157 replies to this topic

[Dragonporn]

If we assume this goes through, how many reticles there should be on UI?

[Prototelis]

You know, I changed my mind...

2HLL 6ERMED maddog will be the new hellbringer. Torso weapon assault mechs literally wouldn't be able to fight back, and that sounds like something the game needs more of.

[Tetatae Squawkins]

Dragonporn, on 25 July 2018 - 09:08 PM, said:

If we assume this goes through, how many reticles there should be on UI?

I'd like to see about 30 reticles on the screen with a new one randomly selected for each weapon you have equipped every .5 seconds.

That would really curb the pinpoint alpha problem.

Here's a short gameplay simulation:

Edited by Tetatae Squawkins, 25 July 2018 - 09:37 PM.

[Anastasius Foht]

brroleg, on 25 July 2018 - 04:47 PM, said:

This will make that you will need separately aim each group of weapon mounts. Boom! Fixed high alpha problem. Boom! Fixed pinpoint damage problem. Boom! Fixed time to kill problem. Etc.

Boom! People leaving the game. Boom! MWO dies

[MW Waldorf Statler]

and winner is Piranha with 0m range and hit with no Convergence ...better plan ...play without Monitor or black Screen for longer TTK

[ZippySpeedMonkey]

I’m actually for this.

The chance of some weapons actually missing will force high Alpha players to really think about the wisdom of such builds. It would also have the added bonus of making arms and the associated actuators much more relevant.

[Bud Crue]

ZippySpeedMonkey, on 26 July 2018 - 03:51 AM, said:

I’m actually for this.

The chance of some weapons actually missing will force high Alpha players to really think about the wisdom of such builds.

I see this already being a feature...not a lack of convergence, but rather the cost/benefit of "high Alpha" play.

See, sometimes (or in my case most of the time) you miss. And when that happens you have done NOTHING, other than to jack up you heat and render your mech a target until you have cooled down sufficiently to try again or switch to not alpha-ing. During that period you are dead meat to a push, a sneaky light, LRMs, etc.

That is the whole point to "high Alpha" play. You are risking a lot with this play style, and such risks should be rewarded. You're skill at pulling it off should be rewarded. Not nerfed. Not removed from the game. Rewarded.

Disclaimer: I am awful at this, and since I can't pull it off with consistency I don't do it often and have few builds that even allow for it should I want to. But I see no good reason to gimp this style of play from others who have the skill to make it work. Hurting variety of play, I think, just hurts the game.

[Mystere]

Yeonne Greene, on 25 July 2018 - 07:38 PM, said:

Also, this assumes high alphas are even accepted as a problem.

Well, it is quite obvious by now that PGI has accepted it as a problem:

Quote

This damage output is well outside of our desired Alpha damage capability let alone being anywhere near a multi-use firing method.

At this point, there are no ands, ifs, or buts.

IIXxXII, on 25 July 2018 - 08:01 PM, said:

It amazes me how a certain demographics "solution" to every issue is pervasive mediocrity.

Requiring better aiming is "pervasive mediocrity"? Surely you jest.

Dragonporn, on 25 July 2018 - 09:08 PM, said:

If we assume this goes through, how many reticles there should be on UI?

I imagine at most 3, if each arm is separate from the other. Otherwise, it's 2 as we do today. The rest is trigonometry. As such I sure hope people enjoy mathematics.

ZippySpeedMonkey, on 26 July 2018 - 03:51 AM, said:

I’m actually for this.

The chance of some weapons actually missing will force high Alpha players to really think about the wisdom of such builds. It would also have the added bonus of making arms and the associated actuators much more relevant.

I agree.

Edited by Mystere, 26 July 2018 - 04:21 AM.

[Mystere]

Bud Crue, on 26 July 2018 - 04:07 AM, said:

I see this already being a feature...not a lack of convergence, but rather the cost/benefit of "high Alpha" play.

The problem, arguably, is that a significantly large part of the player base only plays AlphaWarriorOnline all day every day 24x7x52.

Bud Crue, on 26 July 2018 - 04:07 AM, said:

See, sometimes (or in my case most of the time) you miss. And when that happens you have done NOTHING, other than to jack up you heat and render your mech a target until you have cooled down sufficiently to try again or switch to not alpha-ing. During that period you are dead meat to a push, a sneaky light, LRMs, etc.

That is the whole point to "high Alpha" play. You are risking a lot with this play style, and such risks should be rewarded. You're skill at pulling it off should be rewarded. Not nerfed. Not removed from the game. Rewarded.

Disclaimer: I am awful at this, and since I can't pull it off with consistency I don't do it often and have few builds that even allow for it should I want to. But I see no good reason to gimp this style of play from others who have the skill to make it work. Hurting variety of play, I think, just hurts the game.

Assuming players are allowed to set their convergence point(s) in the Mech Lab or in-battle, think of it as requiring even more skill by demanding that the player place that alpha at the weapons' sweet spot for best results.

Edited by Mystere, 26 July 2018 - 04:30 AM.

[Bud Crue]

Mystere, on 26 July 2018 - 04:27 AM, said:

The problem, arguably, is that a significantly large part of the player base only plays AlphaWarriorOnline all day every day 24x7x52.

Fine by me. Last three nights I am finally seeing "that a significantly large part of the player base only play..." LRM boats. I prefer the later to the LRMs frankly.

Mystere, on 26 July 2018 - 04:27 AM, said:

Assuming players are allowed to set their convergence point(s) in the Mech Lab or in-battle, think of it as requiring even more skill by demanding that the player place that alpha at the weapons' sweet spot for best results.

I'm not sure I am against the OP's proposal, merely the idea that we need greater costs to high alpha play or that high alpha play is a "problem" that needs to be addressed.

From my perspective, all the OP's proposal would make some of my mechs objectively worse, of which many and perhaps most are not "problematic" from a high alpha point of view (e.g. the 4 ERML of my Jester now hit different components. Great.), and give me perhaps more incentive to run more builds with arm weapons. But beyond that? Meh.

[El Bandito]

On one hand removing instant convergence is something I wanted for MWO for a long time, since it will add more immersion, as depicted in BT. On the other hand my 240 ms ping is gonna suck with delayed convergence in game, and I don't trust the HSR to make up for that.

Dang I wish MWO was made in Asia.

[Snowbluff]

evilauthor, on 25 July 2018 - 05:46 PM, said:

The best part is that this change wouldn't even be hard to implement. The only thing the programmers change is the input range value when making weapons fire convergence calculations; instead of taking it from the range crosshairs, you use a fixed value determined in the mechlab.

Hell, using a pre-determined fixed value arguably decreases the work load on the game engine!

Edit:
Also, I'd tie convergence distance to weapons group. That way, if a player really wanted to, they could have the same set of weapons converge at different ranges just by binding the weapons to different Weapons Groups and then define a different convergence range for each group.

The best part is everyone complaining about face hugging lights because their guns are zeroed out too far to hit this.

But yes the OP is garbage.

[Almond Brown]

Delayed Convergence was tried in the BETA and found to be both un-fun and frustrating, with even a slight time (+/- 1s) delay. It also taxed even the best systems while playing the game with "delayed convergence".
It was scrapped for a reason, and that reason still stands to this day...

Edited by Almond Brown, 26 July 2018 - 06:25 AM.

[Mystere]

Almond Brown, on 26 July 2018 - 06:24 AM, said:

Delayed Convergence was tried in the BETA and found to be both un-fun and frustrating, with even a slight time (+/- 1s) delay. It also taxed even the best systems while playing the game with "delayed convergence".
It was scrapped for a reason, and that reason still stands to this day...

The reason it was scrapped was because it was conflicting with HSR.

Please do not try to rewrite history/facts. I get more than enough of such people daily IRL.

Edited by Mystere, 26 July 2018 - 06:34 AM.

[Savage Wolf]

People would just completely abandon all torso hardpoints and whatever mechs that was still actually useful would do the exact same alpha builds they currently do, just only with arm hardpoints.

You solved nothing and broke the game, congratulations.

And there are other solutions like Energy Draw, don't flatter yourself.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Savage Wolf, on 26 July 2018 - 06:36 AM, said:

And there are other "solutions" like Energy Draw, don't flatter yourself.

FTFY

[Novakaine]

A decent but not a all encompassing solution.
However no one here would ever be able to give their high alpha builds.
And will lay out dozens of extraneous and dubious reasons why it will not work here.
Most rather endure the constant weapons buffs and nerfs.
So long as it doesn't alter their treasured c-bill printers.

[brroleg]

Going on with solving problems with just 1 change.

Problem of light vs assault. Currently any laser assault can instagib light even when light is moving at full speed. This is not only bad for gameplay, but also against tt rules. Light moving at full speed has reduced chance to be hit, by any weapons, and only weapons that has added chance to hit may hope to get hit on full speed light. And guess what is reliable way to get added chance to hit on weapon in tt.. its arm mounted weapons, in tt all arm mounted weapons get increased chance to hit.
So in our mwo game removing convergence for torso mounted weapons will give assault laser boats hard time on hitting moving light. But lights themselves will have easy time hitting assults even with torso mounted weapons, cause torso is small on light mech, and all torso mounted weapons on light will give tight group especially against big assault components.

But wait, there is even more problems to solve. Gargoyle, Executioner etc - what this mech names tell you now? Yes its useless mechs at this moment, cause all of their weapon mounts is in the arms, and you cant put much weapons in the arms, except many lasers, and currently arm mounted lasers dont get any real advantage against torso mounted lasers. Get it?
Another problem that is solved is making assaults with mostly arm mounted weapons useful, but not only useful, they also will get unique role - anti light/medium assault.

The more you think about this change the more interesting it gets. This one proves

Edited by brroleg, 26 July 2018 - 10:00 AM.

[Prototelis]

This solves nothing.

All it does is create an even bigger set of balance issues and make the game less fun. This is a skill nerf disguised as a balance nerf attempting to target a handful of mechs.

TTK in this game is fine and they need to stop ******* with things just because most of the playerbase refuses to learn better habits.

What this game needs is a working matchmaker that gates the crybabies into their own little robut safespace. That way the rest of us can enjoy what actually makes this game fun; Risk vs Reward.

Like for real, seems like the majority of the playerbase wants to nerf anything remotely dangerous (especially if it requires skill to use), and its just dumbing down the gameplay. They're making the game for you, it's called MW5, and its going to literally be one giant safespace for mech-dads, grogs, and lorewarriors.

brroleg, on 26 July 2018 - 09:56 AM, said:

The more you think about this change the more interesting it gets. This one proves

Hey, it seems like english isn't your first language. Totally cool.

My post however was meant to be sarcastic as **** and an example of why this is a terrible idea.

Edited by Prototelis, 26 July 2018 - 10:12 AM.

[Savage Wolf]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 26 July 2018 - 07:18 AM, said:

FTFY

You might not like it, hell by looking at the forums and how often a solution just like Energy Draw is suggested by people who supposedly doesn't like it, chances are you don't even know what it is, but unlike this "solution" it actually solves the alpha problem.