74 replies to this topic

[FrozenWaltDisney]

I don't really post much, but I started getting active in the game (way to active) and kept reading over and over on how XL's should be nerfed etc etc. I also don't claim this is a good idea, but I wanted to get it out there to GET to a good idea.

This is what I propose.

Speed based accuracy based on chassis maximum carrying weight. (This is a two part change to illustrate the compound effect of a small ADJUSTABLE change.)

So what does that mean?

Speed based

Concept:
Basically if you are at 100% of max speed, you will have worse accuracy. However, I am not suggesting horrible accuracy, only a minor change.

Why:
Right now most larger mechs already aren't moving at 100% speed when hill humping or sniping. This will have little effect. However, light mechs with erPPC's can't go max speed an always hit the same torso as easily. (Please remember minor change to explained.)


Engine Types / Chassis Carrying Weight

Concept:
The larger the engine the more it will effect your aim at higher speeds. This would be % based on maximum engine size. (You could make an argument that XLs could have this multiplied, but I left it out because it doesn't really enhance my proposal.)

Why:
You are reaching the outer reaches of the chassis. In most cases, this means there is a trade-off which I am suggesting be aim. However, if you travel at 50% speed, your accuracy could be no different, it's only when traveling at 100% of chassis max speed that you will see the full extent of effects to your accuracy.


So what does this come out to?

Basically if you have a max engine size + max speed = worse aim. My goal here is to lower engine sizes which in turn will increase the use of STD engine. This hopefully increase the worth of open slots on your mech by making smaller engines having a benefit of using.


As I said, it's not a perfect idea, but I think with some more thought, not by a singular individual it may come out to something worth pursuing.

Thanks,

Frozen

[RestosIII]

So what you're saying is that you want to nerf light mechs. No thanks.

[FrozenWaltDisney]

RestosIII, on 06 February 2017 - 01:20 PM, said:

So what you're saying is that you want to nerf light mechs. No thanks.

Well thought out input... you could have said make it Tonnage based.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

RestosIII, on 06 February 2017 - 01:20 PM, said:

So what you're saying is that you want to nerf light mechs. No thanks.

Don't forget promote more static engagements.

[RestosIII]

FrozenWaltDisney, on 06 February 2017 - 01:22 PM, said:

Well thought out input... you could have said make it Tonnage based.

When you specifically single out light mechs in your initial post, I don't assume you're going to want to change it so that it nerfs anything else. I feel like that's a reasonable assumption.

[FrozenWaltDisney]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 06 February 2017 - 01:23 PM, said:

Don't forget promote more static engagements.

Not sure how that is any different then what we currently have. Static engagements is just as much a map issue then it is a engine speed issue.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

FrozenWaltDisney, on 06 February 2017 - 01:26 PM, said:

Static engagements is just as much a map issue then it is a engine speed issue.

Static engagements are a result of both, and this doesn't help that.

[FrozenWaltDisney]

RestosIII, on 06 February 2017 - 01:26 PM, said:

When you specifically single out light mechs in your initial post, I don't assume you're going to want to change it so that it nerfs anything else. I feel like that's a reasonable assumption.

I am saying you could have suggested otherwise other then the traditional "omg NERF NO." It's not a well thought out argument and you focused on one thing.

Also, I am not suggesting changing firepower or speed. A lot of lights either fight in close where it won't matter, OR they fight at range where they aren't going 100% max speed to aim.

Edit:
Also a light going 164kps shooting a erPPC, will have the same accuracy shooting an erPPC has a Heavy going 80kps.

Edited by FrozenWaltDisney, 06 February 2017 - 01:36 PM.

[Tristan Winter]

FrozenWaltDisney, on 06 February 2017 - 01:22 PM, said:

Well thought out input... you could have said make it Tonnage based.

Lately, MWO forums are increasingly frustrating in this regard. Any time someone suggests an idea, there's a bunch of snarky or condescending replies. Very little constructive discussion, and virtually zero steelmanning.

For what it's worth, I think that the MWO as a game has never had any kind of Cone of Fire and a lot of people dislike it because it adds an element of luck to the game. Personally, I'm not a fan. If the goal is to deal with heavy mechs and assault mechs with huge engines (and especially CXL engines) then I prefer more simple methods. Nerf the range of movement for torso and arms, which indirectly also buffs light mechs and medium mechs by making their mobility a real benefit. Right now, the Timber Wolf has 90 degrees torso twist, Night Gyr has 100 degrees, Kodiak has 60 degrees. Reduce them all by 10 degrees horizontally and 5 degrees vertically, and see what happens. Repeat the process if necessary. Also, decouple turn rate from the engine rating. Don't let mechs with XL375 and XL400 turn so fast.

[FrozenWaltDisney]

Tristan Winter, on 06 February 2017 - 01:46 PM, said:

Lately, MWO forums are increasingly frustrating in this regard. Any time someone suggests an idea, there's a bunch of snarky or condescending replies. Very little constructive discussion, and virtually zero steelmanning.

For what it's worth, I think that the MWO as a game has never had any kind of Cone of Fire and a lot of people dislike it because it adds an element of luck to the game. Personally, I'm not a fan. If the goal is to deal with heavy mechs and assault mechs with huge engines (and especially CXL engines) then I prefer more simple methods. Nerf the range of movement for torso and arms, which indirectly also buffs light mechs and medium mechs by making their mobility a real benefit. Right now, the Timber Wolf has 90 degrees torso twist, Night Gyr has 100 degrees, Kodiak has 60 degrees. Reduce them all by 10 degrees horizontally and 5 degrees vertically, and see what happens. Repeat the process if necessary. Also, decouple turn rate from the engine rating. Don't let mechs with XL375 and XL400 turn so fast.

Thanks for the input!

I could see that for sure as a possible solution. I do feel however that MWO is playing a bit of an old school FPS feel when you don't put in speed based accuracy. Not that it should be like a FPS, because MWO a traditional one.

[Shiroi Tsuki]

Anything that involves RNG while shooting (apart from LB/missiles) is an instant no for me. RNG should not factor in for accuracy as marksmanship should be rewarded, not discouraged. RNG and luck belongs only in crits and supply caches

[FrozenWaltDisney]

Shiroi Tsuki, on 06 February 2017 - 01:57 PM, said:

Anything that involves RNG while shooting (apart from LB/missiles) is an instant no for me. RNG should not factor in for accuracy as marksmanship should be rewarded, not discouraged. RNG and luck belongs only in crits and supply caches

RNG specifically isn't what I am trying to address. I think the ranges are generally ok, in some cases it can be annoying, but overall eh.

It's more movement speed adjust accuracy based on weight and engine capabilities.

[RestosIII]

FrozenWaltDisney, on 06 February 2017 - 02:02 PM, said:

RNG specifically isn't what I am trying to address. I think the ranges are generally ok, in some cases it can be annoying, but overall eh.

It's more movement speed adjust accuracy based on weight and engine capabilities.

Not range, Random Number Generator. As in, making it so that your shots go into a randomized location like your system would implement.

[Tristan Winter]

FrozenWaltDisney, on 06 February 2017 - 01:50 PM, said:

Thanks for the input!

I could see that for sure as a possible solution. I do feel however that MWO is playing a bit of an old school FPS feel when you don't put in speed based accuracy. Not that it should be like a FPS, because MWO a traditional one.

I never thought about it in those terms. I guess they wanted to stay true to the old games and attract the old gamers. And being old gamers themselves, relatively speaking, maybe the guys at PGI don't like CoF. Maybe they made the kind of game they would enjoy playing, at least initially.

In a sense, all these discussions are academic, since we can't really influence PGI very much at all. But even as an academic discussion, it feels extra pointless if most of the population would pack up and leave if your solution was implemented. And I feel a cone of fire has the potential to do that. Like it or hate it, this seems to be a point of no negotiation for the MWO community. Like useful 3PV.

[FrozenWaltDisney]

Tristan Winter, on 06 February 2017 - 02:14 PM, said:

I never thought about it in those terms. I guess they wanted to stay true to the old games and attract the old gamers. And being old gamers themselves, relatively speaking, maybe the guys at PGI don't like CoF. Maybe they made the kind of game they would enjoy playing, at least initially.

In a sense, all these discussions are academic, since we can't really influence PGI very much at all. But even as an academic discussion, it feels extra pointless if most of the population would pack up and leave if your solution was implemented. And I feel a cone of fire has the potential to do that. Like it or hate it, this seems to be a point of no negotiation for the MWO community. Like useful 3PV.

Very true. When it comes down to it, I would rather have a game people still play then have it dissolve, and your right that most dev's aren't going to do much, but that's most because it's fairly hard to add in different features without breaking a lot in the process. I know from experience that its not the most fun.

Edited by FrozenWaltDisney, 06 February 2017 - 02:18 PM.

[RestosIII]

FrozenWaltDisney, on 06 February 2017 - 02:15 PM, said:

Ahh sorry thanks for the clarification!

I can't think of many games that don't use RNG in some way or another. Hell MWO uses that when using Jump Jets... I guess thats more of a difference in opinion I suppose. I personally like when you need to slow down to take a long range shot, it adds another dimension to play for myself at least.

Honestly, I'm one of the sick people that actually would have enjoyed a WoT aiming system if it was implemented back when the game launched, but doing it now, this late into the game's life span? I don't think it would work out well at all.

Now, for something I wish was in the game right now that would be nice, and would still work? Still wish AC recoil was in the game like in MW3.

Edited by RestosIII, 06 February 2017 - 02:19 PM.

[FrozenWaltDisney]

RestosIII, on 06 February 2017 - 02:18 PM, said:

Honestly, I'm one of the sick people that actually would have enjoyed a WoT aiming system if it was implemented back when the game launched, but doing it now, this late into the game's life span? I don't think it would work out well at all.

Now, for something I wish was in the game right now that would be nice, and would still work? Still wish AC recoil was in the game like in MW3.

Totally understand that. It's tough because most of the people that really love the IP are older non-fast-twitch players (most not all.) That is actually some of the attraction of the game, and you don't want to make it like all the other crappy FPS games that come up every 3 months.

I feel that anything with a game that has a good base should be extremely gradual. It's some of the concern I have with the new skill trees coming out. I hope that it isn't a play to cater to new players, since that normally alienates all the old ones if it happens to fast.

[Lostdragon]

This has been discussed many times in the past. I have been a proponent of some type of reticle bloom for a long time and would like to see it based on heat and speed. People say it is RNG but if you can still deliver pinpoint damage exactly where you want under the right circumstances then that increases the skill ceiling of the game because now you have to decide is it worth it to slow down and/or cool off enough to ensure 100% accuracy. You can have different levels of bloom based on tonnage and you could use skills and/or quirks to give mechs that need some help a bit more accuracy.

This could also be a balancing factor for Clan XLs, lose a ST and gain some bloom for the rest of the match.

[FrozenWaltDisney]

Lostdragon, on 06 February 2017 - 02:23 PM, said:

This has been discussed many times in the past. I have been a proponent of some type of reticle bloom for a long time and would like to see it based on heat and speed. People say it is RNG but if you can still deliver pinpoint damage exactly where you want under the right circumstances then that increases the skill ceiling of the game because now you have to decide is it worth it to slow down and/or cool off enough to ensure 100% accuracy. You can have different levels of bloom based on tonnage and you could use skills and/or quirks to give mechs that need some help a bit more accuracy.

This could also be a balancing factor for Clan XLs, lose a ST and gain some bloom for the rest of the match.

That'd be cool. I was trying to keep the cXL and isXL discussion out of it just because it's be beaten to death lately, but it was definitely on my mind when I wrote it (as I noted in the OP). Thanks for your input!

[Pjwned]

Really dumb idea, especially considering the reason why.

If you want STD engines to be more relevant despite their (typically) smaller rating when equipped, which is fine, then decouple mech agility from engine rating instead.

Punishing movement and big engines with decreased accuracy is stupid.