0
pbiggz, on 10 January 2024 - 07:15 AM, said:
No it's not. If you feel you are being hit too easily, then your problem (yours personally, not the problem) is that you don't understand how positioning works, and you are far to eager to make that everyone else's fault, rather than take a moment to think about it and understand.
This is a complex multiplayer networked game and your own latency can have as big an impact as anything. Nobody can say hit reg is perfect, but frankly, its pretty good. I've been around long enough to remember when 80kph medium mech skirmishers were basically unkillable because hit registration was so bad. They were fun mechs to pilot, but they deserved to die on the altar of hit registration, and die they did.
Saying this as a game designer, and from the perspective of a game designer; if you give players a reticle, teach them to shoot, then have the shot go somewhere they aren't aiming, it feels *extremely bad*, like, unplayably bad. The tactile sensation and the visual feedback of having your shot just fly off into the ether is game breakingly bad, so just forcing people to have bad aim because you presumably don't know how to position is not a solution, and yes, I can tell that this is exactly what you're agitating for; people hit you personally too consistently so you want good aim to be nerfed.
As an aside, the picture you have posted is clearly a picture of artillery; a particular weapon, fired in a very particular way, using a very particular munition. Its also a kind of weapon that essentially doesn't exist in battletech (the long tom is the only artillery weapon really in the tabletop game) and certainly doesnt exist in MWO. Its kind of a useless example here.
Im not sure you have even a faint grasp of physics here. Photon pressure does exist, but it is not a force that is remotely comparable to the forces a conventional gun or cannon would produce. The most important thing a high powered laser has to deal with is heat changing the shape of the lenses and thus making the beam less focused, and the inverse square law, which models how lasers lose energy with distance due to diffraction. There is no justification for making lasers shake. None.
One of the most dangerous things a game designer can do is be arbitrary. Just pulling numbers out of your *** and tacking them to a live game is a recipe for disaster, and I know you made these numbers up.
On top of that, this is pretty obviously a "nerf the weapons i dont like" list. You're advocating for blanket accuracy penalties for dakka and for lasers.
Why does it always turn into a "nerf what I dont like and buff what I like" post? Every time!
As a final aside, first, 120mm cannons are not small weapons. Additionally, the ballistic model in MWO and battletech is extremely gamer-logic. Larger caliber weapons do not have shorter ranges, they have longer ranges. The relationship between range and damage in battletech is a game balance decision, not one meant to reinforce good military science fiction. It doesn't hold up to any scrutiny. By that token, looking to the real world for weapon behaviour is at best, of very limited value. Unless you're willing to rip out and completely remake autocannons from the ground up, completely ignoring BT canon and TT rules, then there isn't anything valuable there for us.
funny that you say that did you happens to know photons carry momentum...... but you already know this right!
