80 replies to this topic

[Ultimax]

VanillaG, on 09 June 2017 - 06:21 AM, said:

The problem is that weapons that require a lock to use are inferior to the weapons that do not. With ballistics and lasers you can play the entire game without hitting the R key and get maximum weapon performance, up to your skill level at putting the crosshairs on a target. At the same time weapons that require locks are at a disadvantage because there is no incentive to hit the R key so that other players on your team share the lock to hit the target.

So my solution is to require target lock for ballistic and lasers to get the equivalent performance that they can get right now with just putting the crosshairs on the target without a lock. I am under no illusions that this will somehow make LRMs and Streaks comparable to direct fire weapons. They will always be inferior because they spread damage, but by requiring the lock it brings the two different types of weapons closer together. It also has the benefit of making this more of sim than the FPS shooter it currently is. The new measure of skill would be piloting your mech in manner to minimize your reticle size, thus being able to put more precise fire onto a target.

The problem is that you have absolutely no idea why those weapons have lock on times.

They have lock on times because they are designed as noob crutch weapons.

They have "aim-assist" and also track their targets. LRMs on top of that benefit from shared locks and can fire over terrain.

These weapons have locks to prevent them from being ridiculously overpowered.



What that means is, they are purposefully limited in how high their performance can go (mediocre) because they have crutch mechanics that allow any level of skill to get in the game and use them and "feel" like you are contributing.



Hopefully you are asking an honest question, and not just being a troll, because the flaw in your logic is visible from space.

Direct fire weapons don't have lock on times, because they don't have aim-assist or target tracking.


I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt.

[Tarogato]

Almond Brown, on 09 June 2017 - 06:17 AM, said:

And it is also true that very few, if any other games, allow one player to FIRE as many as 12 weapons all at the same time. So what is your point again?

Most games' weapons don't deal such meaningless damage to enemies that you need to stack up to 12 of them to kill something. =P

[Mister Blastman]

I would prefer high heat, movement, or lack of lock to result in zero convergence instead of reticle shake and reduced accuracy. It makes sense, too.

It takes time for our 'mech sensors to download data on an enemy 'mech's loadout. So it should also take time to focus the lasers on that that target, too.

[xXBagheeraXx]

There is no "easy fix" to this problem. I am assuming you are talking about Laser weapons with perfect convergence, however the laser barf is a symptom of a larger problem that has to due with BAD convergence, not perfect convergence.


As best as I can explain it, projectile based weapons in this game have god Awful convergence issues. Lets say you are shooting a mech. The mech is 300 meters away.

But he is moving at full speed at a 90 degree angle to you. In order to hit the mech with your ballistic weapons, you have to point ahead of him and actually slightly above.

The way convergence is set in this game, you have to have your reticle ON the target for your weapons to converge and meet at that range...however if you are LEADING to hit with projectile weapons, your reticle is not on the mech, but several feet at head....probably on some terrain 1000 meters away. So your guns arent set to hit the mech at 300 meters...

but they are set to meet at a point 600 meters downrange. The result? Most, of not all your weapons miss. Even tho your lead is perfect you will be lucky to hit with more than a few shells. This is part of the reason clan auto cannon boats are fairly sorry at all but the shortest or ranges, since you have the same issues but then you damage is spread across several shells.

This is why when you shoot at people peeking over hills you cant hit them, despite your reticle being directly on them...

and have you tried hitting a UAV with auto cannons? Its next to impossible. PPCS and gauss have the same issues but to a much lesser extent since they travel in perfectly flat trajectories. and in the case of Gauss travel extreamly fast requiring much less lead.

What weapons in this game require no load and only have to ON the target to cause damage? That's RIGHT...lasers.

Edited by xXBagheeraXx, 09 June 2017 - 08:35 AM.

[Kubernetes]

I don't see a freaking "problem" in the first place. LRMs require* lock because the weapons themselves let you hit targets sitting 800m away behind a rock. And I *ed that statement because LRMs don't actually require a lock at all. Unlike Streaks you can dead fire. Yes. If a target is sitting stationary you can just put the reticle on it (whoa, I know, aiming), and the missiles go there. Amazing.

But hey, instead of improving LRMs let's just gimp all direct fire weapons? RIDICULOUS.

[Dru The Blue]

It's a 100 ton battle mech that has a targeting computer bigger than a person in it, I'd like to think it could manage some targeting accuracy on the move. Do you have any idea how frustrating random spread would be in a game with such high TTK where there is armor and specific components. Right now what separates good players from bad isn't the ability to put the shots where you want them to go its knowing where to place shots and having everyone coordinate that placement. Lock on for pinpoint accuracy might be acceptable to rein in poptarting which honestly isn't that hard to deal with in the first place (News Flash, Push as a Group.) But just random spread would punish skilled players and reward scrubs. What's happening is a high level player gets in their pop tarts and goes ape **** on a bunch of potatoes because they don't have the skill to counter play it, it's not the mech or its weapons that are out of line it's the typical players ability to respond to this tactic that makes it seem strong.

[VanillaG]

Kubernetes, on 09 June 2017 - 08:56 AM, said:

I don't see a freaking "problem" in the first place. LRMs require* lock because the weapons themselves let you hit targets sitting 800m away behind a rock. And I *ed that statement because LRMs don't actually require a lock at all. Unlike Streaks you can dead fire. Yes. If a target is sitting stationary you can just put the reticle on it (whoa, I know, aiming), and the missiles go there. Amazing.

But hey, instead of improving LRMs let's just gimp all direct fire weapons? RIDICULOUS.

Ultimax, on 09 June 2017 - 06:56 AM, said:

The problem is that you have absolutely no idea why those weapons have lock on times.

They have lock on times because they are designed as noob crutch weapons.

They have "aim-assist" and also track their targets. LRMs on top of that benefit from shared locks and can fire over terrain.

These weapons have locks to prevent them from being ridiculously overpowered.



What that means is, they are purposefully limited in how high their performance can go (mediocre) because they have crutch mechanics that allow any level of skill to get in the game and use them and "feel" like you are contributing.



Hopefully you are asking an honest question, and not just being a troll, because the flaw in your logic is visible from space.

Direct fire weapons don't have lock on times, because they don't have aim-assist or target tracking.


I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt.

I understand how LRMs(spread damage) and Streaks(bone targeting) work but I also understand that they are the slowest weapons in the arsenal, have active countermeasures in both equipment and skill tree nodes, and can easily be dodged by running past terrain. While you can dead fire LRMs, due to their velocity they can easy dodged Most players agree that you can't really buff the auto-aim weapons too much more without making them totally overpowered in the PUG queue.

As for the noob-crutch comment, you could argue the instant convergence is a twitch-crutch. Almost all FPS type games have different reticle size based on your movement profile but MWO just has the zoomed in sniper reticle. All that I proposing is the MWO implement a similar system but be based on more than just your speed.

As an alternative to reticle shake, and introducing RNGesus, you could change some of the weapon characteristics based on whether there was lock. For example:

• IS Single Shot AC, UAC, Gauss(Clan and IS), and PPCs - Without a lock spread some damage to adjacent components like Clan ERPPC does.
  
• Lasers - With a lock reduce the beam duration
  
• Dumbfire Missles (SRM, MRM, ATM) and LBX - With a lock reduce the spread
  
• Multishot UAC and RAC - With a lock have reduce time between shots making them more likely to hit the same component
  
• Clan ERPPC - With a lock reduce spread damage

Ideally you would have "lock box" around the mech to allow leading the target so you don't end up missing the bonuses. You could either start with the current stats as the unlocked stats and make the better with a lock or vice versa. No matter where you start, the basic premise is the locks should matter for ALL weapons, not just the ones that have tracking.

Edited by VanillaG, 09 June 2017 - 09:41 AM.

[Kaeb Odellas]

I don't know that convergence should require a lock-on time like LRMs and streaks, but I wouldn't mind if convergence was tied to target info gathering. Current target is at 400m? Weapons converge to 400m. No current target? No convergence. Enemy targeted but no target info has been gathered? No convergence. This would make spotting useful for all kinds of weapons, as a spotter could give you the necessary info for pinpoint convergence before you step out to shoot.

Then you could do stuff like staged info gathering, where different info comes in before others. Something like direction -> distance -> weight class -> chassis -> loadout. Give mechs with lesser combat characteristics (mainly few or low mounted hardpoints) better infotech to let them target enemies faster, while the current ubermechs get slower infotech.

You could even give certain mechs multi-targeting abilities, where they can gather info from multiple mechs in a cone in front of them to give to the rest of their team.

Edited by Kaeb Odellas, 09 June 2017 - 09:54 AM.

[Mystere]

Ultimax, on 09 June 2017 - 06:56 AM, said:

They have lock on times because they are designed as noob crutch weapons.

You talk as if automatic near-instant pixel-perfect convergence isn't arguably a noob crutch either.

Edited by Mystere, 09 June 2017 - 10:59 AM.

[Brain Cancer]

Perfect convergence wasn't even part of the game as designed, it entered into the game because PGI cannot into coding anything else.

And even then, convergence skill stayed as a dead, meaningless exp sink for years afterwards. At the least, convergence should be based off range to a locked target rather than 100% automatic. Weapon systems that can ignore sensors yet get perfect accuracy are a crutch.

[Natred]

So much please no is going on this thread.

[Linkin]

Deathlike, on 08 June 2017 - 06:29 PM, said:

It would not.

One of the problems with Lights when you're trying to scout is if/when you get "too close" (it doesn't necessarily mean brawl range... this includes mid-range), you can be damaged fast enough to not be able to spot. It's one of the biggest problems with LRM spotting via Lights (whether it is by TAG or NARC) and usually not worth making a Light less effective at fighting their own kind (let alone be totally dependent on the LRM boat to deal damage).

True, I gave up tagging in a light, or anything but a few of my own missile mechs along while ago. Narc still works decently, but I will definitely admit I do much better on my damage dealing lights (who live and die by hit and runs), than my narc lights.

My thought, is that required target locks would help the light spot, as any enemy mechs would need to lock it to fire with perfect convergence. That said, once locked, the light is in the same problem you mention. Perhaps the lock idea would only add a few seconds to the light's life in that case. My other thought, whoever, is that the enemy mechs would also be spending more time trying to get locks on the other big targets they see/see spotted, which would help our little spotter survive more. Basically, I am trying to say the whole idea would add some time to the ttk the spotter, or maybe reduce the chance the spotter is even seen and shot.

Or, perhaps it is a negligible benefit for the spotter anyways, and lights will always remain the 'shoot, but don't be seen mechs', which doesn't lend very well to spotting. Unless the enemy is asleep

[Ultimax]

Mystere, on 09 June 2017 - 10:57 AM, said:

You talk as if automatic near-instant pixel-perfect convergence isn't arguably a noob crutch either.

You can very quickly discern a noob, weak or mediocre player vs a skilled player when all of them are using Direct Fire.

[Paf le chien]

I wonder why some people defend so aggressively pinpoint accuracy... Because of skillz? Or because it makes aimbots more efficients?

[Mystere]

Ultimax, on 09 June 2017 - 12:47 PM, said:

You can very quickly discern a noob, weak or mediocre player vs a skilled player when all of them are using Direct Fire.

Noob or not, it's still a crutch, though.

[Mystere]

Paf le chien, on 09 June 2017 - 03:24 PM, said:

I wonder why some people defend so aggressively pinpoint accuracy... Because of skillz? Or because it makes aimbots more efficients?

I don't know about aimbots. But, I do suspect many are terrified of having to perform mental geometry or -- worse -- trigonometry when trying to aim their weapons without convergence.

Edited by Mystere, 09 June 2017 - 03:48 PM.

[Imperius]

Mystere, on 09 June 2017 - 03:47 PM, said:

I don't know about aimbots. But, I do suspect many are terrified of having to perform mental geometry or -- worse -- trigonometry when trying to aim their weapons without convergence.

Go play the battletech beta

[Ruar]

While the idea of requiring lock for perfect convergence makes sense, it's probably not the best answer. I would prefer we nevef have perfect convergence and instead there is always some spread on weapons being fired based on hardpoint location and how close those weapons are together. Having pinpoint accuracy is a significant problem with the game, but I doubt we see any major changes at this point. Too many people would be upset if they suddenly got less damage because their weapons spread more.

[Mystere]

Imperius, on 09 June 2017 - 04:00 PM, said:

Go play the battletech beta

I'm playing only when the real unbiased reviews come in after release.

[Ruar]

Mystere, on 09 June 2017 - 06:07 PM, said:

I'm playing only when the real unbiased reviews come in after release.

That's silly. You just assume anyone who plays the beta is automatically going to ignore it's flaws.