1063 replies to this topic

[Saevel]

The OP basically wants a set of dice to appear when they press fire. Firing one weapon nets you a hit on a 1 or higher, firing additional weapons nets you a hit or increasingly higher numbers until your pretty much wasting your time shooting. Therefor your forced to fire a single weapon at a time. This will make light mechs even more OP as they tend to back low numbers of weapons. Heavys and Assaults will be severely nerfed as they'll constantly waste all their shots to do the same damage a light mech does.

MWO is not a pure FPS but it sure as hell isn't a TT or turn based game. There should be absolutely no random dice based firing. The only weapons that would be effected by "movement / vibrations" would be AC's. Lasers are light based and have zero trajectory or flight time. Gause rifles travel are such high speeds that they have flat trajectories and nearly zero flight time. LRMs / Streaks are guided missles, SRM's are self propelled and go straight after firing.

Physics don't support what the OP is demanding. Aiming is an important skill and has been part of MW for a long time.

[Inertiaman]

Unfortunately the netcode doesn't support real physics so something needs changing.

[Hrungnir]

I wholeheartedly agree with OP. I hope the devs REALLY consider this idea. Pinpoint Superweapons breaks the balance of 25+ years of Battletech. With COF, alpha strikes still have the possibility of hitting with several, if not all, weapons on the same location up close, with the chance of this significantly reduced from longer ranges.

I also support the idea of increased heat effects.

[TexAce]

Hrungnir, on 08 January 2013 - 03:12 AM, said:

I wholeheartedly agree with OP. I hope the devs REALLY consider this idea. Pinpoint Superweapons breaks the balance of 25+ years of Battletech. With COF, alpha strikes still have the possibility of hitting with several, if not all, weapons on the same location up close, with the chance of this significantly reduced from longer ranges.

I also support the idea of increased heat effects.

This is not how FPS work and it shouldn't be. If physics alter my aim or the flypath of a ballistic round, then fine, but don't give me any RNG that turns on when I shoot. This IS NOT TT. When will you TT addicts realize that you are in a minority here.
You NEED the casual gamers, the FPS game players and the old MW game likers or otherwise you won't have any game at all.

[Critical Fumble]

MustrumRidcully, on 08 January 2013 - 07:24 PM, said:

It is not absolutely necessary to have cone of fire or weapon spread. But it will take a few adjustments to mechs and weapons to make it reasonably balanced.

1) The table top stats on which weapons are still based on made weapons that dealt more damage more expensive. But not just by saying "Okay, a PPC deals twice the damage of a medium laser, so it must be twice as hot and twice as heavy", but by an additional factor that was to compensate for the advantage of delainga lot of damage in one single package to one hit location. With convergence, this factor must basically be excised, which means that either low damage weapons must become heavier or deal even less damage, or high damage weapons must deal more damage, or produce less heat, or become lighter, or a combination thereof.

2) Since people can choose their hit location more reliably now (it's not a given you always hit exactly the mech section you intended to fire at, but you can significantly raise your chances), the armour values on "important" hit locations must be increased. There is little reason to shoot people in the arm to disable 25 % of their firepower if with twice the damage to the center torso, you can kill them completely. So basically, head and center torso and to a smaller degree the side torsos need a boost in armour values, so that there is a reason to not just go for the center torso.

Hypothetically, part 1 could work. However tweaking the weight and crit costs of stuff breaks stock designs. Which means if the logic is true that we cannot have certain mechs because they don't have three cannon variants, that part cannot happen. If they made weapons balanced by just using damage and heat, then all the direct fire weapons are basically just a comparison of damage, heat, and the cost to mount them. In short, all weapons are the same thing on a different scale.

And part 2 is problematic because it - like double armor - hides the issue and potentially creates another one rather than addressing the first one.

TexAss, on 08 January 2013 - 03:22 AM, said:

This is not how FPS work and it shouldn't be. If physics alter my aim or the flypath of a ballistic round, then fine, but don't give me any RNG that turns on when I shoot. This IS NOT TT. When will you TT addicts realize that you are in a minority here.
You NEED the casual gamers, the FPS game players and the old MW game likers or otherwise you won't have any game at all.

Good lord, man. Casual gamers are USED to a COF mechanics, unless all they ever play is sniper.

[Hrungnir]

TexAss, on 08 January 2013 - 03:22 AM, said:

This is not how FPS work and it shouldn't be. If physics alter my aim or the flypath of a ballistic round, then fine, but don't give me any RNG that turns on when I shoot. This IS NOT TT. When will you TT addicts realize that you are in a minority here.
You NEED the casual gamers, the FPS game players and the old MW game likers or otherwise you won't have any game at all.

As mentioned numerous times in this thread, COF is very prominent in the FPS genre and the proposition is for the COF only to go into effect when you group fire, thus not affecting firing each weapon separately. We're not advocating RNG in general, just to find a viable solution to weapon balance.

[ParasiteX]

HRR Insanity, on 07 January 2013 - 06:26 PM, said:

No, I want a MechWarrior that resembles BattleTech. As it should.

So you want Mechwarrior to be turned based as well?

Seriously.. some TT rules simply don't translate well to Mechwarrior. Plain and simple..

Now lets imagine for example, that your designing a battlemech in real life.. Why would you purposely make group firing less accurate?
Was common sense lost with as well with the Succession Wars?

And AC20s are still ******* nasty. Even if it takes a few more hits to take someone down with it.

Now i do agree the convergence on say the Swayback side torso could be a lil bit more spread out tho.
So as long as they increase convergence in relation to weapon placement more accurately, im all for it.

EDIT: Actually. when i think about it. it's not a bad idea. But it should mainly be on the torso weapons, where the convergence spread is higher.
On arm weapons. it should be more precise of where your actually aiming them at. But if you have for instance 2 lasers on the arm, it should naturally have a more straight convergence. Instead of the super precise pinpoint convergence we have now.

Edited by ParasiteX, 08 January 2013 - 03:43 AM.

[Oderint dum Metuant]

At least we could make macro's the fire the shots .6 second apart i guess to fire group 1 and 2.

Edited by DV McKenna, 08 January 2013 - 04:02 AM.

[Krzysztof z Bagien]

In almost every FPS there is CoF (represented on screen by crosshair spread) and it's rather good way to simulate how would real guns behave (when you run you have lower accuracy than when you stand still, weapon 'kicks back' etc.). However this spread is quite small, so when you place crosshair on your target it will get hit. With automatic weapon it means that most of your burst will hit the target, provided you can keep it in your crosshair.
With sniper weapons it's different - you don't have spread, but your crosshair sways on screen (or, to be accurate, your crosshair is stationary, and everything else floats), but still you will hit exactly where your crosshair points. With some skill you can hit everything you want. In that game I mentioned earlier it worked different however: sniper crosshair was stationary, no sway or anything, but there was this CoF, so every shot could go anywhere inside this cone, no matter how skillful you are. And that's just annoying. Introducing this mechanics to MWO would only **** off everyone.

BTW - why would weapons fired one at a time be more accurate than fired all at once? It just doesn't make any sense.

Edited by Krzysztof z Bagien, 08 January 2013 - 03:45 AM.

[Lexeii]

Introducing CoF depending on speed severely punishes light mecs that rely on speed to survive, that's all it does. I can't stop to aim, if I do, I'm dead. especially with lasers wich are the usual weapons to boat because of weight and dmg/whatever relations you have to keep aiming at a location for some time -> this effectively makes my aiming more accurate if I/my opponent move slower, but i can counter this with skill, other than a random CoF

8*x>x? of course, can't see the problem with that. Yeah of course, it hits the same location... again, if I'm in a light that isn't able to use an AC20 I need to put in small weapons, using up more hardpoints. Maybe weapons need a little bit of tweaking, don't argue with that, but if I choose to use 8ML instead of 2 AC20 its a choice, not more. the 2 AC20 have the same convergence as the 8 ML. comparing 6 ML to one AC20 is not the whole story. 6x>y? maybe. but what about 6x to y+z?


boating is constricted by hardpoints and weight, i don't see why it matters if i use these resources to use more of the same weapons or some different ones. where is the reason that a lot of the same weapons should have more convergence problems than different weapons fired at the same time -> boating itself can't be punished. (I know that is an oppinion the way i stated this, but its rather selfexplanatory isn't it?)


Also I'm sure i just didn't get this correctly... but i have some weapons in different locations (I don't think it matters here if its the same type of weapon or not). If I fire one of them it converges. so basically one of X weapons is adjusted to where and at what range im currently aiming (lets say its x1). If i decide to fire x2 instead and not fire x1 it also does. but when fireing x1 and x2 only one of them does, the other one not? this sounds strange, somehow...
Edit: It does make some sense when say xn is center torso and the other X are set to converge at some distance... still, don't think it a good idea
Especially if this distance is variable, there is no reason not to let it adjust. mathmatics isn't too hard.

btw. u see what imperfect convergence does when using ballistics that seem to shoot everywhere but where u aim when not holding your reticule on the target constantly due to convergence being set to a range other than the range your target is at (nice thread about this topic somewhere on this forum, nice graphs...)... you can compare this to a random CoF since when the reticule is not at your target you aim at the background and (except when there is nothing but air behind your target) the range of convergence changes pretty much randomly depending on what is behind your target... maybe its just me (skill or preferences) but i don't think thats desireable.


as for laser boats... the duration of the dmg dealt is key to this. i need to target the exact same location for some time.. easy when your sneak up from behind, not so when u r going 130 and ur opponent just moves slightly.
there is more of a problem with weapons that do dmg instantly. but as long as its not a one shot kill u have to hit the same location again. this is countered by making those weapons heavier, giving them less health or letting them produce a lot of heat, so there are drawbacks to balance this.


So while weaponbalance isn't perfect I don't think a random CoF is the key to solving this.

Edit2: words, spelling...

Edited by Lexeii, 08 January 2013 - 04:01 AM.

[Sudden Reversal]

I really, REALLY want to play with OP's version of the game!

Oh boy, just the thought has got me excited again for MWO.

Such a pity the devs will throw this in the 'too hard basket' when in actually it will save this game from being a flash in the pan.

[Hrungnir]

ParasiteX, on 08 January 2013 - 03:36 AM, said:

So you want Mechwarrior to be turned based as well?

Seriously.. some TT rules simply don't translate well to Mechwarrior. Plain and simple..

Now lets imagine for example, that your designing a battlemech in real life.. Why would you purposely make group firing less accurate?
Was common sense lost with as well with the Succession Wars?

And AC20s are still ******* nasty. Even if it takes a few more hits to take someone down with it.

Now i do agree the convergence on say the Swayback side torso could be a lil bit more spread out tho.
So as long as they increase convergence in relation to weapon placement more accurately, im all for it.

The reasoning is to make each weapon viable. You can't cling to TT stats that are based on a different mechanic (random hits) whilst allowing another (pinpoint accuracy with a group of smaller weapons effectively turning them into a superweapon more powerful on every level than a bigger weapon) without starting from scratch.

[TexAce]

Krzysztof z Bagien, on 08 January 2013 - 03:43 AM, said:

In almost every FPS there is CoF (represented on screen by crosshair spread) and it's rather good way to simulate how would real guns behave (when you run you have lower accuracy than when you stand still, weapon 'kicks back' etc.). However this spread is quite small, so when you place crosshair on your target it will get hit. With automatic weapon it means that most of your burst will hit the target, provided you can keep it in your crosshair.
With sniper weapons it's different - you don't have spread, but your crosshair sways on screen (or, to be accurate, your crosshair is stationary, and everything else floats), but still you will hit exactly where your crosshair points. With some skill you can hit everything you want. In that game I mentioned earlier it worked different however: sniper crosshair was stationary, no sway or anything, but there was this CoF, so every shot could go anywhere inside this cone, no matter how skillful you are. And that's just annoying. Introducing this mechanics to MWO would only **** off everyone.

BTW - why would weapons fired one at a time be more accurate than fired all at once? It just doesn't make any sense.

Exactly, besides that, Lasers don't have any physical feedback. So nothing should stop you firing all at once.

If I fire my SRM and the feedback pushes my mech in a direction, even if its slightly, then its fine with me, since it adds to realism and physics, but RNGs don't.

Hrungnir, on 08 January 2013 - 03:46 AM, said:

The reasoning is to make each weapon viable. You can't cling to TT stats that are based on a different mechanic (random hits) whilst allowing another (pinpoint accuracy with a group of smaller weapons effectively turning them into a superweapon more powerful on every level than a bigger weapon) without starting from scratch.

Every weapon IS viable. Look around in-game, you will see every weapon represented.

Edited by TexAss, 08 January 2013 - 03:49 AM.

[ParasiteX]

Hrungnir, on 08 January 2013 - 03:46 AM, said:

The reasoning is to make each weapon viable. You can't cling to TT stats that are based on a different mechanic (random hits) whilst allowing another (pinpoint accuracy with a group of smaller weapons effectively turning them into a superweapon more powerful on every level than a bigger weapon) without starting from scratch.

They should first fix the netcode before implementing this tho.. As it would make Lights even harder to hit, than they already are.
Otherwise im for it. Sounds like it would add a interesting dynamic to combat.

TexAss, on 08 January 2013 - 03:47 AM, said:

Every weapon IS viable. Look around in-game, you will see every weapon represented.

Not really. Lasers and SSRMS are the only viable weapons to hit lights atm... Trying to hit a moving light with a ballistic, is down to pure luck.. But that's mainly because of the netcode issues.

Edited by ParasiteX, 08 January 2013 - 04:00 AM.

[TexAce]

ParasiteX, on 08 January 2013 - 03:57 AM, said:

Not really. Lasers and SSRMS are the only viable weapons to hit lights atm, for isntance... Trying to hit a moving light with a ballistic, is down to pure luck.. But that's mainly because of the netcode issues.

That's why I'm always saying: fix netcode, and a lot of other complaints will be fixed, too (like ECM).

[Marj]

I haven't read the whole thread, so apologies if this has been said.

There's a good reason other MW games allowed accurate alpha's. You don't just have to hit a target, you have to evade it's fire too. Piloting skill, not just gunnery, is required. How can you evade enemy fire when you have to keep your CT pointed at the enemy all the time? This would push people into using one or two large weapons only, or lose the ability to torso twist away from the target to spread damage. It isn't a fix, it's a different kind of broken.

[WiCkEd]

On actual modern day machines of war you have to range the target to get appropriate weapon convergeance and still their are issues with this IRL that prevent true on spot accuracy. Take the a modern Infantry Carrier (I will not name specifics) that mounts a 25mm Bushmaster, TOW missile, Coaxil 7.62 machine gun. Before I fire at a target via scope, I have to laze the target so that each weapon knows where I'm pointing. This works fine except that If laze a target outside of the workable range of my 7.62 the computer doesn't compensate it. The 7.62 is pointed at it's maximum possible convergeance and that's it. Perhaps if we could somehow work it so you have to manually input the range to converge your weapons, and again don't allow any convergence past maximum weapon range you could effectively introduce weapon spread through pilot inaccuracies. I.E. Weapon A. has an effective range of 540m while Weapon B has an effective range of 180M you could force a target lazed past that 180m mark to converge at that mark. With this pilots could still attain pinpoint accuracy but only if they are only firing weapons at or under their max optimal range. I know this doesn't solve the doubled armor value and a manual lazing isn't necessary to make this equation work but it would add a significant variation while not succumbing to Cone of Fire that so many seem to be against. I completely agree that heat and armor need a reworking and like the OP ideas.

[Taiji]

The unpredictable netcode and fire delay provide much more than enough skill-balancing for me.

It seems like the OP just wants to make the game even worse in that respect with the suggestions regarding adding more convergence issues.

If anything I want my skill to count for more than it currently does, and not less.

Hrungnir, on 08 January 2013 - 03:46 AM, said:

The reasoning is to make each weapon viable. You can't cling to TT stats that are based on a different mechanic (random hits) whilst allowing another (pinpoint accuracy with a group of smaller weapons effectively turning them into a superweapon more powerful on every level than a bigger weapon) without starting from scratch.

Hmmm, this is odd.

How can it have slipped your notice that most of the weapons are already viable?

Also TT mechanics let you play as a god, rolling dice to determine the actions of a mech. But this isn't a top-down tactical RPG so the TT god-dice mechanics aren't going to be very relevant. Perhaps you're confusing BT and MW a bit too much here. The MechCommander games were more like TT.

And finally MWO doesn't cling to BT stats. It looks to me like it just tries to keep what it can as familiar as possible for fans of TT. Of course you might find it improbable that this has been possible to the extent you've seen it achieved, but to me MWO doesn't seem hamstrung by values that are the same or similar to TT.

It's like PGI made an effort and then certain people come along and say they made the exact opposite effort.

Edited by Taiji, 08 January 2013 - 04:40 AM.

[MustrumRidcully]

Critical Fumble, on 08 January 2013 - 03:26 AM, said:

Hypothetically, part 1 could work. However tweaking the weight and crit costs of stuff breaks stock designs. Which means if the logic is true that we cannot have certain mechs because they don't have three cannon variants, that part cannot happen. If they made weapons balanced by just using damage and heat, then all the direct fire weapons are basically just a comparison of damage, heat, and the cost to mount them. In short, all weapons are the same thing on a different scale.

It is not that "bad", so to speak - as I said, instead of adjusting weight, you can adjust damage and heat values as well. You just have to decide what you want to be fixed and what you want to be changeable.

If you wish to quote something, you can use these tags: [ quote ] [ /quote ] without the spaces between the brackets.

TexAss, on 08 January 2013 - 03:47 AM, said:

Every weapon IS viable. Look around in-game, you will see every weapon represented.

Just because a weapon is used by someone doesn't mean it's a viable weapon. Just look at MGs or Flamers.

[Inertiaman]

Not exactly seeing everyone pile in the ERPPC's or ERLL's etc either.