Jump to content

Removing Masc Crosshair Shake


19 replies to this topic

#1 Livaria

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Moderate Giver
  • 366 posts

Posted 08 January 2019 - 10:02 AM

The fact that shots go wild during and after using MASC. pretty much dampens it's most useful trait: Acceleration/Deceleration.

If I wanted to fire and move into Cover quickly, I would use MASC. But what good is it if I can't fire back at my enemy?

Please remove lingering crosshair shake when MASC is disabled. It's no use if I have to stand out in the open longer for my crosshair to stop shaking.

On second thought, maybe it's just better to remove it. It makes firing lasers really frustrating.

Edited by Livaria, 08 January 2019 - 10:24 AM.


#2 admiralbenbow123

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Bad Company
  • 276 posts
  • LocationMoscow

Posted 08 January 2019 - 10:21 AM

Just turn off MASC, fire and turn it back on. Simple!
Crosshair shake and the gauge are the only things preventing MASC from being OP.

Edited by admiralbenbow123, 08 January 2019 - 10:34 AM.


#3 Livaria

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Moderate Giver
  • 366 posts

Posted 08 January 2019 - 10:25 AM

It's not that simple. Because that's what I do. After I turn it on, my lasers are dislodged from it's intended target. I can't use MASC at all until Lasers are finished firing. Where as, not using MASC I can fire whenever. that reduces the efficiency of MASC by a lot. No choice but to use missiles or maybe ballistics.

MASC is bad for lasers.

Edited by Livaria, 08 January 2019 - 10:47 AM.


#4 HammerMaster

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Benefactor
  • The Benefactor
  • 1,586 posts
  • LocationNew Hampshire, USA

Posted 08 January 2019 - 10:36 AM

No.
Matter of fact.
Walking
Running.
Shooting weapons.
Jump jetting.
ALL SHOULD BE GENERATING SHAKE!

Edited by HammerMaster, 08 January 2019 - 11:54 AM.


#5 Livaria

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Moderate Giver
  • 366 posts

Posted 08 January 2019 - 10:41 AM

Yeah? Why? Reducing the mobility factor across the entire game, is a bit of a potentially dangerous decision for someone like you to be heavily insisting upon.

#6 HammerMaster

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Benefactor
  • The Benefactor
  • 1,586 posts
  • LocationNew Hampshire, USA

Posted 08 January 2019 - 11:42 AM

View PostLivaria, on 08 January 2019 - 10:41 AM, said:

Yeah? Why? Reducing the mobility factor across the entire game, is a bit of a potentially dangerous decision for someone like you to be heavily insisting upon.

Ha! Dangerous to me? No.
You are 100% just as mobile.
What you are NOT, is able to fire as accurately. Which is 100% the point.

Edited by HammerMaster, 08 January 2019 - 11:43 AM.


#7 Livaria

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Moderate Giver
  • 366 posts

Posted 08 January 2019 - 12:56 PM

Dangerous for the player experience. And game balance that has already been set in place.

Players are used to how the game plays now, who knows how much backlash such an idea would get. And if you really want that, you've got a lot of convincing to do towards the community and PGI.

Most importantly, your little preference has little to do with MASC itself. So I'm questioning as to what purpose your trying to serve here.

Edited by Livaria, 08 January 2019 - 12:57 PM.


#8 Cichol Balor

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 258 posts

Posted 09 January 2019 - 07:32 AM

the most OP part of MASC is currently being balanced so as to not make it broken. can we please remove that so MASC can become one of the most OP things MWO has seen?

#9 Livaria

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Moderate Giver
  • 366 posts

Posted 11 January 2019 - 11:09 AM

The thing that makes it "OP" in your words Cichol; is also what makes it worthwhile, as opposed to taking a larger engine sizes. Without it, MASC is just below average.

Remember the limit Cichol? You know; the damage you can take to your legs if you use MASC too much? Is that not enough for you?

Obviously PGI can tweak the usage of MASC limits to suit whatever balancing needs to be done. If MASC limits are already in place. Then there is already a way to balance MASC.

It's the same story all over again. People being so afraid of something that they would rather just say no. Rather than evaluate a proposal on it's own merits. No questions, no curiousity, no discussion from anyone. I think people can do better than this.

Edited by Livaria, 11 January 2019 - 11:25 AM.


#10 Cichol Balor

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 258 posts

Posted 11 January 2019 - 08:27 PM

no, It is more than useful currently with the shake. on faster mechs it lets you buzz around the map at over 150kph in something like a lanner. And heavy mechs it lets you both get into position faster and pull back behind cover faster if you make a mistake. MASK like in the TT is about positioning not poking and its balanced in a way that makes it hard to use for poking because of how OP that would be.
Poking on its own is already a very strong technic this can be observed through its wide use. the team that can make the better trades in the early/mid game tends to be the team that wins. MASC having the potential to give such a strong add vantage to this both by letting you get your weapons out and firing sooner and bringing your self back behind cover overall limiting the amount of time for the enemy to react and send return fire would make this item more or less mandatory. It would probably become more prevalent than PPC Gauss before its nerf. With the added issue of even fewer mech chassis being able to field it. not to mention mechs like the lanner and flee who would be able to preform drive buys at speeds more than enough to create lag armor w/o needing to slow down and endanger themselves to shoot.

#11 Livaria

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Moderate Giver
  • 366 posts

Posted 12 January 2019 - 02:14 PM

The value of MASC as a repositioning utility is debatable in my mind. I could probably just get a bigger engine, and re-position without the help of MASC.

Let's take the flea for example:

* With a LF Engine 125 It moves at 108 KPH. With MASC active, it's 130.6 KPH. (With speed tweak.)

* With a LF Engine 145 it moves at 126.2 (Also with speed tweak.)

That means MASC gives me a temporary speed advantage of 4.4 KPH. Or... I can Get a consistent 126.2 KPH that doesn't need to take a break. Performance wise; It almost breaks even with an ordinary speed configuration.

So if I can't get good enough speed out of MASC, why not make better use of the Acceleration/Deceleration?

Screenshake limits the options of weapons; But it still works well enough with certain types of weapons. Which is why I consider the crosshair shake to be an imperfect system. Cross-hair shake? Fine, I'll just have my missiles do the aiming. Or maybe I can commit fully to PPCs or Gauss Rifles, and IS Autocannons.

Edited by Livaria, 12 January 2019 - 02:26 PM.


#12 Y E O N N E

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Nimble
  • The Nimble
  • 15,608 posts

Posted 12 January 2019 - 02:34 PM

Even with the shake, MASC is incredibly valuable on 'Mechs like the Flea to such a degree that it has marginalized the still-agile-but-not-as-agile Locust. The acceleration, deceleration, and turn rate advantages are the key, not your max run speed. A bigger engine doesn't do anything for you in those departments.

And why the heck are you running an LFE on an IS 20-tonner?

#13 Livaria

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Moderate Giver
  • 366 posts

Posted 12 January 2019 - 03:06 PM

"Incredibly valuable" seems a little bit exaggerated to me. What are you going to acceleration and deceleration for if you can't shoot properly? Sure you can gain momentum faster; But at the cost of your own ability to deal proper damage. Personally, I consider the ability to deal precise damage to be more valuable.

As for "why the heck am I running an LFE on an IS 20-tonner?" Well gee, Depends on why you're asking such an irrelevant question Yeonne.

If it's genuine curiousity, Then the answer is simple: It is to experiment, and when I experiment I suspend all of my judgement and disbelief until I've tried it. And there's nothing wrong with that. Regardless, I don't feel the need to discuss your question further.

Edited by Livaria, 12 January 2019 - 03:06 PM.


#14 Y E O N N E

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Nimble
  • The Nimble
  • 15,608 posts

Posted 12 January 2019 - 05:43 PM

View PostLivaria, on 12 January 2019 - 03:06 PM, said:

"Incredibly valuable" seems a little bit exaggerated to me. What are you going to acceleration and deceleration for if you can't shoot properly? Sure you can gain momentum faster; But at the cost of your own ability to deal proper damage. Personally, I consider the ability to deal precise damage to be more valuable.


You see no value in being able to change direction so fast that people can't keep their aim point where it needs to be to hit you? You see no point in being able to fire and then dash out of harm's way faster than they can register what happened and react?

The MASC is an incredible tool as it is. The key is using lasers with the shortest durations so you can get back on the MASC ASAP. Small lasers are about the longest I would consider, too many Flea players are trying to use standard Mediums and it leaves them open. Use a combination of MPL and SL/ERSL or a mass of SPL and you'll be one of the most dangerous irritations to the enemy team.

What you are asking for is the ability to just sit in front of a target, rocking back and forth with the MASC while you CT core them at short range with near impunity. No, you should not have that ability.

Quote

As for "why the heck am I running an LFE on an IS 20-tonner?" Well gee, Depends on why you're asking such an irrelevant question Yeonne.

If it's genuine curiousity, Then the answer is simple: It is to experiment, and when I experiment I suspend all of my judgement and disbelief until I've tried it. And there's nothing wrong with that. Regardless, I don't feel the need to discuss your question further.


It matters because your example was, itself, about the least relevant status buff MASC can grant you.

#15 Stitchedup

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • The People's Hero
  • The People
  • 113 posts
  • LocationAustralia

Posted 13 January 2019 - 02:02 AM

i have more of a problem with it sticking on at the worst times

#16 Cichol Balor

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 258 posts

Posted 13 January 2019 - 06:50 AM

View PostStitchedup, on 13 January 2019 - 02:02 AM, said:

i have more of a problem with it sticking on at the worst times


lol I have trained myself to "release tap release" to make sure it doesnt

#17 Livaria

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Moderate Giver
  • 366 posts

Posted 13 January 2019 - 04:54 PM

View PostY E O N N E, on 12 January 2019 - 05:43 PM, said:

You see no value in being able to change direction so fast that people can't keep their aim point where it needs to be to hit you?


They totally CAN hit you. It might make you more evasive briefly. But it is by no means a guarantee. The way you describe MASC makes it seem like a mech is untouchable with MASC active. The truth is; you're not untouchable at all. Just potentially harder to hit, depending on some isolated narrow circumstances.

View PostY E O N N E, on 12 January 2019 - 05:43 PM, said:

You see no point in being able to fire and then dash out of harm's way faster than they can register what happened and react?


That's was basically my entire point that I've been trying to advocate all along.Posted Image Of course I see value in it, because that's what I want. And right now, the screen shake system disproportionately excludes weapons that I, quite frankly don't think need to be excluded. I think it's a bad system.

View PostY E O N N E, on 12 January 2019 - 05:43 PM, said:

The MASC is an incredible tool as it is. The key is using lasers with the shortest durations so you can get back on the MASC ASAP. Small lasers are about the longest I would consider, too many Flea players are trying to use standard Mediums and it leaves them open. Use a combination of MPL and SL/ERSL or a mass of SPL and you'll be one of the most dangerous irritations to the enemy team.


Medium lasers are a perfectly reasonable weapon to want on a FLEA. And i'm not going to take your word on being the most dangerous irritations to the enemy team, just because you say so.

Small lasers and Small pulse lasers? Too short of a range to trade, without accidentally winding up too close to the enemy team. you may as well be ambushing for a potential kill rather than trading.

ER Small lasers are a little better, but if you don't have a lot of energy hardpoints. Well... The damage isn't all that satisfactory.

Medium pulse lasers is the most reliable option, however, I recommend at least three of them. Six tons, is a lot however.

But why should standard medium lasers be off the table? That is overpowered?


View PostY E O N N E, on 12 January 2019 - 05:43 PM, said:

What you are asking for is the ability to just sit in front of a target, rocking back and forth with the MASC while you CT core them at short range with near impunity. No, you should not have that ability.


I am asking for MASC to enhance this tactic to a reasonable degree and with limits. I can name a few already.

1. Remove or reduce the deceleration bonus from MASC, thus increasing the exposure time IF NECESSARY.
2. Rapid Acceleration/ Deceleration increases the MASC Gauge faster than maintaining a consistent speed.

NONE of which (by the way) none of you have given any serious consideration as a replacement for crosshair shake, which lends me to the idea that you're not even willing to consider my options, and we're wasting both of each others time.

View PostY E O N N E, on 12 January 2019 - 05:43 PM, said:

It matters because your example was, itself, about the least relevant status buff MASC can grant you.


It's seems rather misleading to say this, you were questioning my choice of engine, not about the MASC Speed boost. Those are different things. Are you pulling some kind of politician lingo here?

Because it really does seem like it. What you're doing is making emotional appeals to the audience rather than any kind of analysis.

Edited by Livaria, 13 January 2019 - 04:55 PM.


#18 HammerMaster

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Benefactor
  • The Benefactor
  • 1,586 posts
  • LocationNew Hampshire, USA

Posted 14 January 2019 - 09:23 AM

View PostLivaria, on 08 January 2019 - 12:56 PM, said:

Dangerous for the player experience. And game balance that has already been set in place.

Players are used to how the game plays now, who knows how much backlash such an idea would get. And if you really want that, you've got a lot of convincing to do towards the community and PGI.

Most importantly, your little preference has little to do with MASC itself. So I'm questioning as to what purpose your trying to serve here.

What's set in place is not set in stone.
My little what?

#19 Y E O N N E

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Nimble
  • The Nimble
  • 15,608 posts

Posted 14 January 2019 - 10:00 AM

View PostLivaria, on 13 January 2019 - 04:54 PM, said:

It's seems rather misleading to say this, you were questioning my choice of engine, not about the MASC Speed boost. Those are different things. Are you pulling some kind of politician lingo here?

Because it really does seem like it. What you're doing is making emotional appeals to the audience rather than any kind of analysis.


Engine choice affects your speed. You are attempting to show us how gimped you are by choosing MASC over a larger LFE, but the exercise is moot because you can go way faster for less weight by using an even larger XL for no practical loss in durability because anything that was going to side-core you was also very likely going to CT-core you. You can even throw on the MASC and still save weight.

The underlying reality is that a 'Mech is balanced against its best-possible builds and your experiments are irrelevant. With MASC and the builds I previously mentioned, the Flea is already very strong; every time you change direction you reset the timer on how long you have an evasion bonus before the enemy adjusts. If you are struggling to make use of that boon, and therefore struggle to justify the equipment, that is on you. It is your job to combine positioning and timing with the acceleration boost to make it work, it is not a free pass to invincibility.

#20 Livaria

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Moderate Giver
  • 366 posts

Posted Today, 01:30 AM

Okay I think I understand, though you really should have been more specific with your question.
Your question could have been interpreted in several ways.

It could have meant:

Why use the engine size at all?
Or why am I comparing the tonnage difference with a fusion engine, and not an XL engine?

And I am willing to admit some fault. Since I forgot the exact way tonnage scales differently with different engines. Gimped isn't the word I would use however, To be more accurate with my views, I consider the performance "meh". Because I prefer utilities like MASC to perform universally no matter the build.

Either all weapons are affected; or none of them are. I see removing cross-hair shake and replacing it with some other balancing method something worthy of consideration. But it looks like I won't be getting that kind of consideration.

I still don't view it as overpowered. And I do plenty of things to be evasive. However, I often would still prefer to relocate somewhere safer than be evasive in open areas. Because more than likely going to be in the sights of more than one enemy. I can be evasive to one enemy, but problems arise when inevitable exposure to multiple enemies arrive.

But I digress, I believe there is no more to be gained from discussing further. For now, I just want someone else to talk to, for another viewpoint.

View PostHammerMaster, on 14 January 2019 - 09:23 AM, said:

What's set in place is not set in stone.
My little what?

Your preference, you want the game to be fundamentally changed to suit what you think is a better game or is more enjoyable, others may not. And yeah, it's not set in stone. But still consequential, obviously. We can't just brush them aside in conversation.

Edited by Livaria, Today, 01:40 AM.






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users