1063 replies to this topic

[GrizzlyViking]

HRR Insanity, on 07 January 2013 - 05:12 PM, said:

On June 17, 2012, I posted a thread (http://mwomercs.com/...__fromsearch__1) stating that the Developer’s on-going attempts to balance weapons without some mechanism of weapon spread (cone of fire, convergence, etc) were doomed. And by extension, the game itself was likely doomed to suffer terrible weapon/armor balance.

During this thread the Devs indicated that a solution (weapon convergence, even if this is a non-optimal solution) would be implemented that would address this issue. They asked me to wait.

I promised I would wait.

I have waited more than six months.

The Devs are continuing to balance (or unbalance) weapons. But they haven’t bothered implementing their favored solution (weapon convergence) and as I predicted, we are seeing the predicted progression of cascading problems related to groups of weapons being pin-point accurate:

• Significant deviations from BattleTech canon for weapons (ML, LL, ACs, LRMs, SRMs, etc) including damage/heat making individual weapons weak relative to armor
  
• Armor doubled exacerbating the individual weapon weakness
  
• Hardpoints significantly limiting customization (not ideal, but tolerable)
  
• Large weapons are not powerful (Single AC20 = not dangerous)
  
• Need groups of small weapons to be effective, single ML or SL is basically worthless vs. doubled armor, especially with heat nerf to MLs
  
• Mechs are generally nerfed because small weapons are nerfed (MGs, SLs, MLs, etc) combined with hardpoints.
  
• Grouped weapons dominate the field (2xGR, 2-4xPPC, 3-6xLL, 9xSL, 2xAC20, 4xAC2, 3xUAC5) because individual weapons are weak compared to groups of weapons and vs. double armor.
  
• Constant struggles when implementing and balancing new ‘Mechs/variants/weapons (new ‘Mechs need to be hardpoint nerfed to prevent unbalanced grouped weapon configurations such as 3xGR mechs... though they’re coming via CBT canon). The Stalker with it’s 6LL/6PPC is just the most recent issue.

In brief, without weapon spread, BattleTech weapon, critical, internal structure, and armor models can not and will not be balanced in a MechWarrior game. This is not hyperbole. This is fact. If you have a system where you can add more than one weapon of a given type to a ‘Mech and shoot them with pinpoint accuracy, you have effectively created WeaponX2. Or WeaponX5. Or whatever multiplier is appropriate. If I can combine 8 Medium Lasers into a ‘super-laser’ that hits for 8-times the damage due to pin-point accuracy and convergence, the weapon/armor model will ALWAYS be broken. Doesn’t matter if it’s lasers, PPCs, Gauss, or ACs.


The only way to fix this is to modify the behavior of weapons fired in a group vs. those fired singly. Keep in mind here, I’m not asking for ‘dice-based’ gaming. I’m not asking for CBT or death. I’m asking for sanity. This is a pure mathematical argument on damage (D) from a number of weapons (n).

D < D*n where n > 1

Groups of weapons are ALWAYS more effective than a single weapon of that type. Always. This is why people boat weapons. It’s because it’s the smart thing to do.

However, this is a FIXABLE problem.

Therefore, I, again, call upon the Developers to fix this. Implement some version of weapon spread. Implement weapon convergence. (the current 2-target recticle thing doesn’t do anything). Implement SOMETHING before it is too late. If you move out of Open Beta without even trying this, you will have failed to adequately test and explore the game development space. This game deserves a chance to be tested with weapon spread for weapons fired in groups or in rapid succession. And if we go much further into Open Beta (or full launch), I very much doubt that there will be a chance to go back and try weapon spread in the future.

Beta is the time for this to happen. Please, give us a chance to test this. MechWarrior with a cone-of-fire could be an amazing game. You could balance heat effects on weapons (as is intended in classic BattleTech), you can balance groups of weapons, you can adjust for movement (walking vs. running vs. jumping), knock, and everything else we’ve wanted. You just have to give it a chance. There is a reason that most combat simulation games use cone-of-fire. It works. It simulates actual effects of combat. But even weapon convergence would help. Almost anything would help.

Except tweaking individual weapons.

Whack-a-mole balancing will always lead to the ‘next-best’ weapons/loadout/’Mech being made ‘best’. That’s what’s going to happen when they tweak the hardpoints on the K2 or adjust the Guass, or whatever. My guess is that LLs or PPCs will become the ‘next best’, but I guess we’ll see.

If weapon spread in some fashion isn’t implemented, all you’ve done is update the graphics on MW4 weapon balance. This is a fine thing, but it’s not the ‘best’ it can be.

I’ll be happy to answer questions and clarify anything that is unclear. Before responding, keep the following issues in mind:

1. While I would like CBT values, that’s not the point of this post. The proposed fix has the side-effect of allowing CBT values, but does not require them. It only allows you to balance single weapons vs. groups of weapons. The benefit of the fix is that it allows us to actually simulate CBT. Thus... MechWarrior.

2. Because single weapons fired sufficiently apart (subject to balance, probably 0.5-1 second gap to prevent macroing) are NOT subject to weapon spread (read the above carefully), this idea does NOT make the game into a random number generator. If you fire one weapon at a time, you are still pin-point accurate. Good gunnery still matters, the proposed solution just allows you to use big weapons to maximum effect. If you fire groups, then you suffer the consequences (as intended by the fix).

3. There are lots of other ways to implement a variation on weapon spread (e.g., MPBT:3025 dropped damage on weapons fired together). Cone of fire is my favorite, but I just want one of them implemented. Pick one.

Developers, I warned you in June 2012. I’m warning you again now. Add weapon spread or be prepared to suffer MW4-type grouped weapon balance problems indefinitely to the detriment of the game and its longevity.

Insanity

Edit: Fixed formatting.

lol

[Sug]

My brains. We need to decide if we're arguing about a CoF or about weapon convergence.

Wintersdark, on 08 January 2013 - 07:59 AM, said:

Light mechs would need to slow (though remain at solid speeds) to fire with good convergence...

Lights can afford to lose a little survivability anyways.

Again, light mech losing the ability to fire with pinpoint accuracy at top speed does NOTHING to effect their survivability They just lose their to take out assault mechs with impunity.

Roland, on 08 January 2013 - 07:35 AM, said:

Well, he's right in that it would actually be something of a nerf to light mechs

Light mech are not supposed to be front line brawlers.

[Ugg]

Well I am not sure I completely agree with OP, but I do feel that there is something "off" with the current system.

@Insanity
Just to play devil's advocate:

Is the pin-point convergence in Lasers not addressed by DOT effect of lasers in addition to heat?
So to create more spread Increase burn time?

Is the pin-point convergence in Ballistics not offset by fire delay and projectile speed to target in addition to weight/ammo?
So to decrease accuracy simply decrease projectile speed and increase fire delay (I hate the delay by the way)?

Is boating not addressed, at least partially, by the hard point system?

Won't removing convergence and thus the effectiveness of smaller weapons simply shift the FOTM to bigger mechs who are able to carry multiple "large" weapons and chain-fire them?


I liked a lot of the suggestions mentioned in this thread. I like any balancing mechanism that would increase tactical choices, i.e. being able to set fixed convergence distance of your weapons, arm weapons converging independently, speed affecting accuracy, etc...
I especially like the suggestion of cross-hair bounce for mechs moving at speed, not arms though. Big mechs bounce more than lights of course and you can always add module to reduce this. I think that would add "feel" to the game.

Interesting discussion, I hope devs are listening.

my .02

[Eddrick]

Ugg, on 08 January 2013 - 08:46 AM, said:

I liked a lot of the suggestions mentioned in this thread. I like any balancing mechanism that would increase tactical choices, i.e. being able to set fixed convergence distance of your weapons, arm weapons converging independently, speed affecting accuracy, etc...
I especially like the suggestion of cross-hair bounce for mechs moving at speed, not arms though. Big mechs bounce more than lights of course and you can always add module to reduce this. I think that would add "feel" to the game.

I'm a little surprised that the crosshair doesn't move with cockpit rocking from weapon inpact.

[Bubba Wilkins]

There is no basis in canon or in TT for weapons being inaccurate. The presence of the rolls in TT is not to determine the accuracy of the weapon, but to simulate the skill of the pilot by introducing pilot error in the aiming process. Since we have real pilots with no built in aim assist, there is no reason to make things harder. We miss our targets all the time, especially the moving ones. Weapons spread should be reserved for cluster type ammunition such as SRM's, LRM's and the LBX-10.

Convergence is a completely separate issue and mechanic. Currently arm aiming is based off engine size/speed with additional factors based on mech chassis. Netcode and the shot lag on ballistic weapons also influences things so that the net effect is that you rarely get a direct pinpoint hit with all weapons fired in groups at the same time. Similarly, when firing individual weapons singularly, the amount of compensation required when firing from one side of your mech to the other varies as convergence still plays a roll even with a single weapons trajectory. Basically, the weapons assume your going to fire them all up to the point you only fire one.

If anything, I would hope that they adjust convergence to apply the distance of a locked target instead of the first point of contact in target reticals. Long range moving targets are near impossible to hit reliably with arm mounted ballistic weapons as you are often utilizing a convergence point much further out that your actual target when you lead them properly.

Edited by Bubba Wilkins, 08 January 2013 - 09:29 AM.

[Dakkath]

Zyllos, on 07 January 2013 - 07:42 PM, said:

HHR Insanity is absolutely correct. Personally, weapon convergence is one of the 6 fundamental issues I see with MWO.

If you want to see my list of 6, go here.

Weapon convergence are hurting the power of single large weapons. It also allows too much fire power to be placed on a single location at a high percentage rate.

But, I am not convinced a cone of fire is the way to go about this. My reasoning behind this is because a cone of fire hurts the ability of a mech to fire single shots of weapons into a location at a distance. Yes, you could easily have the mechanics of typical FPS where the cone of fire is basically a point of where you current aim.

I think the current convergence mechanics used now should be allowable with Arm mounted weapons only, but only between the LA and RA. Any weapons mounted on the same arm will fire straight into the reticule, with the arm facing directly at the crosshair and firing all weapons relative to that position. The only movement is caused by the mech chassis your running and your speed (Ravens at top speed would bounce up and down a lot while an Awesome moving at 50% max throttle would have very little swing in the arms). All other weapons (torsos and head) would fire directly straight, offset off the reticule based off the cockpit (Atlas CT Medium Lasers would fire directly straight, below and slightly to the right of the torso crosshair) with a bounce.

What I think this is accomplishing is giving a strong reason to fire at arms on any mechs that can equip a number of weapons across the arms. Mechs that have articulating arms will be the only things in the game that can converge their weapons, thus dangerous by allowing most of their fire to be easily converged on a single location. But, sense the arms are usually the weakest part of any mech, anyone can choose to remove those arms, thus making a mechwarrior having to fire torso mounted weapons, which have no convergence.

With the above, you begin to see much more weapon spread without the random control of a RNG. So an EXTREMELY good mechwarrior pilot can fire many different weapons from various locations on a single location. But that mechwarrior will have to take time to aim for most of those weapons to land in a single spot, unlike now where all weapons converge on either the arm reticule or torso reticule, at all times.

I pretty much agree with this. Fixed weapons on the Torsos shouldn't converge. They would be subject to the mech movement, and should also have separate reticules so you know where all of your weapons are going to hit at any time. (color them to make them distinguishable). This allows all pilots to aim every weapon at any time. But alpha strikes would/could cause a miss. (yes you'll have multiple reticules, but guess what? you're a war machine, deal with it)

I also think there should be heat-based aiming penalties in the game because they were like that in TT, but I am more of a CBT/simulator advocate anyway.

The pinpoint accuracy and double armor issues I've been against since day-1.... COF I do not like, but non-convergence for fixed weapons is perfect and addresses boats.

Edited by Dakkath, 08 January 2013 - 09:38 AM.

[Felicitatem Parco]

I thought going with a milder deconvergence would be a better start, such that weapons on the same bodypart don't converge instead of banning interbodypart convergence... but that's just the gentler me coming out.

[pesco]

HRR Insanity, on 07 January 2013 - 05:12 PM, said:

Developers, I warned you in June 2012. I’m warning you again now. Add weapon spread or be prepared to suffer MW4-type grouped weapon balance problems indefinitely to the detriment of the game and its longevity.

Listen to this man!

Also, another simple way to spread weapons that has been proposed for months, PGI, would be to make weapons actually shoot straight out of their barrels. Really, whose idea of plausability is it fire every weapon in arbitrary angles from the barrel end?!

Edit: I see others are already on the job wrt. fixed convergence. Move along.

Bubba Wilkins, on 08 January 2013 - 09:26 AM, said:

There is no basis in canon or in TT for weapons being inaccurate. The presence of the rolls in TT is not to determine the accuracy of the weapon, but to simulate the skill of the pilot by introducing pilot error in the aiming process.

So you're saying being able to hit all lasers on the same spot should depend on pilot skill? You can finish your own reasoning from there.

Edited by pesco, 08 January 2013 - 09:48 AM.

[Roland]

Quote

Is the pin-point convergence in Lasers not addressed by DOT effect of lasers in addition to heat?
So to create more spread Increase burn time?

The DoT effect on lasers actually DOES address some of the convergence issues (and in a way that I personally kind of like, because it allows a player to "work around" the issue through use of skill).

However, it only does so for laser weapons, and only in comparison to non-laser weapons... it doesn't do it for small lasers in relation to large ones.

For instance, two medium lasers is effectively the same as a single large laser in this regard.. only much lighter and more heat efficient. Indeed, the large laser actually has a LONGER burn time, so in many ways it's even worse when it comes to spreading damage compared to a ton of massed medium lasers.

You could potentially address this issue by inversing the difference in burn time, such that large lasers dumped their damage on a target in a shorter period of time compared to medium lasers. This would have the effect of making large lasers spread their damage less than lots of medium lasers.

But, it also ends up having some unintended consequences.. such as the fact that a single medium laser is also penalized just as much as 9 of them.

It also doesn't address the same issue that may arise with other, non-laser weapons. We do see this with PPC's, AC20's, and Gauss rifles... load as many of these up as you can, and create an even larger single point alpha strike.

Although, it's worth noting that non-laser weapons tend to be intrinsically less suitable to the types of boating we see with medium and small lasers... non-laser weapons are generally just too heavy to do it. It's infeasible to load up that many AC20's or Gauss, just because of their weight. The PPC does suit itself to this, in some cases, but it somewhat moderated by its heat.

It may be the case that simply dealing with laser weapons, through inverting the discharge times we have currently, will achieve all of the weapon spread necessary.. although, really, even in the current state of things we no longer see huge numbers of massed medium lasers any more like we did in early beta... which makes me think that this is, at least to some degree, balanced.

I think Insanity's worry is that we'll continue to see the same issue though, as things progress, and different variants show up that can mount these kind of high-alpha strike builds.

[PropagandaWar]

Jetfire, on 07 January 2013 - 05:35 PM, said:

There are 2 parts to this and with them included the game would have a lot more depth.

1. Only fully articulated arms can have adjustable to target convergence. Torso and Up/Down only arms should fire at a fixed convergence of the weapons maximum effective distance. The reason being that these items are not all mounted on individual articulated gimbals. This makes where you mount weapons important as it will affect the spread. Center of mass weapons on the torso like the Centurions lasers have no convergence issues as they are mounted dead center on the reticules.

I've brought this one up. Arms sould be the converged weapons. It never made sense to me how fixed weapons (Example Gausscat) could converge a couple hundred meters out to 1000 meters out it should be one or the other. Again they are fixed weapons.

[Duckwalk]

So much ignorance in this thread. I fully support OP and his suggestions and applaud his patience in explaining basic concepts again and again.

A couple of points for the people that refuse to consider this as a viable option to balance the game.

1. Stop thinking in absolutes. Adding a chance ( SMALL OR LARGE, THIS WOULD BE BALANCED BY THE DEVS) to decrease your accuracy, especially while moving at high speeds, over rough terrain, and at high heat would by no means eliminate aiming from the game.

As evidence of this please go look at, World of Tanks, Counter-Strike, Battlefield, Modern Warfare and virtually every other FPS currently available. If anything it would introduce another level of depth/skill to the game where players learned to ride the most effective heat/accuracy ranges.

ONCE AGAIN, THIS IS ONLY IN REGARDS TO GROUP FIRING WEAPONS. Furthermore, this is a fantasy game and does not have to reflect real life physics so please, save your arguments that "multiple weapons would never operate this way in real life". This is only A BALANCING MECHANIC.


2. Massing weapons is effective. When the Cataphract was announced, the forums were a buzz with the possibility of loading up 4 gauss rifles on the 4X variant. It was obvious to anyone that 4 15 damage slugs instantly hitting the same location would be devastating. 4 gauss rifles were never possible due to weight/crit slots/ hard points but we are seeing the same thing now with PPC Stalkers.


3. Pin point accuracy of mass fired weapons IS a problem. The OP has already illustrated numerous times how the Dev's have been playing wack-a-mole since the start of closed beta trying to address this issue. We have seen reductions in damage, increases in heat, increases in armor, and the use of limited hard points in order to curtail this trend.

The Yen Lo Wang is widely regarded as a horrible hero mech, why? Its not the paint job. It is essentially the same weight/speed of a Hunchback.

The reason is that the Wang is extremely limited in its hard point allocation with 2 ballistic (in the same arm) and 2 energy ( in the center torso), while the Hunchbacks generally sport more energy hard points (2-7 more) and more ballistics points ( not that it matters). The Wang is unable to mass low weight low damage weapons.

A stock Hunchback P will do 15 more damage to a pin point location than a stock Yen Lo Wang with essentially the same heat dissipation, a faster reload time, and no ammo issue. Even switching to all SMALL lasers the Hunchback will only do 3 less damage with FAR LESS heat and tonnage, while maintaining a faster rate of fire and higher over all dps. Given the AVERAGE player, which one do you think they are going to be more successful in? And how does that make sense in the Mechwarrior world? The be all end all auto cannon ( at the moment) displaced by boatload of small lasers?

Massing weapons invariably gets them nerfed as we've seen over and over again. Which then leads to further balancing issues as lights are disproportionately affected by this change. How viable do those 2 medium lasers on the Spider look now?

-Duckwalk

[Karbonaatti]

In my opinion small cone would be acceptable for aiming and it would help this pinpoint alpha strike issue.

In my dreams there would be several different game mechanics to test. Beta testers could actually test different balance tweaks in different servers and find the best weapon / mech balances. Developers could then choose best mechanic(s) from these competetive designs.

Not this soviet style central command, where developers just give small band aid fix game now and then and people just have to accept them or leave game.

Different competitive game mechanics could also keep us forum warriors actually testing this game... :-)

[Fastidious]

HRR Insanity, on 07 January 2013 - 11:06 PM, said:

Fire one weapon at a time.

How does forcing sequential fire fix anything really? It would make lights stronger as they have less weapons to fire and harder to hit without pin point alpha strikes. Targeting assaults would remain easier as they are slow and large.

HRR Insanity, on 07 January 2013 - 11:06 PM, said:

You can also choose to fire alphastrikes/big groups of weapons... and then you're not able to put all the damage on the same panel because your cone of fire is affected by heat, movement, knock, etc.

So up close brawling would be even stronger. All these changes would do is alter play slightly but overall players would adapt quickly. The end result would be almost the same as currently because weapons, heat and other numbers wouldn't change. If players learned to dodge and torso twist more their damage would spread much better. Far to many players ignore dodging and minimizing damage in order to do more damage themselves. Just having everyone dodge smartly would have a bigger impact than these changes but that requires pilot skill.

If you want to reward using more weapons and larger weapons there are many other ways to do it. Perhaps weapon synergy bonuses for different types of damage (we slightly have this already with critical hits) or bonuses for using weapons which match the stock load out or perhaps certain chassis/variants have special manufacturer made weapons only available to them (so instead of stock LL, you get Sunglow LL).

Marj, on 08 January 2013 - 04:05 AM, said:

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.

Indeed, this wouldn't fix anything but it'd change how the game is played a little. To be honest most players have trouble hitting one spot as it is. I don't see how making this harder is a fix. If anything we need to wait until they improve the netcode before judging weapons and making sweeping changes to how the game is played.

I think this ultimately comes down to "realism" shooter like COD, CS, etc vs Quake style shooters. Cone of fire is more newbie friendly and removes skill from the game. Even if you aim perfectly you can still miss with cones of fire.

[liku]

I dont share the stance of the op.
I am a stalker hunchie fan. I like to brawl a lot. In this game team play is everything. Running in the middle of the ennemy or only 1 vs 2 is suicide.
Having light kill assault due to mobility is essential it give a purpose for medium and team play and most of all it require skils.
This game is unlike common fps. You have to think aim well carefully manage your surrounding your teamate the ennemy the environnement and your loadout. You have the opportunity to play different playstyle even using the same mech but only making change in the loadout.
I tried the 6ppc. .. its fun for some time but it come with the cost of armor speed and diversity. You have to stay away carefully plan and if the ennemy is other than alone or a light your are pretty doomed.
If the ennemy loadout differe you will not even kill a hunchie.
I tried the ultimate glass canon and some variant..but same here...it come at a great price: armor ammo manibility etc...
I dont see the point of complicating aiming more than it is now. Only light mech cannot boat so much.
I usually use more than 4 firegroupes and alway pack 3 type of weapon. My aim are opposite proportional to my english skills and many time situationaly i also miss... what cone shapped will add? more frustration for new player?

Actualy you can feel piloting a mech boating all the kind of weapons you want and have a great survivability unless you try the loner way. Armor seem pretty balanced same for weapons except some uses a bit to much heat. I cant wait to so the next patch.

N.b. im a brawler not a sniper currently i only miss 3 mech: atlas jenner and raven and i m running for master for most of them.

[CyberOptic]

I really like the idea of HRR Insanity. I would +1 for testing it.

[HRR Insanity]

DV McKenna, on 08 January 2013 - 12:32 AM, said:

Oh, lets penalize good players who learn to shoot accurately, and adjust for latency by implementing a RNG Cone of fire.

Im sure im having de ja vu here.

This is not Battletech, it's not table top it is Mechwarrior, players who put the effort in rise up to the top.

A CoF is still random, however much spin you want to put on it, the computer still decides where within that cone the shot ends up, see WoT and its rounds that mysteriously disappear because they shot out the top of the CoF.

All a CoF will promote is static 1 dimensional game play, because everyone will want to stand still to minimize the CoF bloom
So no RnG CoF is a terrible idea.

I know HRR like combined arms, i know you guys like pure unadulterated Battletech, but it is bad for video gameplay.

Not RNG.

In my proposal, you can still be completely pinpoint accurate if you fire single weapons.

If you want to be perfectly accurate, you fire single weapons. If you want to combine damage (and potentially then break the armor/weapon/heat model), you can't be perfectly accurate.

Cone of fire is a CHOICE in my proposal.

[HRR Insanity]

BDU Havoc, on 08 January 2013 - 08:36 AM, said:

So instead of clicking fire once, I just spam by fire button and get the same result.


Sorry but this won't change anything, just become irritating.

I got called a hacker and accused of using aimbots in MPBT:3025 more than a few times because I could spam the mouse button when my reticule was on a target's head. Clicking like a mad man will simply leave the problem the same but make people irritated and leave.

Hell instead of running 9 MLAS on 3 groups, I can put them on 6 groups and just spam the groups. The COF won't impact 2 weapons that much and I can just spam 1,2,3,4,5 all day long.

Nice try on thinking up other ideas for the convergence "problem" but IMO convergence isn't a problem. People standing still enough long enough to get the entire beam duration in the same place is.

I have considered your objection and designed the proposal around it.

In my original post, I specifically stated that weapons fired IN CLOSE TEMPORAL PROXIMITY would be subject to the cone of fire to avoid macros or fast-clicking to circumvent the weapon spread fix. Effectively, the moment you start firing, the cone of fire starts to bloom. The first shot is PERFECTLY pinpoint. Subsequent shots (or all weapons fired at the same time) would be subject to the cone of fire. The time for the cone to return to pinpoint would be a point of balance. I suggested a 500-1000ms shrink rate.

[Elyam]

Largely agree with you Op, but I believe PGI's choices so far make the obstacle of player perception too great. We'll likely have to wait for the next BT/MW title to have a chance at a mechwarrior experience that matches the lowtech realities of BT.

[HRR Insanity]

Apoc1138, on 08 January 2013 - 01:34 AM, said:

weapons already have a locked out cooldown, so in what way does weapon spread avoid macros?
sounds like it penalises non-macro users just as much as or more so than macros users because macro users can build a timer in to their macro so that it's exactly the right length to avoid your cone effect, where as manual firers would be going on guess work and not maximising their DPS / accuracy ratio

One way to potentially circumvent my solution (groups of weapons spread) would be to fire individual weapons with a macro to prevent cone of fire from engaging. I'm specifically suggesting that the proposal include a limitation hard-coded that after the fire weapon fires, then the cone of fire 'blooms' for a few hundred milliseconds preventing macro-based ways around the group fire/cone of fire implementation.

If someone wanted to use a macro to fire the next weapon after the 'cone fades', then they'll have to keep their recticle over the target perfectly while movement and other activities are occuring. This is unlikely to be an issue. If it is, we can always increase the time delay on the 'cone fade'.

[HRR Insanity]

Tolkien, on 08 January 2013 - 04:31 AM, said:

Hi there, wanted to chip in that I more or less agree with the original poster, though I wanted to point our that as far as I can recall MPBT3025 approached the problem by having grouped weapons (or even rapid fired weapons of the same type e.g. 4x medium lasers on a jenner) automatically go to random hit locations.

MPBT3025 actually just flat reduced the total damage in the damage packet by a %. The extra damage went 'poof'.