425 replies to this topic

[Yellonet]

Incorporating things into the game that makes it more difficult to hit what you're aiming at would not be a good idea as that would take away a large portion of the skill involved in the game. Personally I've always hated games which use cones of fire where there really shouldn't be one. We are talking about warmachines 1000 years into the future, it doesn't seem believable that their weapon systems would be less accurate than the fire arms we have already had for hundreds of years.
Besides, combat often happens on relatively short ranges, if weapons had much better range we would see more combat from further away, and then it would become harder to hit.

[Mystere]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 14 June 2016 - 11:49 AM, said:

That's not really my concern, skilled players could pick it up I have no doubt.

What is your concern then? I might have missed it.

[Mystere]

Yellonet, on 14 June 2016 - 12:02 PM, said:

Incorporating things into the game that makes it more difficult to hit what you're aiming at would not be a good idea as that would take away a large portion of the skill involved in the game.

Hold on a second. Isn't being able to mitigate/minimize that difficulty also considered a skill?

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Mystere, on 14 June 2016 - 12:04 PM, said:

What is your concern then? I might have missed it.

With regards to convergence, mech balance. Don't get me wrong, I would love to see the ability to converge on locked targets for mechs that need to lead targets or for mechs that could poke better if that were possible, but I don't want it to be the only convergence method.

CoF is a different story, skill and viability of strats is my concern with CoF.

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 14 June 2016 - 12:12 PM.

[xWiredx]

But Bishop... PGI is pretty adamant that none of us know what we're talking about. We've never played other video games, let alone other video games with mechs of any kind (especially other Mechwarrior games). Plus none of us can do math. Plus none of us are engineers. Plus none of us have never written a line of code.

Let's face it, we're incompetent forum trolls who only exist because of entropy and only play this game because we absolutely hate this franchise with such dedication that we even spend money to keep it financially afloat so we can continue to hate it.

Seriously, though, the number of actually excellent ideas that have been tossed around in the forums by respectable people that have put mounds of thought into it without even being paid in respect let alone cash only to have it knocked out of the sky by designers who have never adhered to their own visions (or even been remotely capable of adhering to them with the mix of what must be at least a small group of semi-talented developers) is shocking.

We used to visit the feature requests section to actually submit ideas, and many even saw PGI team member responses. That stopped a long time ago now, though. We are here for a handful of purposes only now, and those are: to buy mechpacks and other things that can be acquired with real money, suck up server resources, and pretend like something we love matters.

[1453 R]

Mystere, on 14 June 2016 - 12:09 PM, said:

Hold on a second. Isn't being able to mitigate/minimize that difficulty also considered a skill?

Not if, as you and every other Cone of Failure proponent keep suggesting, there isn't actually any way in-game to mitigate/minimize that difficulty short of coming to a dead stop and zeroing out your heat bar, A.K.A. doing exactly what people have spent years in this game trying to hammer into newbies' brains not to do.

No. Thanks.

[Narcissistic Martyr]

Bishop Steiner, on 14 June 2016 - 11:33 AM, said:

Yup. Honestly after taking time off from here to play other shooters and WoWs, WoT etc, it astounds me how simple and easy our aiming is here. And a number of those games do take into account "hit locations and modules" too.

Even without the Penetration Factor and Angling, just the base aiming circle from WoT (though a much more refined and smaller one, as WoT is too inaccurate, befitting the era) would do wonders for immersion and TTK. While actually enhancing certain skill sets (at the expense of twitch aiming, which is why it will never happen) would have made a better starting point and likely obviated the need to double armor in the first place.

PGI keeps saying that cone of fire breaks HSR because reasons. Of course MGs have CoF... SRMs and LBX have damage spread...

Frankly I think PGI is just lazy and wants to cry to the AIMING IS SKILL L33T crowd.

[Mystere]

1453 R, on 14 June 2016 - 12:28 PM, said:

Not if, as you and every other Cone of Failure proponent keep suggesting, there isn't actually any way in-game to mitigate/minimize that difficulty short of coming to a dead stop and zeroing out your heat bar, A.K.A. doing exactly what people have spent years in this game trying to hammer into newbies' brains not to do.

No. Thanks.

Ahem!
Ahem!
Ahem!

I'm not a proponent of CoF. It's convergence I am interested in. But that does not mean I cannot see its proponents' POV, very much unlike the "RNJesus is the Evil Incarnate" crowd.

Also, I don't think you fully understand what "minimize" and "mitigate" really mean. They're not the same as "eliminate".

Edited by Mystere, 14 June 2016 - 12:38 PM.

[Mystere]

Narcissistic Martyr, on 14 June 2016 - 12:30 PM, said:

PGI keeps saying that cone of fire breaks HSR because reasons. Of course MGs have CoF... SRMs and LBX have damage spread...

Frankly I think PGI is just lazy and wants to cry to the AIMING IS SKILL L33T crowd.

Yeah, I'd really like to know what the problem really is. In the mean time, I'm blaming it on the potato servers they're using.

[Kangarad]

Mystere, on 14 June 2016 - 12:40 PM, said:

Yeah, I'd really like to know what the problem really is. In the mean time, I'm blaming it on the potato servers they're using.

valid. they at first said tehy could not make a powerdraw system due to how taxing it would be to the server.
Now imagine if the server would not only have to generate and sync different cyrcles for EVERY SINGLE WEAPON you have on your mech. I mean Catapulst with 6 circles x24(players) is 144 connections in a standart match and there are mech loadouts using more than double that.
No, having just 1 cone for all the different weapons you have would just be silly unless you are linking all of them AND theyr in the same section of your mech.

[wanderer]

You don't need random.

You just need to make sure all the guns don't hit the same spot.

You can use imperfect (but stable) convergence- weapons converge at a point that isn't equal to the target's range (and you can adjust it if the firer has sensor lock if you want to make it matter for more than Streak/LRM fire).
You can use stable divergence- weapons diverge by a set amount from center-of-crosshairs by hardpoint location.

Neither causes random fire, but both defocus damage, because that's the big problem. All damage, one point, easy-peasy.

[Gorgo7]

Agree with Bishop.
Would like to see additional mods in place that effect aiming.
Probably the easiest would be speed bounce the crosshairs...much like when in 3rd person.
The faster you go as a proportion of your top speed the nastier the bounce.
In TT walk was a +1, run was a +2.
So...on a sliding scale apply that to hitting while on the move.
Easy.
They already have the mechanic in place for it. See 3rd person.

Cheers,

G7

[1453 R]

Mystere, on 14 June 2016 - 12:35 PM, said:

Ahem!
Ahem!
Ahem!

I'm not a proponent of CoF. It's convergence I am interested in. But that does not mean I cannot see its proponents' POV, very much unlike the "RNJesus is the Evil Incarnate" crowd.

Also, I don't think you fully understand what "minimize" and "mitigate" really mean. They're not the same as "eliminate".

'Convergence', without Cone of Failure to randomize shot placement on deconverged weapons, is basically an oxymoronic/self-defeating system. Also f*** delayed/decoupled/fixed/otherwise-jerked-with convergence with a prickly pear - nowhere in BattleTech lore does it state "a 'Mech's torso-mounted weapons are irretrievably hard-bolted to the chassis and cannot in any way ever adjust their aimpoint in a fight."

And frankly, I don't think you understand how infuriating a shooter game in which you can never, ever reliably hit your target, under any circumstances, would be. yes, I do indeed mean 'eliminate'. You should be able to create situations in which you are able to hit exactly what you aim at in any game in which aiming and shooting is the principle gameplay. Hitting 'close to' where you wanted to, even when at a dead stop on zero heat, is not acceptable.

Do you ever want to see Gauss Rifles, AC/20s (or AC/10s), or PPCs in MWO ever again?

Then you had best be prepared to give players ways of yes outright eliminating Cone of Failure effects from their shots, even if temporarily or in a position of relative disadvantage (not moving/moving too slowly to adequately defend themselves), or you'll never see weapons like those which require precision hits pretty much ever again.

And as Quicksilver pointed out earlier, with heavy and obtrusive Cone of Failure mechanics implemented into MWO, a game which already tends to over-encourage anyone but coordinated, well-practiced teams in constant communication with each other to turtle up and avoid seeking battle...well. How do'you feel about World War 1, 3050 Edition? Hope your 'Mech doesn't get trench foot waiting a few weeks for an opportunity to engage.

[Cy Mitchell]

AS I understand cone of fire (an artificially induced spread mechanic), I cannot support it being added to the game. I would support convergence changes such as only having arm mounted weapons able to converge and torso mounted weapons shooting straight ahead or convergence only at optimal range with spread both before and beyond optimal ranges.

I would also support increased reticle shake when a Mech is moving or using jump jets. A walking or running Mech should cause the reticle to bounce which would effect aim. Skills could be added to the Pilot skill tree to smooth that out a bit but not anywhere near the stability that it is now. A stationary Mech would have no shake (but would be a sitting duck).

I also agree that there needs to be incremental penalties in relation to high heat that affect the Mech long before shut-down. Destruction of heatsinks, slower recharge rate, slower reload rate, impaired targeting, impaired sensors, slowed movement speed, reduced torso twist speed, ammo explosions, destroyed weapon systems, etc could all be part of the penalties.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

wanderer, on 14 June 2016 - 12:49 PM, said:

You can use imperfect (but stable) convergence-

No, convergence is not a solution to the problem, instead it only complicates balance issues with regards to mechs.

[Marmon Rzohr]

Gorgo7, on 14 June 2016 - 12:49 PM, said:

Agree with Bishop.
Would like to see additional mods in place that effect aiming.
Probably the easiest would be speed bounce the crosshairs...much like when in 3rd person.
The faster you go as a proportion of your top speed the nastier the bounce.
In TT walk was a +1, run was a +2.
So...on a sliding scale apply that to hitting while on the move.
Easy.
They already have the mechanic in place for it. See 3rd person.

Cheers,

G7

Did you ever try to fight with the 3rd person crosshair ? xD

I understand the logic behind ideas like this, but think what would the game look like if this were implemented. MWO is not a slow game and as long as mechs can go 80, 90, 140 kph and weapons behave even remotely like they do now it will never be a slow game. The aiming mechanics you suggest would work in a slow game where it works with the playstyle or a fast paced classic FPS where you need to curb movement.

Since classes of mechs in MWO rely on movement to be relevant, because MWO's mech move fairly fast (even the assaults) and because MWO's hitboxes are complicated mechanics like that don't really fit very well into the game unless other things are overhauled first.

In practice your suggestion would simply lead to more brawling and buff rushing tactics. Not that it's a bad idea, it just don't mesh well with other existing parts of MWO.

Edited by Marmon Rzohr, 14 June 2016 - 01:18 PM.

[Narcissistic Martyr]

Kangarad, on 14 June 2016 - 12:49 PM, said:

valid. they at first said tehy could not make a powerdraw system due to how taxing it would be to the server.
Now imagine if the server would not only have to generate and sync different cyrcles for EVERY SINGLE WEAPON you have on your mech. I mean Catapulst with 6 circles x24(players) is 144 connections in a standart match and there are mech loadouts using more than double that.
No, having just 1 cone for all the different weapons you have would just be silly unless you are linking all of them AND theyr in the same section of your mech.

SRMs would work much like they do now probably. I'd do them somewaht different but that's a different thread altogether.

If I were gonna try to implement a CoF type thing, I'd just have the mech move and have torso mounted stuff move along with the mech and have recoil/movement move the mech's torso (equal and opposite reaction, etc). Arm mounted weapons with a lower arm actuator would have substantially less movement or CoF.

All the factors contributing to divergence from a straight shotI would add up behind the scenes and simply give the UI 2 circles, one for torso mounted weapons and one for arm mounted weapons.

After all the difficulty in targeting isn't that the weapons are inaccurate, it's that it's hard for a human to process the chaos of the battlefield and make good shots. This system would simply account for all those variables to show the player about how close they're likely to be to the center of the reticle.

[Mystere]

1453 R, on 14 June 2016 - 12:51 PM, said:

'Convergence', without Cone of Failure to randomize shot placement on deconverged weapons, is basically an oxymoronic/self-defeating system. Also f*** delayed/decoupled/fixed/otherwise-jerked-with convergence with a prickly pear - nowhere in BattleTech lore does it state "a 'Mech's torso-mounted weapons are irretrievably hard-bolted to the chassis and cannot in any way ever adjust their aimpoint in a fight."

You do realize we used to have delayed convergence before HSR screwed it up, right? That (i.e. delayed convergence) is the ideal that many people would like to get as close to as possible. The system we currently have -- automatic near-instant pixel-perfect convergence -- can be considered an extreme oversimplification that created the problems we have now. As such, people would like something not as extreme.

Now, just for the sake of argument, let's take the not-so-extreme example of manual convergence set and adjustable by the player in-battle. Choose a sweet spot, place your target in that range, and you get perfect convergence. Outside the sweet spot, well, you have to use distance to target, weapons layout, and math (mentally of course). There is also nothing to stop us -- other than PGI's programming competence -- from having N pre-set and user-defined convergence distances accessible by key, mouse scroll-wheel, or some other source of input. Heck, we can even tie the value of N to the IS command console and Clan Targeting Computer.

Finally, weapons hard-bolted to the chassis, also known as fixed convergence and something I consider the opposite extreme, is something very few are actually asking for. But then again that is what will require the highest amount of skill to land each and every shot. Hmm ...

Edited by Mystere, 14 June 2016 - 01:23 PM.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Mystere, on 14 June 2016 - 01:19 PM, said:

That (i.e. delayed convergence) is the ideal that many people would like to get as close to as possible.

You mean the reason the Gaussapult was one of the best pre-HSR sniping mechs thanks to minimal convergence issues allowing it to make snapshots easier than something like a Jager (even though Jager was added with HSR)?

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 14 June 2016 - 01:21 PM.

[Moldur]

I think something as simple as a big crosshair with no center dot, and forced arm unlock (like beta) would be enough to increase ttk.

Imagine having 2 big circles that are only slightly smaller than the red target lock box.