a computer game you can't so there is no way to compensate for them.

As I said before I rather MWO add effects like with in MW3 where it was harder than MWO to put a reticle on target (probably not as hard) and see things like heat effect torso movement, however in MW3 if your reticle was on target, it hit where you shot. I would not even mind if walking over things effected your reticle movement more, but not to much cause I would hate to see movement in the game become static.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Bishop Steiner, on 15 June 2016 - 10:42 AM, said:

You don't see wind and sun and rain allowing the neighborhood kid to be Michael Jordan or Tom Brady.

Wind nor sun would affect Michael Jordan because there is very little in stadiums for basketball (wind may however play into it since crowds cause some disturbance, but do you not think there are factors like that currently? Shoddy hit reg and lag do that just fine currently, me and another Kodiak shot an alpha into a Mauler's CT and watched it pass through him 3 times until our shots finally did damage, if that isn't a random factor I don't know what is, same with SRM hit reg. Sure it would be nice if that variance is removed, and honestly should be if possible since hit reg can be worse than a small yet decent CoF.

While I'd still be hesitant, I'd be willing to try a CoF that makes an alpha hit different sections of a mech at range, but not one that is going to make me miss an AC20 at 270m while moving. Part of my problem with the ideas are that they are trying to penalize movement and high heat on top of high alphas, which is too much imo, realistic or not.

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 15 June 2016 - 10:52 AM.

[MeiSooHaityu]

Bishop Steiner, on 15 June 2016 - 10:35 AM, said:

why woould a CoF be one size fits all? In good well designed game,s you have a combination of factors. Movement sway. Varying levels of CoF based on several external factors. If you are trying to cockpit shot a running mech at 540 meters with an AC20.... and miss.... I don't feel bad about that.

CoF would definitely not be one size fits all if it was ever implemented. I'm just trying to look at it's effects on other factors. If CoF was ever considered, all factors need to be addressed or it is implemented as a broken mess.

Let's look at it this way...

If you have an Article Cheetah with SPLasers, it has to close in to about 100m to be effective. At that range, does CoF play a factor? The hole CoF might fall within 1 torso location at that point. Sure some shots might scatter under movement, but it would be more accurate than ranged combat that is radically off with the same cone (even if the cone is small). Does this nerf the Clan's range advantage a bit if more accuracy is obtained at shorter ranges?

If stopping or slowing shrinks CoF (than say vs a full run), will we have matches of slow moving machines stopping and moving? Is that what we want? Does it nerf lights or mediums that need constant speed for survivability?

Heck, do people say "screw it" and go to LRMs lol.

Lastly, is it fun? I know pixel pinpoint strikes aren't so fun on the receiving end, but is a CoF really fun too?

Again, I'd love to try a mock up first. I'd be curious to see the repercussions of such a system.

Edited by MeiSooHaityu, 15 June 2016 - 11:01 AM.

[Bishop Steiner]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 15 June 2016 - 10:50 AM, said:

Wind nor sun would affect Michael Jordan because there is very little in stadiums for basketball (wind may however play into it since crowds cause some disturbance, but do you not think there are factors like that currently? Shoddy hit reg and lag do that just fine currently, me and another Kodiak shot an alpha into a Mauler's CT and watched it pass through him 3 times until our shots finally did damage, if that isn't a random factor I don't know what is, same with SRM hit reg. Sure it would be nice if that variance is removed, and honestly should be if possible since hit reg can be worse than a small yet decent CoF.

While I'd still be hesitant, I'd be willing to try a CoF that makes an alpha hit different sections of a mech at range, but not one that is going to make me miss an AC20 at 270m while moving. Part of my problem with the ideas are that they are trying to penalize movement and high heat on top of high alphas, which is too much imo, realistic or not.

I was referring more to playing Jordan at street ball, obviously, since you know..elements. Or how Tom Brady could whup Peyton Manning all day outdoors....because Manning was a dome QB....

But anyow, they second part of the post..that is what I have been talking about. Not ZOMG!!! I aimed mid chest on an atlas at 100 Meters and totally MISSED!!!!!! Like 1453 keeps insisting any CoF is.

Realsitically, at brawl range, any CoF mechanism would have minimal impact (you might conceivably spread dmg a little more on fat moving/twisting targets, but that is about it) but medium to long range focused fire, does become a little less precise. And where high heat and high speeds make impact it a little more. Basically you would still have an aiming circle ala WoT showing you the maximum deviation of your shots at any time, and unless you were trying to shoot the eyeball off a moving fly at 1000 meters the CoF would not be enough to miss the target completely (you aim at an AMS on a mech, no promises)
but with all the weapons fired diverging within said circle they are less likely to be all on one component, at the extremes.

Yes, if you are constantly running 80% heat lets say or higher, I feel your targeting should be affected. And so should everyone elses...so how is that punishing the skilled player? Ditto running like a bat out of hell over broken terrain. But that would be as much sway as anything, which one can predict the dip in, to a degree, which actually takes more skill to pull the shot...though it does reduce the rate of fire.

Nothing more. Seriously.

which IMO is a win win for everyone.

MeiSooHaityu, on 15 June 2016 - 10:56 AM, said:

CoF would definitely not be one size fits all if it was ever implemented. I'm just trying to look at it's effects on other factors. If CoF was ever considered, all factors need to be addressed or it is implemented as a broken mess.

Let's look at it this way...

If you have an Article Cheetah with SPLasers, it has to close in to about 100m to be effective. At that range, does CoF play a factor? The hole CoF might fall within 1 torso location at that point. Sure some shots might scatter under movement, but it would be more accurate than ranged combat that is radically off with the same cone (even if the cone is small). Does this nerf the Clan's range advantage a bit if more accuracy is obtained at shorter ranges?

If stopping or slowing shrinks CoF (than say vs a full run), will we have matches of slow moving machines stopping and moving? Is that what we want? Does it nerf lights or mediums that need constant speed for survivability?

Heck, to people say "screw it" and go to LRMs lol.

Lastly, is it fun? I know pixel pinpoint strikes aren't so fun on the receiving end, but is a CoF really fun too?

Again, I'd love to try a mock up first. I'd be curious to see the repercussions of such a system.

Question, at 100 meters, does the JJ shake become an issue? Yes and no. All your shots are probably still going to hit, but maybe not all in one spot. Splat weapons are more effective in that instance. But a running ACH at short range would see a whole lot less (read minimal) divergence than a running Jagermech trying to Gauss a running Firestarter art 1000 meters.

Edited by Bishop Steiner, 15 June 2016 - 11:04 AM.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

I wouldn't be against trying it in a PTS, especially if they got a normal distribution for CoF, but I would sure as hell be a stickler about the level of variance (how much damage can be shot perfectly before spread is introduced, and how much spread can you generate), because the last thing I want is groups of weapons behaving like LBX10/20s at range. However, I would want to see hit reg improvement be made, because the shoddy hit reg on top of CoF would probably frustrate people a bit more.

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 15 June 2016 - 11:09 AM.

[1453 R]

Bishop Steiner, on 15 June 2016 - 11:01 AM, said:

Realstically, at brawl range, any CoF mechanism would have minimal impact (you might conceivably spread dmg a little more on fat moving/twisting targets, but that is about it) but medium to long range focused fire, does become a little less precise. A

...
Question, at 100 meters, does the JJ shake become an issue? Yes and no. All your shots are probably still going to hit, but maybe not all in one spot. Splat weapons are more effective in that instance. But a running ACH at short range would see a whole lot less (read minimal) divergence than a running Jagermech trying to Gauss a running Firestarter art 1000 meters.

So what you're saying is "F*** snipers with a cactus."

CoF "doesn't matter in brawls", but long-range shots have to deal with shot deviation that screws over focused fire and requires sniping 'Mechs to hold stock still if they want to have any chance whatsoever to try and hit a moving, evading target attempting to stick to cover - i.e. any target that has the faintest g'damned sense - before that target gets in close and rips their intestines out with close-range scatterfire SRM swarms or SPL batteries that ignore the Cone of Failure declawing you've inflicted on anyone/anything that enjoys ER lasers, PPCs, or Gauss rifles?

Maybe I ought to go all-in on that Huntsman pack after all. 8M aSRM-4 Supercruiser sounds like it'd be absolutely unstoppable in this particular system. Outside being outfought by other 8M aSRM-4 Supercruisers, anyways.

[kapusta11]

Bishop Steiner, on 15 June 2016 - 10:46 AM, said:

so go read a different book. Problem solved.

That's the plan.

[Mystere]

1453 R, on 15 June 2016 - 10:42 AM, said:

Big, hard-hitting, slow-firing weapons are rendered functionally worthless by a Dumvergence system, regardless of hardpoint placement, as they are denied the precision of shot placement REQUIRED for big, hard-hitting, slow-firing weapons to have any sort of edge whatsoever over small, fast-firing, low-damage weapons. Massed batteries of light weapons already have an alarming number of advantages over singular big guns like AC/20s. Scatter-firing massed light weapons for a good chance for some damage as opposed to firing a single AC/20 with a very high chance for no damage is going to be pretty much 100% superior in all cases in any commonly proposed Dumvergence system

And here you go again ...

On one hand, are you actually complaining that massed batteries of light weapons have an advantage now and that things will remain the same in any convergence -- or non-convergence -- system? Well genius, is the sun rising tomorrow?

The key but obviously very subtle point that you should be considering instead is whether or not the chosen convergence system -- or even a CoF system -- will actually increase or reduce that advantage.


On the other hand, you're also talking from out of your posterior. A well-aimed AC20 shot has exactly the same chance of hitting it's target whether we keep the current convergence system or use a different one. And the key term here is "well-aimed". Or are you complaining that it will be more difficult, that it will actually require more skill?

Oh brother ...


(Edited for grammar)

Edited by Mystere, 15 June 2016 - 11:47 AM.

[Levi Porphyrogenitus]

I'd like to address two complaints that I see brought up repeatedly.

1 - Cone of Fire screws over single-shot, high-damage, low-rate-of-fire weapons (AC20, for one).

Only if it's implemented badly. See, firing a single, short-range AC20 shot when your heat is at or below the half-way mark and while managing your throttle, I'd fully expect it to hit pretty nearly exactly where you want it to. Try that same shot at near maximum range while running flat-out and with your heat pushing 90% and you may well be lucky to hit the mech (though I'd push for a tighter deviation than that, meaning a center-mass shot might hit a limb instead on a medium-sized target).

2 - Cone of Fire replaces skill with luck/removes the ability of players to control shot placement.

Only if it's implemented badly (notice a theme here?). In the prior example, the player has two situations. In the first, he has managed obvious and easy-to-control variables well, and his shot placement is precise. In the second, he has allowed three separate, easily observed, and entirely controllable variables to stack penalties on his shot, and his precision thus suffers.

Which takes more skill: point-and-click, or managing your throttle, your heat, your range, and your stability state (assuming JJ use and received Impulse also modify precision)? I'd say the one that has more variables takes more skill than the one with fewer, and fine motor skills are among the basest of learned abilities. I urge you to aspire to something higher, to learning true multifaceted skill, involving not just your reflexes but also your intellect and your judgment. A properly implemented precision reduction system would only have downsides to those who refuse to learn any but the most basic fine motor skills, while rewarding every single other player of this game, including the ones who aren't even concerned with skill or performance and just want to have fun.

[Bishop Steiner]

1453 R, on 15 June 2016 - 11:08 AM, said:

So what you're saying is "F*** snipers with a cactus."

CoF "doesn't matter in brawls", but long-range shots have to deal with shot deviation that screws over focused fire and requires sniping 'Mechs to hold stock still if they want to have any chance whatsoever to try and hit a moving, evading target attempting to stick to cover - i.e. any target that has the faintest g'damned sense - before that target gets in close and rips their intestines out with close-range scatterfire SRM swarms or SPL batteries that ignore the Cone of Failure declawing you've inflicted on anyone/anything that enjoys ER lasers, PPCs, or Gauss rifles?

Maybe I ought to go all-in on that Huntsman pack after all. 8M aSRM-4 Supercruiser sounds like it'd be absolutely unstoppable in this particular system. Outside being outfought by other 8M aSRM-4 Supercruisers, anyways.

Nope, but hey, you've been taking everything else totally out of context so why not continue your trend.

[Aresye]

Metus regem, on 15 June 2016 - 08:06 AM, said:

Counter Strike seems to have deviation between shots in the form of bullet spread, once could call that a cone of fire, as well as representation in M.L.G., so I think that should cover your question.

CS:GO weapons each have a unique recoil pattern that can be countered through dedicated practice, allowing higher skill players to achieve close to pinpoint accuracy on their sprays.

CS:GO is also one of the hardest, most competitive, and skill based FPS games in esports, and one of the most unforgiving games for new players.

In MWO, what separates good and bad players isn't the ability to shoot. It's the ability to shoot and pilot simultaneously, while maintaining good positioning, game sense, teamwork, and strategy.

If MWO was as easy as people here make it out to be, then why is it always the same 2-3 teams winning every single league and tournament? Why is it always the same 10-20 players at the top of every leaderboard?

[Bishop Steiner]

kapusta11, on 15 June 2016 - 11:10 AM, said:

That's the plan.

cheers.

[Fut]

It's interesting that some people here are completely putting down the concept of a CoF, yet some seem to think that reticule bounce (due to whatever factors) would be acceptable. Tell me, would the reticule bounce have a limitation in size? If you connected the outer most limits of the bounce, would you be able to draw a circle of roughly where the shots would end up?

Seems like a lot of semantics bickering in this thread.

1453 R, on 15 June 2016 - 11:08 AM, said:

So what you're saying is "F*** snipers with a cactus."

CoF "doesn't matter in brawls", but long-range shots have to deal with shot deviation that screws over focused fire and requires sniping 'Mechs to hold stock still if they want to have any chance whatsoever to try and hit a moving, evading target attempting to stick to cover

Because real life Snipers run and gun?

[Mystere]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 15 June 2016 - 10:50 AM, said:

While I'd still be hesitant, I'd be willing to try a CoF that makes an alpha hit different sections of a mech at range, but not one that is going to make me miss an AC20 at 270m while moving. Part of my problem with the ideas are that they are trying to penalize movement and high heat on top of high alphas, which is too much imo, realistic or not.

Maybe movement, heat, and alphas will all be used in a CoF system. But then again, maybe they will not. I don't think anyone has given a completely detailed proposal of such a CoF system to warrant a quick "No!". Besides, that's where design and balancing come into play.

And no, I do not think anyone is planning to propose a 90-degree shot deviation, as some here might want you to believe.