55 replies to this topic

[Khobai]

this doesnt stop people from using macros though.

theyll still use macros just to not have to spend tonnage on a targeting computer.

PGI doesnt want to enforce macros, they have zero way of enforcing macros even if they wanted to, so they allow macros because theres nothing they can do about it.

[Obiwayne]

Khobai, on 21 April 2019 - 11:06 PM, said:

this doesnt stop people from using macros though.

theyll still use macros just to not have to spend tonnage on a targeting computer.

PGI doesnt want to enforce macros, they have zero way of enforcing macros even if they wanted to, so they allow macros because theres nothing they can do about it.

Thats what I thought.. it's not a "design" decision. They are simply unable to detect it or spend money on something that could detect it. Well thats rich.. The idea naturally included PGI shutting down use of 3rd party tools for macros.

Sergeant Destroy, on 21 April 2019 - 08:17 PM, said:

90 percent of the topics are some peeps blowing non-issues out of proportion, trying to tailor the game to their limited abilities, like in basicly every other gaming forum. The rest is theorycrafting stuff that will never make it into a seven year old game at all. So it`s just normal you either get a cynical or no answer at all.

What the **** do you expect?

You getting tf out of my thread. I dont need you here. Go dump your f-ing negativity on someone elses thread. My suggestion wouldnt even impact your game in any way.

[Mystere]

Obiwayne, on 22 April 2019 - 03:18 AM, said:

Thats what I thought.. it's not a "design" decision. They are simply unable to detect it or spend money on something that could detect it. Well thats rich.. The idea naturally included PGI shutting down use of 3rd party tools for macros.

If someone knows a way for me to 100% fully utilize my HOTAS setup (which includes several 3-state switches, analog dials, and a 2-stage trigger -- fantastic for gauss weapons, by the way ) with 0% macros, I'm all ears. But just to let you know, MWO cannot even detect at least a third of the available basic functionality of my gear.

And if someone also knows how I can use iPads as digital control panels directly in MWO without using any external program, please tell me.

But until then, I'll be using macros 100% of the time.

Edited by Mystere, 22 April 2019 - 03:34 AM.

[Sergeant Destroy]

"You getting tf out of my thread. I dont need you here. Go dump your f-ing negativity on someone elses thread. My suggestion wouldnt even impact your game in any way."

Did you just try to get that 10 clicks per second by snorting some coke?

[Xiphias]

Obiwayne, on 21 April 2019 - 05:48 PM, said:

Are you saying there is some kind of ninja mechanic nobody knows about? And if it is advantageous or not to use chainfire is very arguable

It's not something that no one knows about, though I'm sure plenty of people don't. Here's how weapon groups work in MWO.

Regular:
Clicking fires all weapons in group that are off of cooldown
Holding results in every weapon in group firing as soon as it is off of cooldown

Chain:
Clicking fires the next weapon in group that is off of cooldown
Holding results in firing the next weapon in group after a delay

To get the operation that was mentioned you combine the clicking functionality of chain fire with the holding functionality of the regular fire.

Clicking 5 times in chain fire results in staggered fire (one weapon after another). Holding a regular group of all weapons fires each weapon when it comes off of cooldown, since the cooldown of each weapon has already been staggered by the manual chain fire, holding the button will result in the same initial pattern being repeated. Boom, you've just replicated macro fire pattern with the in game controls.

To the second point, no it isn't. Chain fire (in game or macro) is inferior to group fire in almost every situation. It spreads damage instead of focusing it.

[Curccu]

Obiwayne, on 21 April 2019 - 07:28 PM, said:

I really tried to be nice but Im too tired for this bull. If you are bothered by new ideas you might as well not participate in discussing them. Sadly the forum is full of cynical people who overestimate their abilities. If your cognitive capabilities dont allow you to engange a discussion in a serious way gtfo of my thread pls.

But you don't want discussion... you want people to agree with you, in this case even if you are wrong about many things, people should agree or gtfo. Not your internet dude.

[Xiphias]

Obiwayne, on 21 April 2019 - 11:57 AM, said:

Long story short I never bothered with it but recently started using it on ac2 builds. And it feels like cheating. Why? Because a normal human being would never be able to use multiple ac/2s in chainfire with 300+ clicks per minute.

Afaik PGI never commented on this and the thread with the dl link is still up.

So my problem is that I feel like a cheater when using fire control (averaging 700damage per match with only 4ac/2s). On the other hand, that little tool is extremly useful and makes such builds fun to play.

But there is an easy solution. PGI could change how Targeting computers work. If they get rid of all the different types, they could give us just a few that are actually good for smth.

- a targeting/fire control computer for ACs that does the math for sustained fire
- a staggered fire computer for lrm boats
- the one we have with enhanced zoom/crit chance for lasers and ppcs

- MKII versions could have quirks like extended sensor range/faster target info/more ppc-ac-missile-velocity/extended effective range for lasers at the cost of tonnage and slots

That would not only solve the problem with some people using fire control while others dont. It would also give us some extra toys in the mechlab.

Thoughts?

It's unnecessary, because it's:

A ) Already possible to do in game if you understand how the weapon groups work (5/6 clicks in a second followed by a button hold)
B ) Possible to automate with 3rd party macros that are i) not cheating ii) don't actually over any significant gameplay advantages

I don't really care if PGI adds it, I guess it would give less skilled/savvy players an alternative way to achieve the same results they can now (which I suppose is good, despite a mechlab implementation being strictly worse from a build standpoint). The real question is whether or not it's worth the development resources to which I think the answer is probably no. Macros are easily available, free, and allowed. If players want to reduce their effectiveness for the sake of fun by chainfiring, by all means, use the macros.

Obiwayne, on 21 April 2019 - 07:28 PM, said:

But Im sick of reading the same old cynical, hypocritical responses to almost every suggestion made here in the forum. No matter if the topic is either weapon balance, game modes, maps that wont promote nascaring or gameplay mechanics.

A lot of people are sick of hearing the same old ideas rehashed over and over again despite being debunked repeatedly.

Macros (barring exploits like the RAC bug) are allowed, are not cheating, and don't offer significant gameplay advantages. Use them if you want and don't feel bad.

NASACR will happen regardless of map design (though some changes to dissuade it aren't a terrible idea) and really isn't nearly as big of a problem as it's made out to be.

Most of the balance threads are by people who are deficient in one or more fundamental skills in MWO.

Escort was unasked for, poorly implemented, generally hated by the player base, and ended up being a big waste of resources. Incursion is a bit better, but basically just ended up being another glorified version of skirmish.

Everyone is entitled to an opinion, but not all opinions are equally valid or valuable. The idea of being open minded and just trying everything before passing judgement doesn't work in real life. Any change has a cost associated with it and the outcomes of many changes can often be accurately predicted based on prior experience, hence many of the "cynics".

You're idea is a solution to a problem that doesn't exist. It's not a terrible idea, but it's unnecessary and people here are telling you why.

[Potatomasher69]

Hello! I've used a 8xAC2 and 8xLBX2 DWF in the past with a macro. While it feels fun to chainfire at 1000 meters away, can confirm it's better to just fire it in volley's. Don't feel bad or ask for your fun to be nerfed, you will be 100% staring into your opponent's alpha strikes and a veteran enemy pilot will spread your damage during his cooldowns.

But when handing out ballistic flavored dps at 1000 meters is fun, it certainly is a good way to go.

[Nameless King]

Obiwayne, on 21 April 2019 - 11:57 AM, said:

Some of you might know the tool which was advertised here in the forums. Its called Fire control and lets you set fire rates for multiple weapons, which is especially useful on mechs with a lot of autocannons. With the right settings, you have sustained fire with 300+rpm depending on how many ACs you have.

Long story short I never bothered with it but recently started using it on ac2 builds. And it feels like cheating. Why? Because a normal human being would never be able to use multiple ac/2s in chainfire with 300+ clicks per minute.

Afaik PGI never commented on this and the thread with the dl link is still up.

So my problem is that I feel like a cheater when using fire control (averaging 700damage per match with only 4ac/2s). On the other hand, that little tool is extremly useful and makes such builds fun to play.

But there is an easy solution. PGI could change how Targeting computers work. If they get rid of all the different types, they could give us just a few that are actually good for smth.

- a targeting/fire control computer for ACs that does the math for sustained fire
- a staggered fire computer for lrm boats
- the one we have with enhanced zoom/crit chance for lasers and ppcs

- MKII versions could have quirks like extended sensor range/faster target info/more ppc-ac-missile-velocity/extended effective range for lasers at the cost of tonnage and slots

That would not only solve the problem with some people using fire control while others dont. It would also give us some extra toys in the mechlab.

Thoughts?

First off fire control gives no advantage, not in the way you are youing it anyway. Also why would anyone want to waste tonnage on something that gives them no advantage and makes builds worse by taking up tonnage?

[justcallme A S H]

Obiwayne, on 21 April 2019 - 11:57 AM, said:

Thoughts?

As many others have already shown - You don't really know what you're talking about.

Chainfire supression - "wow". Literally a case of who cares.

Anyone with any decent idea of the game will take the PPFLD any day of the week. Spreading the damage is pointless and quite simply bad play.

There is no advantage with fire control, you can do it with your mouse. Lets move on.

[justcallme A S H]

Khobai, on 21 April 2019 - 11:06 PM, said:

PGI doesnt want to enforce macros, they have zero way of enforcing macros even if they wanted to, so they allow macros because theres nothing they can do about it.

As usual, incorrect and untrue.

PGI allow macros because they don't actually do anything you cannot do with a mouse.

In the case of RACs, it allowed a bug to be exploited with heat. The result? It was patched out of the game so that using a macro no longer provided any advantage.

They can stop marco use if they want. It just doesn't matter so why waste time.

The spreading of mistruths needs to stop.

Edited by justcallme A S H, 22 April 2019 - 12:46 PM.

[crazytimes]

The DPS of 6 ac2 salvoing vs chain fire is exactly the same. You're just maximising your exposure chain firing. Scares people in lower tiers, but higher tiers are happy to facetank racs or chained acs if they can out alpha. Makes peaking against you much safer as well.

I have a dire with 6 ac2s. Split left and right for mb1 and 2. Click together for salvo. Mb3 is 1 from each side, so if I click mb3, then hold mb1, then mb2, I get a 3 way split on the acs for harassing longer range targets. No need for macros and can very quickly switch between salvos and chaining without even needing a chain fire group or fast clicking.

Edited by crazytimes, 22 April 2019 - 12:37 PM.

[Vellron2005]

Obiwayne, on 21 April 2019 - 11:57 AM, said:

Some of you might know the tool which was advertised here in the forums. Its called Fire control and lets you set fire rates for multiple weapons, which is especially useful on mechs with a lot of autocannons. With the right settings, you have sustained fire with 300+rpm depending on how many ACs you have.

Long story short I never bothered with it but recently started using it on ac2 builds. And it feels like cheating. Why? Because a normal human being would never be able to use multiple ac/2s in chainfire with 300+ clicks per minute.

Afaik PGI never commented on this and the thread with the dl link is still up.

So my problem is that I feel like a cheater when using fire control (averaging 700damage per match with only 4ac/2s). On the other hand, that little tool is extremly useful and makes such builds fun to play.

But there is an easy solution. PGI could change how Targeting computers work. If they get rid of all the different types, they could give us just a few that are actually good for smth.

- a targeting/fire control computer for ACs that does the math for sustained fire
- a staggered fire computer for lrm boats
- the one we have with enhanced zoom/crit chance for lasers and ppcs

- MKII versions could have quirks like extended sensor range/faster target info/more ppc-ac-missile-velocity/extended effective range for lasers at the cost of tonnage and slots

That would not only solve the problem with some people using fire control while others dont. It would also give us some extra toys in the mechlab.

Thoughts?

I consider any and all external software, other than TS and Discord and similar apps, to be cheating.

That includes macros, and software like you stated..

[thievingmagpi]

Vellron2005, on 22 April 2019 - 01:07 PM, said:

I consider any and all external software, other than TS and Discord and similar apps, to be cheating.

That includes macros, and software like you stated..

your opinion is meaningless.

fire control confers no advantage.

[Mystere]

Vellron2005, on 22 April 2019 - 01:07 PM, said:

I consider any and all external software, other than TS and Discord and similar apps, to be cheating.

That includes macros, and software like you stated..

Mystere, on 22 April 2019 - 03:32 AM, said:

If someone knows a way for me to 100% fully utilize my HOTAS setup (which includes several 3-state switches, analog dials, and a 2-stage trigger -- fantastic for gauss weapons, by the way ) with 0% macros, I'm all ears. But just to let you know, MWO cannot even detect at least a third of the available basic functionality of my gear.

And if someone also knows how I can use iPads as digital control panels directly in MWO without using any external program, please tell me.

But until then, I'll be using macros 100% of the time.

Needs repeating.

[Khobai]

justcallme A S H, on 22 April 2019 - 11:41 AM, said:

As usual, incorrect and untrue.

PGI allow macros because they don't actually do anything you cannot do with a mouse.

In the case of RACs, it allowed a bug to be exploited with heat. The result? It was patched out of the game so that using a macro no longer provided any advantage.

They can stop marco use if they want. It just doesn't matter so why waste time.

The spreading of mistruths needs to stop.

They cant stop macro use at all. Do you have any idea how difficult it would be to enforce a no macro rule? PGI doesnt want to devote the time or effort to doing it.

You think PGI wants to be the macro police? No they dont. So they just allow macros. Because quite frankly the games got much bigger problems than whether or not someone is using a macro. And they know that.

justcallme A S H, on 22 April 2019 - 11:41 AM, said:

PGI allow macros because they don't actually do anything you cannot do with a mouse.

you are wrong. there are definitely things macros can do that the vast majority of people cant.

for example, its physically impossible for most human beings to chainfire six AC2s exactly 0.12 seconds apart while being as consistently exact as a macro. Each AC2 has to be in its own weapon group, so youd have to click six different buttons on the mouse 8 times a second with an exactly equal interval between clicks. Most people cant do that. Period.

chainfiring six AC2s isnt something you can do without a macro, but because its not really abusive and doesnt really break the game combined with the fact PGI has no desire and no way of really enforcing it, they just allow it. its not really a huge deal and its not worth the time/effort to hunt the people down that are doing it. because PGI has better things to do.

of course youre welcome to try and prove you can do it manually. Because id really like to see you try to click 6 different mouse buttons 8 times per second and keep that up for an entire game. that would be hilarious.

Edited by Khobai, 22 April 2019 - 04:26 PM.

[justcallme A S H]

PGI does not need to police macros.

Macros are not a problem.

So why would you waste time coding for it? That's just dumb.

[Xiphias]

Khobai, on 22 April 2019 - 04:02 PM, said:

of course youre welcome to try and prove you can do it manually. Because id really like to see you try to click 6 different mouse buttons 8 times per second and keep that up for an entire game. that would be hilarious.

Xiphias, on 22 April 2019 - 04:58 AM, said:

To get the operation that was mentioned you combine the clicking functionality of chain fire with the holding functionality of the regular fire.

Clicking 5 times in chain fire results in staggered fire (one weapon after another). Holding a regular group of all weapons fires each weapon when it comes off of cooldown, since the cooldown of each weapon has already been staggered by the manual chain fire, holding the button will result in the same initial pattern being repeated. Boom, you've just replicated macro fire pattern with the in game controls.

You have to initialize it every time you start firing with 6 clicks, but after that it fires itself until you let go of the button. Perhaps you don't get exactly perfect spacing between all guns, but you can get pretty close with minimal effort. Spam click left mouse, hold down right mouse. If they end up slightly closer together it doesn't affect the DPS and it makes little to no difference in the suppression effect.

[Asym]

Obiwayne, on 21 April 2019 - 11:57 AM, said:

Some of you might know the tool which was advertised here in the forums. Its called Fire control and lets you set fire rates for multiple weapons, which is especially useful on mechs with a lot of autocannons. With the right settings, you have sustained fire with 300+rpm depending on how many ACs you have.

Long story short I never bothered with it but recently started using it on ac2 builds. And it feels like cheating. Why? Because a normal human being would never be able to use multiple ac/2s in chainfire with 300+ clicks per minute.

Afaik PGI never commented on this and the thread with the dl link is still up.

So my problem is that I feel like a cheater when using fire control (averaging 700damage per match with only 4ac/2s). On the other hand, that little tool is extremly useful and makes such builds fun to play.

But there is an easy solution. PGI could change how Targeting computers work. If they get rid of all the different types, they could give us just a few that are actually good for smth.

- a targeting/fire control computer for ACs that does the math for sustained fire
- a staggered fire computer for lrm boats
- the one we have with enhanced zoom/crit chance for lasers and ppcs

- MKII versions could have quirks like extended sensor range/faster target info/more ppc-ac-missile-velocity/extended effective range for lasers at the cost of tonnage and slots

That would not only solve the problem with some people using fire control while others dont. It would also give us some extra toys in the mechlab.

Thoughts?

This has been suggested before many times and would link fire densities and accuracy to the level of TC you install.... You give up slots and weight to achieve accuracy and effectiveness....

That way ballistic weapons become more accurate (greater stabilization, a lead ghost carrot, and zoom enlargement) and much more efficient (heat sink dedication) and Missiles, become a lot more efficient as the ranges increase (lock-on becomes faster, target retention becomes longer and missile patterns tighten.) The TC is the "cost of that effectiveness...."

I'd add energy weapons in that PPC's; especially, would be influenced in that their effectiveness at range would greatly increase, accuracy would increase because the zoom function would be a better and higher resolution image; and, heat would decrease because the TC would act to dedicate heat sinks specifically to PPC use to make them more efficient.

AMS also would benefit in that the TC would speed up how AMS "discriminates" in coming threats and as the TC goes up in size, that discrimination also enhances range, kill efficiency and range.....

A sniping mod would actually start at TC3 levels and would include all weapons systems..... Think about a LRM/ATM sniper.....
You'd pay the price at TC3+ in terms of weight but, what you'd get is LRM/ATM's that "could be actually aimed" ! The higher the TC, the smaller the aiming circle in Direct Fire mode......

[IronWatch]

Its not a case of negativity but practicality to say that there is no sense wasting tonnage on a module that achieves functionally nothing that I couldn't do without having to use any tonnage at all. OP settle down.