57 replies to this topic

[HC Harlequin]

I am increasingly uncomfortable with ballistic loadouts. People talk about netcode, but the necessity to lagshoot has always been in the game since the original IP addressed 4/8 person matches back in the 1990's. The problem I have is the combined characteristic of needing to lag shoot someone and the weapon's convergence being based on the current range to whatever is under the crosshairs.

The idea is that the weapon impacts will come together at the range under the crosshairs. Lag shooting is the necessity to shoot in front of the tgt based on delta so that the shot will hit the target when the server, not the client, based on the time delay between the 2 clients and the server, thinks the incoming round impacts on the target.

If i have to lead a target in front of the target to hit a target then my crosshairs are not on the target, they are somewhere behind the target, which may be 50 or 5000 meters beyond the target, and my rounds are bouncing all over the place around the target because of the constant changes to range based on where my crosshairs are, which are generally everywhere but the target.

I don't mind missing a lot, welcome to lag shooting 101. What I do mind is my rounds missing, not because of my inability to accurately forecast where the enemy mech will be in 150-200 microseconds, but because the barrels of the weapons I am shooting literally are moving around anywhere but where I am actually wanting to hit.

[Solis Obscuri]

I'm waiting to see how the projectile velocity changes work out - they may help the situation.

I think making ACs into "spray" weapons will just make them into crappy versions of lasers that weigh 10x as much.

I'm not a huge fan of knockdown and other "stun" effects - let's leave the cheese behind with MW4.

[Lyoto Machida]

I think there should be a chance of a knockdown whenever your mech takes a good amount of damage within a short period of time. The calculation (roll) should take into account the direction the target is going, slope of terrain, speed and tonnage...something like that.

[TruePoindexter]

Solis Obscuri, on 26 November 2012 - 01:50 PM, said:

I'm waiting to see how the projectile velocity changes work out - they may help the situation.

I think making ACs into "spray" weapons will just make them into crappy versions of lasers that weigh 10x as much.

I'm not a huge fan of knockdown and other "stun" effects - let's leave the cheese behind with MW4.

This. I don't want to relive the MW3/MW4 days.

[Scryed]

TruePoindexter, on 26 November 2012 - 02:19 PM, said:

This. I don't want to relive the MW3/MW4 days.

If im not mistaken the only weapons that did serious screen shake were the big weapons, you know the ac 20, gauss, and ppc's

in mech 3 mech 4 was just awful.

Edited by Scryed, 26 November 2012 - 02:21 PM.

[CTsai]

still not exactly sure how the convergence works....
but Yes I think the AC20 should have the ability of knocking mechs down

[HC Harlequin]

When you have 2 weapons mounted on the right/left side of your mech, the rounds will converge at the range under the crosshairs. So when your crosshairs are on something 300 meters away the rounds will come together at 300 meters.

[Churzy]

On the matter of Chain Fire, Ultra versions (and maybe in the future, Rotary) kind of fill that role. So no need to replace existing ACs, they'll still retain their utility because of the lower weight, cost, and critical requirements.

As for the manual adjustment, and extra target data (such as speed and latency)... as useful as it may be, it'd nonetheless be an information overload for the most part. If anything, Ballistics should be simplified and made more reliable; not harder to use by adding more variables.

Lastly, about knockdowns... AC20 is already a hard-hitter in close quarters, so giving it a "stun" effect would basically mean that even if the first round isn't a one-shot, the following one will certainly be. That's cue for cheesy. The "lacks" of the AC20 come mostly from the efficiency of Gauss at point-blank range; it's something relative rather than inherent to the weapon.

For even larger ballistics and explosives, such as Artillery or Minefields (if we even get it) one could consider knockdowns; but let's see first how they play when/if they return to the game. An overheated, stationary, or legged Mech is already scrap metal, so any incapacitating effects should be handled with extreme care - not put everywhere.

[HC Harlequin]

20+ damage taken in TT equaled a piloting skill roll to fall down. So, damage based KD is part of the game.

[Ghosth]

If you want to do knockdown it should be for all weapon/combo's that do a minimum of 25 or more damage. And it should take more damage to do a knock down to an assault than a light, LOTS more.

Do a simple sliding scale based on a mech's starting weight.
Figure half the mech's weight in damage for a 50% chance of knockdown.
Increasing the damage would increase the % chance.
So a 50 ton medium would require 25 damage. And yes that 100 ton Atlas would take 50 damage for a 50% chance to knockdown.

That would put a bit of balance back and give a way to stop lights. (If you can hit them)

Edited by Ghosth, 26 November 2012 - 06:48 PM.

[HC Harlequin]

would that "fix" ballistics though. Either you think "total damage" in one hit, or you think "total damage over a certain time period". If so, what time period..
In other words, would 3xAC2 cause KD.

[Ghosth]

Probably not, because in my opinion the AC2 doesn't need it.

The AC10-20 probably do, along with LBX.

[Warrax the Chaos Warrior]

Adding knockdown for weapon damage is just adding insult to injury; if you are doing that much damage, you have already mostly owned their face and there is no reason to make the kill even easier. I think it would frustrate people; no one likes to feel like they didn't have a chance, dieing is more acceptable when it feels like the fight was fair.

The chain gun AC option is interesting, I'm not opposed to it, but I also think the current mechanic is fine how it is. Convergence on the locked target is all ballistics need to fix them at this point (well, along with the projectile speed thing that they are already planning.)

[Zakie Chan]

Convergence should have an option to be fixed at its infinite value. Give me something consistent. I hate those odd moments when my wang randomly shoots straight ahead, instead of the usual angle towards the center.

[Warrax the Chaos Warrior]

Zakie Chan, on 26 November 2012 - 07:44 PM, said:

Convergence should have an option to be fixed at its infinite value. Give me something consistent. I hate those odd moments when my wang randomly shoots straight ahead, instead of the usual angle towards the center.

Yea, or when you are so close that an enemy fills you entire screen, but the round goes 45 degrees up in the air for some damn reason. It's way easier to hit at 500m than it is at 50m the way things are now.

[Mavairo]

Fix ballistic convergence. For that matter give us proper Deflection and Bullet drop physics too.

[The Cheese]

I'd have the firing delay turned off for anyone over a certain latency figure, say, 200ms.

Yeah, exploitable. I know. Not gonna happen, I know.

[Levi Porphyrogenitus]

I like the convergence being set to the current target's range. The default should be as-is (ie, when you have no target it should move convergence to your aim point), but when you have a target selected it should change convergence to match. The only potential problem I see with that is it would make it much harder to shoot targets of opportunity as you are engaging with a primary target at a different range.

I think that UACs would have a more interesting place if they did away with the double-shot mechanic and just changed them to burst fire guns. Overall DPS should work out to be higher, but at the cost of concentrated damage and jamming chance. Eventual Rotary ACs can be full auto continuous fire weapons with a jam chance that ramps up as they fire without a break.

As for ballistics and knockdown, I'd rather they didn't make it an automatic thing, nor force RNG to screw some people over some of the time. I'd rather they wait until they add a gyro mechanic. Have neurohelmet type, gyro type, pilot efficiencies, mech size and type, etc., all factor in to a gyro rating. As a mech takes damage and suffers high impulse hits, the balance meter will fill, and the gyro and other factors will determine how big the bar is and how quickly it zeros itself again. If the balance meter gets to 75% the mech would slow, at 95% it would stagger to a halt/take a step back, and at 100%+ it would fall over. Falling would have to zero the meter immediately, to prevent gyro stun locks.

[HC Harlequin]

Hmm. adding KD mitigation capability to pilot skills/modules.

[HC Harlequin]

Shameless bump for more discussion