81 replies to this topic

[Kaeb Odellas]

Yeonne Greene, on 06 November 2017 - 08:50 AM, said:

Quake and UT are the two FPS games considered to have the highest skill ceiling in the genre because they are fast, precise, and devoid of RNG. They also aren't very popular anymore for the same reasons; they are hard to play well. CoD and BF are much easier games to pick up and play. Other players are easy to kill with a few shots, making precision less important than initiative. And, in both cases, the objective scores higher than kills, too.

It is worth pointing out that spread in these games isn't there to stop you from placing damage, it is there to slow down the rate of placement and can be circumvented by getting closer, getting good at adjusting , or timing your trigger pulls. Lock-based convergence in MWO would not be so defeatable.

UT and Quake not completely devoid of RNG. UT's flak cannon, minigun, and assault rifle weapons all have, some degree of RNG, and to some extent the Rocket launcher's swirly triple-shot mode. Quake's shotgun and machine gun weapons both have spread. And both games have random respawns.

CS is another game with a high skill ceiling that has both movement accuracy penalties and recoil.

[Pariah Devalis]

The problem with a blooming cone of fire based on movement is that it would cause the game to be quite a bit more static. If movement reduces accuracy, then the winning strat would be to move as little as possible, while forcing the enemy to do most of the movement. Further, a dynamic convergence system would likely play havoc with our hit detection since there will be instances where the PC and the Server disagree on how much bloom there is.

This is why I favor a more simple, straightforward answer:

Fixed Convergence for torso weapons and arms without Lower Arm Actuators. Fully articulated (Upper and Lower actuators) arms can converge as normal, and increase the value of arm mounted weapons, but torso and arms without LAA simply converge at either optimal, or straight parallel to infinity. Because there is no RNG, all weapon offset can be accounted for by the pilot and their familiarity with their mech.

For example, in a HBK, the AC20 is over the right shoulder. Following that, you'd expect the AC20 projectile's flight path to shoot just to the right and above of the center of the reticule. The player still has complete control of the path of the weapon, but needs to intentionally offset their reticule to compensate for its physical placement on the mech. Alpha strikes with multiple weapons across the entire mech can happen, but being located in various places on the mech would automatically hit several locations on the enemy, instead of just one.

Further, currently shoddy weapon systems like LRM, SSRM, and ATM, become more worthwhile as they'd attempt to seek the target as they are programmed to and would spread more or less as much as anything else would if you held the alpha button down.

Edited by Pariah Devalis, 06 November 2017 - 09:51 AM.

[Curccu]

Kaeb Odellas, on 06 November 2017 - 09:39 AM, said:

UT and Quake not completely devoid of RNG. UT's flak cannon, minigun, and assault rifle weapons all have, some degree of RNG, and to some extent the Rocket launcher's swirly triple-shot mode. Quake's shotgun and machine gun weapons both have spread. And both games have random respawns.

CS is another game with a high skill ceiling that has both movement accuracy penalties and recoil.

yeas some weapons in UT have spread (miniguns normal fire didn't if I remember correctly) Flak usually 1 shotted enemies, swirly rockets definitely almost always just leaved just bloodstains

and also yes CS has those but has shorter TTK.

[CMDR Sunset Shimmer]

Khobai, on 06 November 2017 - 08:31 AM, said:

Its not at all the same thing. You dont have multiple weapons that fire simultaneously in other FPS games or world of tanks. You have one incredibly lethal weapon in those games. Not multiple weaker weapons that need to converge in order to do any kindve threatening damage. Different games are different.

Youre trying to compare games that arnt even remotely like MWO as evidence that RNG is somehow okay... thats a strawman argument at best.

Convergence is a part of mechwarrior. Every mechwarrior game has had convergence. And other mechwarrior games dealt with convergence in different ways... like sized hardpoints, triple armor/structure, significantly reduced damage on lasers, etc... but none of them resorted to something as asinine as RNG aiming.

There are much simpler solutions to counter convergence that dont require altering fundamental gameplay elements of the franchise. If you want CoD with mechs, that game exists, go play hawken.

You have this habit, of ignoring the fact, that if a COF mechanic was put into MWO, everyone would be functioning in that same playground.

The "leet skills" you seem so worried about getting oblitered, would arguably, still be strong, your ability to keep a target under reticle, and to handle the other variables, would still be very important so far as skill goes.

Your argument is that "there are more weapons on a mech, so it shouldn't spread damage."

My argument is: THere are more weapons on a mech, so it SHOULD spread damage" because of the nature of the targeting system having to handle all of those different weapons.

one of the biggest issues with TTK in this game, is the pin point accuracy of every weapon... spreading that damage a bit, would be a good thing for the game on the whole.

it's just sad you want the constant, pervasive alpha's, and pin-point accuracy.

[MechaBattler]

At this point. Any change is going to upset someone. This would probably be a big one. Especially for people who are competitive and want to be able to deliver reliable damage all the time. I personally think changes to the heat system and base stats of weapons are the way to go.

[CMDR Sunset Shimmer]

MechaBattler, on 06 November 2017 - 09:56 AM, said:

At this point. Any change is going to upset someone. This would probably be a big one. Especially for people who are competitive and want to be able to deliver reliable damage all the time. I personally think changes to the heat system and base stats of weapons are the way to go.

The funny thing is, under this system... your PPC/Gauss sniping would still be strong, but we'd likely see a shift towards more missile-based weapons, or arm based weaponry for that faster convergence the arms would offer.

but the current playerbase is so concerned with high mounted hardpoints, laughing off missiles, and ignoring arm-mounted anything because [too easy to shoot off according to the leet's] that anything that upset's that accepted meta idea, is seen as "Bad" And it's been this way for years.

[Pariah Devalis]

CMDR Sunset Shimmer, on 06 November 2017 - 10:08 AM, said:

The funny thing is, under this system... your PPC/Gauss sniping would still be strong, but we'd likely see a shift towards more missile-based weapons, or arm based weaponry for that faster convergence the arms would offer.

but the current playerbase is so concerned with high mounted hardpoints, laughing off missiles, and ignoring arm-mounted anything because [too easy to shoot off according to the leet's] that anything that upset's that accepted meta idea, is seen as "Bad" And it's been this way for years.

The current playerbase also has a bad habit of not understanding why certain things are meta, and thus misapply "lessons" from meta mechs to others that can't actually support it. Then you have those who think "meta" is a bad word, and go on rage spells if you suggest anything vaguely functional to them. XD

[Khobai]

Quote

Your argument is that "there are more weapons on a mech, so it shouldn't spread damage."

My argument is: THere are more weapons on a mech, so it SHOULD spread damage" because of the nature of the targeting system having to handle all of those different weapons.

nope.

because in a lot of cases theyre individually weaker weapons

take machine guns for example. without convergence whats the point of even having machine guns?

without convergence they simply arnt threatening (and mgs are barely a threat even with convergence)

once again... convergence on its own isnt the problem. its only a problem when combined with high damage alphas (40+ damage alphas).

we dont need to get rid of convergence. we need to limit high damage alphas. thats all MWO needs.

take your RNG and shove it

Edited by Khobai, 06 November 2017 - 10:25 AM.

[Pariah Devalis]

Khobai, on 06 November 2017 - 10:20 AM, said:

nope.

because in a lot of cases theyre individually weaker weapons

take machine guns for example. without convergence whats the point of even having machine guns?

without convergence they simply arnt threatening (and mgs are barely a threat even with convergence)

once again... convergence on its own isnt the problem. its only a problem when combined with high damage alphas (40+ damage alphas).

we dont need to get rid of convergence. we need to limit high damage alphas.

I'd say a counterpoint to your above is that "threat" is relative. If all you can effectively place on a specific location is, say, 20 damage, when the enemy is able to effectively place 60 damage on a location, clearly you are unable to bring an effective degree of firepower threat. However, if your enemy is also only able to bring about as much to a specific location as you are, at 20, then things are significantly more equal and you can be said to be bringing a suitable amount of directed firepower. The "threat" is sufficient.

Of course, there are extremes here.... I wonder if removing convergence altogether would make sense to go hand in hand with reverting doubled armor/internals.

Edited by Pariah Devalis, 06 November 2017 - 10:28 AM.

[Khobai]

Quote

I'd say a counterpoint to your above is that "threat" is relative. If all you can effectively place on a specific location is, say, 20 damage, when the enemy is able to effectively place 60 damage on a location, clearly you are unable to bring an effective degree of firepower threat. However, if your enemy is also only able to bring about as much to a specific location as you are, at 20, then things are significantly more equal and you can be said to be bringing a suitable amount of directed firepower. The "threat" is sufficient.

20 damage is less threatening than 60 damage. fact.

there is nothing "relative" about that.

if you limit alphas to 20 damage instead of 60 damage, alphas are now less of a threat. period.

a hunchback IIC that does 74 last vomit damage with 2HLL and 6CERML is far more of a threat than a hunchback IIC that has its alpha limited to a more reasonable 30-40 damage. Limiting everyone to 30-40 damage alphas makes things far less threatening then allowing 60+ damage alphas.

capping alpha strikes is the best solution for MWO. convergence only becomes a problem when alphastrike damage exceeds 30-40 damage. So capping alphas makes convergence mostly a non-issue.

Edited by Khobai, 06 November 2017 - 11:03 AM.

[CMDR Sunset Shimmer]

Khobai, on 06 November 2017 - 10:20 AM, said:

nope.

because in a lot of cases theyre individually weaker weapons

take machine guns for example. without convergence whats the point of even having machine guns?

without convergence they simply arnt threatening (and mgs are barely a threat even with convergence)

once again... convergence on its own isnt the problem. its only a problem when combined with high damage alphas (40+ damage alphas).

we dont need to get rid of convergence. we need to limit high damage alphas. thats all MWO needs.

take your RNG and shove it

You argue against RNG, and you literally utilize the 1 weapon in this game that has the most abuse ridden RNG, to support why you should pinpoint with RNG.

I... yeah, you're absolutely insane.

MG's, once you armor is stripped, are one of literally the most devistating weapons in the game. By spreading their convergence, their component stripping ability is STILL the best in the game. They already are fairly inaccurate as they sit anyway. but the amount of bullets they put out, and their ability to crit out components, is unmatched. They would still be a viable take for lights, and even mediums and up, as something to crit out weaponry easier.

As an example, back before the most recent MG buff, having a CN9-A with 2 mlas in the torso was viable for zombie fighting. [no not viable at high tier, but it still left you with a ten point alpha]. In the current game, with the strength of MG's, I might as well not have those lasers, simply because the second my torso is opened, they are stripped due to MG lights swarming... I can't fight back with my CT lasers, just because a split-second spray of MG's, has crit my weaponry completely [because of that nasty RNG you hate so much.]

So yeah... you, are literally insane in your defense of pinpoint damage. I'm sorry, but I cannot take you seriously anymore.

[Pariah Devalis]

Khobai, on 06 November 2017 - 10:32 AM, said:

20 damage is less threatening than 60 damage.

there is nothing relative about that.

if you limit alphas to 20 damage instead of 60 damage, alphas are now less of a threat. period.

...exactly? What I'm getting at is you're looking at it like it only impacts you. However, if the enemy is playing the same game, with the same limitations, they are going to have a lower effective threat, as well. You're not the only "victim" under any of these theoretical convergence changes. Everyone will be impacted similarly by modifying convergence.

So that 60 damage in that hypothetical situation? You can forget it ever existed. Because your relative threat is similar, now. He isn't putting out 60 effective. He might HAVE a 60 point alpha, but it isn't focused onto one location. You are not putting 60 effective, either. TTK goes way, way up.

Edited by Pariah Devalis, 06 November 2017 - 10:37 AM.

[Phoolan Devi]

I'm all for it, since convergence is the biggest problem in MWO.

But it won't happen since PGI believes this game has e-sport potential, as do "competitive" players.

[Tarogato]

Wasn't this idea tried during the IntoTech PTS and the community shot it down, referring to it as "laser lock"? It was the joke of the month. "plz lock for laser support!"

Kaeb Odellas, on 06 November 2017 - 09:39 AM, said:

UT and Quake not completely devoid of RNG. UT's flak cannon, minigun, and assault rifle weapons all have, some degree of RNG, and to some extent the Rocket launcher's swirly triple-shot mode. Quake's shotgun and machine gun weapons both have spread. And both games have random respawns.

CS is another game with a high skill ceiling that has both movement accuracy penalties and recoil.

Flak has a very predictable and consistent spread, same can be said for the minigun. And in the more competitive modes, you get to pick spawns. (or at least, that's how it is in UT4).

In CS the skill is all about minimising your RNG, which is actually fun and challenging because the movement mechanics are so crisp and responsive and the recoil mechanics are consistent.

[Wolfways]

Just add reticle bounce based on movement. Your cockpit, and the pilot (you) bounce around while moving. I mean have you seen the ridiculous bouncing animations for some mechs (looking at you RVN).

Give each mech:
Standstill = no reticle movement.
Walking speed = small reticle bounce.
Running speed = bigger reticle bounce.

You want to aim well? Stand still.
You want to run around like a lunatic? Suffer worse aim, or get closer to your target.

[CMDR Sunset Shimmer]

Phoolan Devi, on 06 November 2017 - 10:41 AM, said:

I'm all for it, since convergence is the biggest problem in MWO.

But it won't happen since PGI believes this game has e-sport potential, as do "competitive" players.

The thing is, it would have had E-sports potential, but E-sports were not allowed to naturally grow from it, instead, they were forced in. And that, rarely works out unless you built the game specifically for it. MWO was not initially made with that in mind, also the tech disparity between IS/CLan, causes problems for E-sports.

besides, CoD has Pro level tourney's, and has a CoF mechanic, so the whole "but muh e-sports" logic, dies right there.

[Khobai]

Quote

besides, CoD has Pro level tourney's, and has a CoF mechanic, so the whole "but muh e-sports" logic, dies right there.

but the whole "CoD is a sh*t game and MWO should be nothing like it" logic is still entirely relevant.

go play hawken if thats what you want

[CMDR Sunset Shimmer]

Khobai, on 06 November 2017 - 11:06 AM, said:

but the whole "CoD is a sh*t game and MWO should be nothing like it" logic is still entirely relevant.

go play hawken if thats what you want

It's not what I want, What I want is mitigated TTK, that doesn't let the pin point alpha meta reign supreme like it has in EVERY SINGLE ITERATION OF MECHWARRIOR!

Jesus christ you are dense... Mechwarrior combat, has been solved since MW2, load up on lasers [or whatever optimal weapon there is] and shoot out legs. Rinse, repeat.

What does EVERY iteration of mechwarrior have in common? Pin Point Convergence.

By adding a CoF/blooming reticle, you change that, you add a new thing that people must overcome in order to "get good." as it were.

I remember when this game DIDN'T have pin point convergence, during beta. I remember how much BETTER the combat felt.

I want that back.

[Curccu]

CMDR Sunset Shimmer, on 06 November 2017 - 11:31 AM, said:

It's not what I want, What I want is mitigated TTK, that doesn't let the pin point alpha meta reign supreme like it has in EVERY SINGLE ITERATION OF MECHWARRIOR!

Jesus christ you are dense... Mechwarrior combat, has been solved since MW2, load up on lasers [or whatever optimal weapon there is] and shoot out legs. Rinse, repeat.

What does EVERY iteration of mechwarrior have in common? Pin Point Convergence.

By adding a CoF/blooming reticle, you change that, you add a new thing that people must overcome in order to "get good." as it were.

I remember when this game DIDN'T have pin point convergence, during beta. I remember how much BETTER the combat felt.

I want that back.

We also didn't have HSR so you had to lead Jenner by 1-3 mech lenghts to hit it with lasers...

[Khobai]

Quote

By adding a CoF/blooming reticle, you change that, you add a new thing that people must overcome in order to "get good." as it were.

so what you want is hawken. go play that. dont try to screw up other games when your dream game already exists.

Edited by Khobai, 06 November 2017 - 11:38 AM.