129 replies to this topic

[LordNothing]

pgi should probibly go over the hitboxes and make sure their cross sectional area matches up with the mech's frontal area (as determined in the rescale). though there are very few mechs where i think there are some terrible hitbox issues, like the atlas and how the life expectancy of the ac20 in the st is about 3 seconds. i ran a cyclops with an ac20 and that thing only popped once all the way to mastery. with the atlas it was every 2 or 3 games. of course it is an atlas, and is hard to miss.

Edited by LordNothing, 25 January 2017 - 07:18 PM.

[NighthawK1337]

LordNothing, on 25 January 2017 - 07:17 PM, said:

pgi should probibly go over the hitboxes and make sure their cross sectional area matches up with the mech's frontal area (as determined in the rescale). though there are very few mechs where i think there are some terrible hitbox issues, like the atlas and how the life expectancy of the ac20 in the st is about 3 seconds. i ran a cyclops with an ac20 and that thing only popped once all the way to mastery. with the atlas it was every 2 or 3 games. of course it is an atlas, and is hard to miss.

This is a band-aid solution though. This might fix the disparity between IS mechs being some XL usable while some XL deathwish but the underlying problem of being vulnerable to ST death still remains. Precision and Accuracy notwithstanding.

[Vanguard319]

I certainly agree something needs to be done about pinpoint accuracy. Here's my thoughts on how to fix it:

Add a mobility penalty to critical heat - Seriously, EVERY MechWarrior game that came before had this feature: If you let your heat level skyrocket out of control, your movement became sluggish before you shut down. Instead of throwing this feature out, PGI should have expanded on it, adding reduced arm tracking or torso twist speed whenever your heat level is critical. The only way to lose the penalty? By letting your mech cool down.

Allow actuators to suffer critical hits - In TT, when you took a crit to an arm actuator, the weapons on that arm became more difficult to aim. To quote a certain Youtuber: being able to fire weapons accurately from an arm that's one hit from being destroyed makes NO GODDAMN SENSE! In the Case of MWO, losing an upper arm actuator would make the player unable to track that arm up and down, while losing the lower one would prevent tracking from left to right. Losing both in an arm locks those weapons into the forward firing arc like torso weapons. Before the critics whine about this, I would point out that Omnimechs packing PPCs, Autocannon, and Gauss Rifles in their arms cannot equip a lower arm or hand actuator, so this is certainly a doable fix.

Add an accuracy penalty when moving - You should not have pinpoint perfect accuracy when running at top speed. Period.

[Vanguard319]

NighthawK1337, on 25 January 2017 - 07:40 PM, said:

This is a band-aid solution though. This might fix the disparity between IS mechs being some XL usable while some XL deathwish but the underlying problem of being vulnerable to ST death still remains. Precision and Accuracy notwithstanding.

It needs to be done though. You know there are hitbox issues when you core a Cataphract in the back, and the game registers the damage to the front armor.

[NighthawK1337]

Wow look at that Cold Darkness, actual suggestions instead of just telling people to reread your post until one magically appears.

Vanguard319, on 25 January 2017 - 08:01 PM, said:

I certainly agree something needs to be done about pinpoint accuracy. Here's my thoughts on how to fix it:

Add a mobility penalty to critical heat - Seriously, EVERY MechWarrior game that came before had this feature: If you let your heat level skyrocket out of control, your movement became sluggish before you shut down. Instead of throwing this feature out, PGI should have expanded on it, adding reduced arm tracking or torso twist speed whenever your heat level is critical. The only way to lose the penalty? By letting your mech cool down.

Allow actuators to suffer critical hits - In TT, when you took a crit to an arm actuator, the weapons on that arm became more difficult to aim. To quote a certain Youtuber: being able to fire weapons accurately from an arm that's one hit from being destroyed makes NO GODDAMN SENSE! In the Case of MWO, losing an upper arm actuator would make the player unable to track that arm up and down, while losing the lower one would prevent tracking from left to right. Losing both in an arm locks those weapons into the forward firing arc like torso weapons. Before the critics whine about this, I would point out that Omnimechs packing PPCs, Autocannon, and Gauss Rifles in their arms cannot equip a lower arm or hand actuator, so this is certainly a doable fix.

Add an accuracy penalty when moving - You should not have pinpoint perfect accuracy when running at top speed. Period.

I think the actuator damage suggestion is great. More of QoL improvement than actual game balancing but its something that's gonna be noticed. Would add more depth to the game.

Critical heat movement penalty would affect the clans more since they run hotter. Due to the recent 40% heat penalty change to ST loss, this will make them too disadvantaged mobility speaking.
We could just start with acceleration penalty instead while keeping max speed the same. This would also result to reduction in Hill Humping.

Reduced precision when moving could be good but it's bordering on the CoF territory and then the goal was to help the IS XL's side torso vulnerabilities. Since Snipers and Hill humpers tend to not move a whole lot during firing compared to Brawlers, I'd say that it will do more harm than good at the moment since Snipers are more often the source of pinpoint damage. Brawlers nowadays are a dying breed, this will make them a little bit closer to being extinct.

Edited by NighthawK1337, 25 January 2017 - 08:23 PM.

[MacClearly]

It can be brought up over and over and the results are going to be the same. Most people don't want that.

Especially if you are talking about gimping one side as a balance. No one playing a competetive game wants a situation where the other player cries out 'oh would have been different if the playing field was level'...

I want to shoot my enemies where I am aiming. I want my enemies to have every advantage afforded to me so when I kill them there is no doubt in my mind that I earned it. I have also got 17 head shots on this account and over 10 on my others. I am actually trying for it now and would be super pissed if I couldn't do it unless it was completely random luck. That takes too much away from the game.

I wish people would stop focusing on how to fix the game or improve it by dumbing it down. Makes zero sense to gut a game that way.

Cold Darkness, you have made an intelligent and rational appeal that absolutely on the surface looks great so please don't take that as an insult. A smart enough man can make eating paint sound like a great idea, it doesn't mean we should run out and get a spoon and a gallon of Benjamin Moore.

[Cold Darkness]

backwards order.

@ MacClearly

i dont quite understand your post. you use the same arguments i used as a basis to suggest a NON-RNG based solution in this thread and blame me for pushing a RNG based solution. you also want your skill to matter, which is a good thing. my suggestions would actually increase interaction between target and shooting mech, involving MORE skill on BOTH partys.

all that without actually changing much about how the game would feel to the player unless you played on an above average level, at which point youd have a noticeable survivability boost to the XL engines, because reacting to PPFLD and spreading damage of non PPFLD weapons is being made alot easier.
quite literally no luck involved.

also: as stated multiple times, it would apply to both sides, which excludes nerfing one side. this is done because the XL problem also exists in IS vs IS combat. its just a problem with XL vs Standard there.

@Nighthawk1337

brawlers also engage at close ranges, which offsets CoF-based solutions by giving projectiles less path to deviate on.

@Vanguard 319

arm actuator destruction would possibly very hard to do in this game due to how they function. a arm actuator applies to both arms in this game, hence destruction of one arm will cripple a 100% prime condition arm, too.

the heat penalty for movement doesnt really fit the theme of the thread, though (at least with the penalty you suggested). even with slower torso twisting, mechs would still be able to focus there damage really well unless their target is very fast.


@ LordNothing

true, hitboxes need to be constantly fixed whenever there is an error. else balancing by accuracy is pointless. i see that more of a general prerequesit, though, since hitboxes are just as important in the game regardless of how you will end up applying your damage.

@ NightHawk1337

poptarts shoot on the descend, not the ascending part of the jump, this is why they can use PPFLD with jumpjets.

map size is currently good. map design is what makes maps feel to big and clunky.
also:

Quote

We should focus more on controllable variables, like you said. Personally I'd go with equipment focused balancing, not a mechanic centered one.

i recall suggesting something for that. quite alot of that actually.

@LordNothing

i didnt play elite dangerous, but like i said, im fine with anything that will help achieve the goal. id imagine that this might not fit into the gameplay, though. considering that fights take place around cover based land environments vs no cover based space environments.

[NighthawK1337]

I was replying to Lord Nothing. He's the one who discussed controllable variables. Not everything is about you, you know.
SRM tarts and Laser tarts shoot on both ascend and descend. I can even do both on PPCs. Especially useful for long burn lasers.

Know why people keep going back to RNG in your suggestion? Because news flash all your post are focused in them. MacClearly obviously read all your posts and concluded the same thing.There's no new non-RNG suggestion that came from you, only a passing mention of mechanics already in place. All you did was ask people to re-read it again and again and again until they agree with you, and if they don't they obviously "didn't understand it".

Maybe you should reread everything you said? And maybe you understand it different from the norm? Because a lot of people seem to understand your posts differently than what you're saying they are.

Edited by NighthawK1337, 26 January 2017 - 03:29 AM.

[Cold Darkness]

first of, this is a discussion about a set goal and how to achieve it, EVERYTHING inside this thread should be about that. implying anything else is ridiculous.
secondly, a nonmechanic changing equipment based balance solution is exactly what i was suggesting for half the thread now.
all you did till you wrote this was ridicule the very idea of this concept. multiple times.
and the third point: my posts are focused on RNG because i am constantly arguing that no RNG is required for what i suggest. somehow people constantly read the exact opposite and try to force it into my argument for no good reason.

Quote

And maybe you understand it different from the norm? Because a lot of people seem to understand your posts differently than what you're saying they are.

as per your own statement, you managed to read the thread 4 times without ever reading a specific part of a post. that is kind of relevant if you feel the need to bring up such a statement.

i would also like it if you didnt rewrite half your post after it answered to allready. you also manage to highlight it in a way that shows how you take words of personal preference as an absolute de facto agenda. this is not how discussions work.

[NighthawK1337]

You're referring to the 2nd last post? Yeah I revisited it. I wasn't done typing when you replied and I was currently editing it.

replied 7:32, edited 8:16

I guess I just got to work there and didn't see the reply. The idea is the same though and I highlighted stuff that I wasn't able to reply to before. I left at 5am originally because I was going to be late, that's why the original was exactly at 5am. Like your circular reasoning. Seriously, this post's existence isn't proof. Just like saying that comic books are proof that superman exists.


Ridicule the idea? I said it was bad but I wasn't the one that compared it to eating paint.
Is that how you see criticism as? Ridicule? Does it hurt your feelings when people don't agree with you in the Internet?

MacClearly, on 25 January 2017 - 08:31 PM, said:

...

Especially if you are talking about gimping one side as a balance. No one playing a competetive game wants a situation where the other player cries out 'oh would have been different if the playing field was level'...

I want to shoot my enemies where I am aiming. I want my enemies to have every advantage afforded to me so when I kill them there is no doubt in my mind that I earned it....

... A smart enough man can make eating paint sound like a great idea, it doesn't mean we should run out and get a spoon and a gallon of Benjamin Moore.

cazidin, on 22 January 2017 - 03:43 PM, said:

I read your initial post, saw where this was going, and published my response. You're going about this in a backwards, indirect way. ... as per your proposal, would either implement a COF/Convergence system and THAT will never happen and be glad that it doesn't, ....

Besh, on 24 January 2017 - 02:08 PM, said:

@Cold Darkness:

Just so that you ( hopefully ) understand ; your suggestions have NOTHING to do with weapon accuracy . SO please, get off your goddamn high horse trying to school people, get your terminology straight, and change the Thread Title .

Not saying some of your suggestions a brutally, stupidly bad rly ( though some are, you'D understand when thinking through the impact on gameplay ), just saying at least use the correct words for what you are trying to say . And stop talking down to people who actually know what the terms you use mean .

Nothing personal mate .

Sjorpha, on 22 January 2017 - 12:54 PM, said:

Well this is where you are wrong, it wouldn't be virtually as robust as a clanmech because the clanmech would gain even more extra TTK from the increasing spread of fire than the IS mech would...

There is such a simple solution, just make the IS XL equally good as the Clan XL. There is no need to bend over backwards with obfuscation, ideas you know will not happen and so on. Just balance the tech.

Snowbluff, on 22 January 2017 - 07:09 AM, said:

Clan weapons are already more inaccurate. The missiles spread more, the lasers have longer durations, and the autocannons fire in bursts.

CapperDeluxe, on 22 January 2017 - 05:27 AM, said:

Cone of Fire is the term you are looking for. The way the title is worded is confusing and seems to suggest something else.

Lets see, other people that thought it was bad too.

Besh, NighthawK1337, MacClearly, Sjorpha, Snowbluff, cazidin

I guess they're ridiculing you and your idea too? *sarcasm*


People who likes your idea.

Cold Darkness

Vanguard319 presented his own so maybe him too? At least his is actually non-RNG, with controllable variables like mech speed tied to weapon precision. How the player can logically control SRM spread and Laser burn, as with your suggestion, beats me. What, jiggling your lasers makes the magic unicorn horn inside the weapon system mad at you?

Vanguard319, on 25 January 2017 - 08:01 PM, said:

I certainly agree something needs to be done about pinpoint accuracy. Here's my thoughts on how to fix it:

Add a mobility penalty to critical heat - ....

Allow actuators to suffer critical hits - In TT, when you took a crit to an arm actuator, the weapons on that arm became more difficult to aim. .....

Add an accuracy penalty when moving - You should not have pinpoint perfect accuracy when running at top speed. Period.

CK16 is halfway I guess

CK16, on 24 January 2017 - 09:24 AM, said:

All weapons need to be on a Cone of fire...also would make T comps more valuable (smaller cones, faster aim time ect) only having can accuracy nerfed would be BAD! We already have a huge disadvantage to the IS in PPFD and this would make it so bad (IS would cleave us in half literally). I agree having an accuracy nerf would be nice, something to do with your speed and time still ect. Kind of like world of tanks, but not that bad, like medium mech accuracy ect across the board.

Sensing a pattern there.....

Edited by NighthawK1337, 26 January 2017 - 04:09 PM.

[Y E O N N E]

NighthawK1337, on 26 January 2017 - 03:31 PM, said:

Lets see, other people that thought it was bad too.

I thought the idea was so bad that it wasn't worth the effort to debate it. But, to strengthen your trend line, I'll throw you my support.

[NighthawK1337]

Yeonne Greene, on 26 January 2017 - 04:35 PM, said:

I thought the idea was so bad that it wasn't worth the effort to debate it. But, to strengthen your trend line, I'll throw you my support.

I thought the same too but then i saw that he reused the argument

Cold Darkness, on 22 January 2017 - 12:28 PM, said:

you didnt read anything in this thread, did you?

so much that it kinda pissed me off.

I guess that was my fault for indulging him.

It should've ended with Sjorpha's response. That summed up everything nicely.

So yeah, how's the weather?

small talk since can't add anything else

[Y E O N N E]

the tiniest of talks

[Cold Darkness]

NighthawK1337, on 26 January 2017 - 03:31 PM, said:

You're referring to the 2nd last post? Yeah I revisited it. I wasn't done typing when you replied and I was currently editing it.

replied 7:32, edited 8:16

I guess I just got to work there and didn't see the reply. The idea is the same though and I highlighted stuff that I wasn't able to reply to before.

ok, so here an answer to that. as you can see, those are words showing my personal preferences. that does not indicate, that everything you didnt highlight right next to those things are not part of the argument. if you mistake preference for agenda you are being unreasonable, because you automatically disregard everything i write that isnt matching my preference.

I left at 5am originally because I was going to be late, that's why the original was exactly at 5am. Like your circular reasoning. Seriously, this post's existence isn't proof. Just like saying that comic books are proof that superman exists.


Ridicule the idea? I said it was bad but I wasn't the one that compared it to eating paint.
Is that how you see criticism as? Ridicule? Does it hurt your feelings when people don't agree with you in the Internet?

Quote

If there's no need for a new mechanic, then the whole thread is pointless, why did you even start it? to discuss "BALANCING XL DIFFERENCES WITH WEAPONACCURACY" ok, a new mechanic isn't necessary, but then LBX/SRM spread? long burn times? lower velocity? hah.

remember that bit of text? i just chose this bit of text only because it is one you decided to remove afterwards with the reasons stated above. it is not the time you are doing it, but it IS the most extreme one.




Lets see, other people that thought it was bad too.

Besh, NighthawK1337, MacClearly, Sjorpha, Snowbluff, cazidin

I guess they're ridiculing you and your idea too? *sarcasm*

you know, there are perfectly fine answer posts to those things. and technically, you did claim to read the thread 4 times. what am i supposed to write here? i mean, cazidin at the very least was honest enough to state that he only read the initial post before he constructed his post. MacClearly appearently did the same, considering at that point a suggestion allready was posted that is nonreliant on rng AND skill-based as well, fitting exactly his bill. Beshs quoted post doesnt even contain an argument (while had other posts that did, so why did you quote that one?). sjorphas quoted argument is easily refutable, because it is based on simplified math that disregards playerinput. snowbluff stated a truth. it doesnt mean that is a counterargument, though, because as i stated, the basis for this thread is, that they are not inaccurate enough. and capperdeluxe made a generalizing statement that did not fit. he read the THREAD TITLE and posted based on that. even the opening post had alot more content then CoF.

People who likes your idea.

Cold Darkness

Vanguard319 presented his own so maybe him too? At least his is actually non-RNG, with controllable variables like mech speed tied to weapon precision. How the player can logically control SRM spread and Laser burn, as with your suggestion, beats me.

precision is RNG by definition. this was your argument all along.
how a player is supposed to control srm spread and laserburn? not at all. you do not do that currently either, nor was it suggested by me at any point in time. i guess you could somehow warp the mention of CoF to fit your bill.

What, jiggling your lasers makes the magic unicorn horn inside the weapon system mad at you?

what are you even refering to?

CK16 is halfway I guess

indeed, its also why i NEVER SUGGESTED OR even HINTED at applying such things to ONLY CLAN. i actually stated that applying an accuracy nerf to only CLANS would still leave problems with IS STD vs IS XL.


Sensing a pattern there.....

and i didnt want to do this anymore, sigh. guess i am bored right now.

[Shiroi Tsuki]

I honestly disagree with having RNG factoring into shooting (apart from LBX/Missiles), especially when there's already torso twisting, damage spreading and projectile velocities. Marksmanship should be rewarded, not discouraged. XLs can be balanced with something else. I'm thinking of something like gaining +5 ST structure quirks for every IS XL Engines builds.

[Besh]

NighthawK1337, on 26 January 2017 - 04:58 PM, said:

I thought the same too but then i saw that he reused the argument

so much that it kinda pissed me off.

I guess that was my fault for indulging him.

It should've ended with Sjorpha's response. That summed up everything nicely.

So yeah, how's the weather?

small talk since can't add anything else

One has to admire your perseverance Sir .

Edited by Besh, 28 January 2017 - 01:49 PM.

[Mystere]

Shiroi Tsuki, on 27 January 2017 - 03:06 AM, said:

I honestly disagree with having RNG factoring into shooting (apart from LBX/Missiles) ...

Why should it be ok for some weapons but not for others?

[NighthawK1337]

Besh, on 28 January 2017 - 01:49 PM, said:

One has to admire your perseverance Sir .

Stemmed from all those religion debates in the other nether regions of the internet. Sometimes perseverance amounts to nothing.

Mystere, on 28 January 2017 - 01:52 PM, said:

Why should it be ok for some weapons but not for others?

IMO RNG is used to simulate things that is sometimes unfeasible to individually implement so they use a lumped variable to represent what's supposed to be multiple variables.

For instance, Shotgun type weapons have no rifling and is fired with multiple pellets and each one aerodynamically different. It's impossible for them to have a specific firing pattern.

SRMs might be a little bit more aerodynamically predictable but without guidance systems it's still affected by so many variables like wind direction, wind density, humidity, etc. that each of these variables is just making stuff more complicated while an RNG would make it so that it's just calculated as spread.

I think the biggest factor is real life physics and the basic characteristic of weapon which has the nearest real life comparison. ACs are like guns, their bullet also have drop but in a Ransom Rest they're almost exactly pinpoint accurate at close enough range. Buckshot on the other hand spreads the moment it leaves the shotgun barrel because the shotgun doesn't have rifling and the projectile is not a single slug but a pack of pellets. Also Lasers are known to be precise enough to destroy missiles fired by enemies. So yeah having every weapon spread is not conducive to immersion too.


@Cold Darkness

NighthawK1337, on 25 January 2017 - 01:00 PM, said:

If there's no need for a new mechanic, then the whole thread is pointless, why did you even start it? to discuss "BALANCING XL DIFFERENCES WITH WEAPONACCURACY" ok, a new mechanic isn't necessary, but then LBX/SRM spread? long burn times? lower velocity?


This thread's existence isn't a validation for your argument, that's circular reasoning. The systems already in place already reduce the ability of clans to consistently put all damage in one component. The biggest disparity is about weight, clans can pack more equipment because there is no downside to getting a clan XL. If IS can use the XL without the penalty, they'll be able to pack firepower on par consistently. That's where the difference lies. If the IS doesn't die to an ST loss, then they'll be able to match Clans toe to toe since every IS mech would fit XLs and pack enough firepower to do so on top of the quirks.

"Hah" is ridicule to you? please.
I didn't remove the whole paragraph and I even expounded what I said to drive a point.
I removed the "Hah" because dry heaving to somebody isn't as efficient as explaining why a person is dry heaving in the first place.

Cold Darkness, on 22 January 2017 - 04:48 AM, said:

.....{apt prediction}

if one thinks about it, the one thing that makes IS XL that much worse then C XL is the overall weaponaccuracy. ....{something to justify bad idea}

the way i see it, ANY mechanic to reduce accuracy would be a helpful addition to the game...... {something to justify bad idea}

....{not a suggestion}

so, lets discuss this. again.

You consider this "a lot" more content that CoF? All of these are just to justify why engine is supposed to be connected to *double quote*Accuracy*double quote*

Cold Darkness, on 26 January 2017 - 01:50 AM, said:

NighthawK1337, on 25 January 2017 - 05:21 PM, said:

We should focus more on controllable variables, like you said. Personally I'd go with equipment focused balancing, not a mechanic centered one. For instance having reduced precision while moving I think would hurt Brawlers a lot more than Snipers so I think that would incentivize more static gameplay.

i recall suggesting something for that. quite alot of that actually.

Your only suggestion was Laser Burns, Slower Projectiles, SRM/LBX spread.
So you tell me how these variables can be controlled by the player.

That's where the unicorn horn comes from. Jiggling the weapon makes the weapon angry enough to just lazily output laser making it burn longer?

Vanguard319's suggestion is heat movement penalty, damaged actuators, and moving precision penalty. Moving precision penalty is activated by Moving, precision itself is random I'll give you that, but it is triggered by player action, which is a controllable variable, The mechanic itself is non-RNG. While CoF is just there all the time.

Edited by NighthawK1337, 28 January 2017 - 03:07 PM.

[Cold Darkness]

Quote

Your only suggestion was Laser Burns, Slower Projectiles, SRM/LBX spread.
So you tell me how these variables can be controlled by the player.

increasing burn times and slowing projectiles and increasing burstfire ammount of the cac family will allow more interaction between both partys of a firefight. this allows the player on the recieving end to actively react to fire instead of having to predict fire. it is a very simple fix with big results if done correctly. for the majority of the playerbase, this change would also not impact how the gameplay feels. of course, this could potentially lead to problems with accel/deccel quirks, but those are mostly on ridiculous levels anyways and they are just as easy to fix.

Quote

That's where the unicorn horn comes from. Jiggling the weapon makes the weapon angry enough to just lazily output laser making it burn longer?

and this is what my beef is about. i did not suggest such things, so there is no need to assume that i did.

Quote

The mechanic itself is non-RNG. While CoF is just there all the time.

the problem with that is, that it will still feel unfair to the crowd that is against rng based mechanics. it doesnt matter if you can control it by adjusting movement. although, it would offer an interesting tradeoff between more offensive (standing) or defensive (moving) gameplay instead of having both at once. it might get really boring real fast, though.

Quote

"Hah" is ridicule to you? please.

"Hah" not if it isnt used as such. its amazing how much impact a single word can have when added to 3 lines of text right? but i am quite sure you are aware of how it reads, considering you removed it, which you most likely wouldnt have bothered doing otherwise. but this is pointless now. it doesnt advance the discussion, so yeah, whatever.

anyways, for the more relevant things.
yes, ISXL durability is indeed VERY dependent on overall weapon accuracy (not used as a specific scientific term, tyvm). this is the basis for this topic.
if you disagree with this statement, feel free to state why you think that this statement is false.

[MacClearly]

Cold Darkness, on 26 January 2017 - 01:50 AM, said:

backwards order.

@ MacClearly

i dont quite understand your post. you use the same arguments i used as a basis to suggest a NON-RNG based solution in this thread and blame me for pushing a RNG based solution. you also want your skill to matter, which is a good thing. my suggestions would actually increase interaction between target and shooting mech, involving MORE skill on BOTH partys.

all that without actually changing much about how the game would feel to the player unless you played on an above average level, at which point youd have a noticeable survivability boost to the XL engines, because reacting to PPFLD and spreading damage of non PPFLD weapons is being made alot easier.
quite literally no luck involved.

also: as stated multiple times, it would apply to both sides, which excludes nerfing one side. this is done because the XL problem also exists in IS vs IS combat. its just a problem with XL vs Standard there.

You are not open to your idea being wrong. That is a problem right there.

"the way i see it, ANY mechanic to reduce accuracy would be a helpful addition to the game"

Somehow you have convinced yourself that removing accuracy would increase skill. That doesn't make sense. Buffing armour or reducing damage to increase TTK at least makes sense as it doesn't wreck the players ability to aim. If by increasing skill you mean by making it easier to spread damage by torso twisting, I contend that quickly and accurately aiming and firing is a lot more skillful than moving your mouse side to side.

Take a look at why these ideas are shot down by so many every time they are brought up. What you think is a good idea is only a good idea if people grasp onto it and accept as such. If you have a bunch of experienced players who have played other FPS's and enjoy that genre for a reason, your idea needs to not interfere with that experience if you have any hope that it would be accepted.

You say; 'but BIG deviations are not required to implement such a mechanic. SMALL deviations would allready bring BIG results, without feeling punishing.'

Where do you get the data that this would not feel punishing? How do you know if small deviations would even give any appreciable benefit or not handicap those without lightening reflexes to compensate? Where does this impression come from?

It's too bad that this forum couldn't follow Robert's Rules of Order to prevent topics like this being brought up over and over.