1063 replies to this topic

[Bubba Wilkins]

Zyllos, on 27 February 2013 - 09:31 AM, said:

Ok, but can you agree with my post above this one? They have a direct translation from CBT without the randomization mechanics of firing weapons. This if a HUGE flaw.

The only flaw is in your inability to recognize that any randomization in CBT is an attempt to introduce pilot error/skill into the equations. Since we have pilots who indeed error and have different skill levels, no additional randomization is required.

And yes, this thread needs to die.

Edited by Bubba Wilkins, 27 February 2013 - 10:00 AM.

[Josef Nader]

Bubba Wilkins, on 27 February 2013 - 09:59 AM, said:

The only flaw is in your inability to recognize that any randomization in CBT is an attempt to introduce pilot error/skill into the equations. Since we have pilots who indeed error and have different skill levels, no additional randomization is required.

And yes, this thread needs to die.

Thank you for saying in so many words what I've been trying to convey.

Random rolls in tabletop are an abstraction of pilot skill. We need no abstraction in MWO, because we have actual pilots controlling the mech in real time. Adding abstraction adds frustration to the mechanics without improving the gameplay.

[Artgathan]

At the beginning of this thread HRR Insanity posted a series of statements that formed the basis of their argument for the Cone of Fire (CoF) system. I think it would be valuable to analyze these statements once again (for the sake of simplicity I've numbered the statements). Then I will move into a suggestion that I feel builds upon HRR Insanity's arguments.

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

• 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.

1. Yes, the deviations from TT have caused problems.
2. I'm not sure armor doubling caused these problems. The fact that certain weapons were buffed to make up for doubled armor (while others were not) this created an imbalance. Doubling Armor was (as stated elsewhere by the developers) a measure to extend the length of the matches.
3. Limited hardpoints were necessary to maintain the 'flavor' of mechs and prevent the dreaded 12 ML boat.
4. This one is more a matter of personal taste. I use AC20's as much as possible because I find them to be highly effective. Similarly, I find that AC20s are often targeted by enemy pilots because they are scary. Again, this is personal observation. I do agree that a single AC20 is not as scary as a similar weight in SRMs however.
5. Agreed. Single small weapons are fairly useless. However it was more or less the same in TT. They just feel 2X as useless because of doubled armor.
6. I'm not sure what this means. If you're suggesting that certain mechs are useless because their hardpoints force them to use multiple small weapons, I agree to a certain extent.
7. This is true and will remain true even with a CoF system. 2 Gauss Rifles are always better than one, if you can spare the tonnage.
8. Agreed. Hardpoints make a huge difference. I was shocked to see that there was no Trebuchet with 4 missile hardpoints (I realized after a quick reflection that this would make the Trebuchet the de facto medium mech: high speed + 4 SRM6).

I've fought both sides of the CoF versus pinpoint battle in my head. While I do like being able to alpha strike a particular point on a mech, I agree that this upsets the balance of the game drastically. It also detracts from the 'flavor' of mechwarrior (which, I would argue, is that feeling of desperation as you keep fighting while losing more and more of your equipment, hoping that your next salvo will disable a critical component on the enemy battlemech). Currently I can easily core out a battlemech without doing any damage to the rest of the mech. An alpha strike is supposed to be a risky maneuver - a last ditch attempt to destroy the enemy before they can finish you off. It is not meant (in BT fiction) to be the go-to move for mechwarriors.

Therefore I propose a hybrid CoF system. It's pretty simple:

• Weapons fired at their 'optimal' range are pin-point accurate. This would allows the devs to implement 'to-hit' penalties for weapons like PPCs by making them have a CoF at ranges less than 90m, or greater than 540m. However between those ranges the PPC would be pinpoint accurate.
  
• Weapon groups that would do above X damage fire using a CoF. For example, if X is 30, if I try to Alpha Strike for 30 damage using: 3+ PPC, 2+ Gauss Rifle, 3+ SRM6, the weapons will not be pinpoint accurate and will fire in a CoF (even if fired at optimal range). This encourages chain firing.

This system promotes several changes in play:

• Reduced emphasis on Alpha Strikes
  
• Increased emphasis on engaging at range (since in your face brawling will make certain weapons inaccurate)
  
• Decreased emphasis on boats
  
• Increased emphasis on weapon / marksmanship management

Just some thoughts.

[Tombstoner]

Doc Holliday, on 27 February 2013 - 09:47 AM, said:

Practically none of it is direct translation any more. They've altered virtually everything as needed to make it work properly in a FPS.

Bingo, you just articulated what the OP is trying to help, by altering virtually everything to make it work doesn't mean they increased the games design space. The OP's ideas will increase the developers options and improve the game.
properly is subjective.

[Doc Holliday]

Tombstoner, on 27 February 2013 - 10:13 AM, said:

Bingo, you just articulated what the OP is trying to help, by altering virtually everything to make it work doesn't mean they increased the games design space.

Um.. sorry, but that's way too incoherent to make sense of.

Quote

The OP's ideas will increase the developers options and improve the game.

No they won't. The OP's ideas reduce the options by making all weapon systems more alike. And that's NOT subjective. Less variety generally makes games worse, not better. (That's subjective, but generally proves true.)

Quote

properly is subjective.

You haven't posted an objective thing yet, and most of your reasons behind your subjective posts are very poor, bordering on flat-out wrong. Likewise for the OP.

Artgathan, on 27 February 2013 - 10:10 AM, said:

At the beginning of this thread HRR Insanity posted a series of statements that formed the basis of their argument for the Cone of Fire (CoF) system. I think it would be valuable to analyze these statements once again (for the sake of simplicity I've numbered the statements). Then I will move into a suggestion that I feel builds upon HRR Insanity's arguments.



1. Yes, the deviations from TT have caused problems.
2. I'm not sure armor doubling caused these problems. The fact that certain weapons were buffed to make up for doubled armor (while others were not) this created an imbalance. Doubling Armor was (as stated elsewhere by the developers) a measure to extend the length of the matches.
3. Limited hardpoints were necessary to maintain the 'flavor' of mechs and prevent the dreaded 12 ML boat.
4. This one is more a matter of personal taste. I use AC20's as much as possible because I find them to be highly effective. Similarly, I find that AC20s are often targeted by enemy pilots because they are scary. Again, this is personal observation. I do agree that a single AC20 is not as scary as a similar weight in SRMs however.
5. Agreed. Single small weapons are fairly useless. However it was more or less the same in TT. They just feel 2X as useless because of doubled armor.
6. I'm not sure what this means. If you're suggesting that certain mechs are useless because their hardpoints force them to use multiple small weapons, I agree to a certain extent.
7. This is true and will remain true even with a CoF system. 2 Gauss Rifles are always better than one, if you can spare the tonnage.
8. Agreed. Hardpoints make a huge difference. I was shocked to see that there was no Trebuchet with 4 missile hardpoints (I realized after a quick reflection that this would make the Trebuchet the de facto medium mech: high speed + 4 SRM6).

I've fought both sides of the CoF versus pinpoint battle in my head. While I do like being able to alpha strike a particular point on a mech, I agree that this upsets the balance of the game drastically. It also detracts from the 'flavor' of mechwarrior (which, I would argue, is that feeling of desperation as you keep fighting while losing more and more of your equipment, hoping that your next salvo will disable a critical component on the enemy battlemech). Currently I can easily core out a battlemech without doing any damage to the rest of the mech. An alpha strike is supposed to be a risky maneuver - a last ditch attempt to destroy the enemy before they can finish you off. It is not meant (in BT fiction) to be the go-to move for mechwarriors.

Therefore I propose a hybrid CoF system. It's pretty simple:

• Weapons fired at their 'optimal' range are pin-point accurate. This would allows the devs to implement 'to-hit' penalties for weapons like PPCs by making them have a CoF at ranges less than 90m, or greater than 540m. However between those ranges the PPC would be pinpoint accurate.
  
• Weapon groups that would do above X damage fire using a CoF. For example, if X is 30, if I try to Alpha Strike for 30 damage using: 3+ PPC, 2+ Gauss Rifle, 3+ SRM6, the weapons will not be pinpoint accurate and will fire in a CoF (even if fired at optimal range). This encourages chain firing.

This system promotes several changes in play:

• Reduced emphasis on Alpha Strikes
  
• Increased emphasis on engaging at range (since in your face brawling will make certain weapons inaccurate)
  
• Decreased emphasis on boats
  
• Increased emphasis on weapon / marksmanship management

Just some thoughts.

I propose that the current core system works just fine, and you should stop wasting your time on something that doesn't need to be fixed.

Edited by Doc Holliday, 27 February 2013 - 10:19 AM.

[Roland]

Folks, I don't really have a dog in this fight. I recognize that perfect weapons convergence causes issues, but I don't find those issues to be totally terrible. In general, I kind of like how the game plays.

I also don't really suspect that the game is going to change in such a way, at this point in the development.

But for the folks who make posts that are just like, "People need to stop posting in this thread!", you folks really should understand that when you do that, you bump the thread, increasing the chances of other folks posting in the thread. So it's kind of counterproductive to your stated goal.

[WVAnonymous]

Roland, on 27 February 2013 - 10:28 AM, said:

But for the folks who make posts that are just like, "People need to stop posting in this thread!", you folks really should understand that when you do that, you bump the thread, increasing the chances of other folks posting in the thread. So it's kind of counterproductive to your stated goal.

But it's like finding an old book in the bookshelf behind the chair you never look in. It's nice to dust it off, look at the cover, and put it back...

[Zyllos]

Doc, and any others who think along the same lines he/she does, just say yes or no to these questions and give a reason why:

Quote

Can we agree that the armor values are a direct relation to the CBT, except at 2x the value (32 points per ton instead of 16)?

Quote

Can we agree that the chance to hit locations was the factor in why the CT can hold more than the LT/RT, than the LL/RL, than the LA/RA (CT had the most because it was the most hit location based on dice rolls) in CBT/TT?

Quote

Can we agree that since there is no randomization (other than Splitting Arm/Torso convergence locations only during torso movement, lasers being DoT), certain locations will take disportionally more damage than other locations because everyone can converge their weaponry onto a single location?

I see your point about that the randomization was an abstraction of pilot skill on hitting a location. But even it being an abstraction, it's translation is bogus and causing issues because the average pilot basically has a Ballistic Skill of 1 (I think the lower the better) in MWO because of how easy it is to aim, and all those weapons hitting the same location.

PGI's translation saying that "Location Hit Table" is basically based on how good the player is in MWO is flawed when paired with the distribution of armor points. This is the whole reason armor was doubled because players could aim better than the CBT suggested a pilot could. And this is 100% because all weapons converge on a location.

If weapons did not converge, then it takes a player much more skill to hit all their weapons onto a single location, which is a MUCH better translation from CBT to MWO.

Edited by Zyllos, 27 February 2013 - 10:47 AM.

[Doc Holliday]

Zyllos, on 27 February 2013 - 10:44 AM, said:

Doc, and any others who think along the same lines he/she does, just say yes or no to these questions and give a reason why:

Can we agree that the armor values are a direct relation to the CBT, except at 2x the value (32 points per ton instead of 16)?

Like everything else, armor values were directly translated and then changed as needed to better suit a FPS. It's no longer a direct translation. How exactly it was changed is moot.

Quote

Can we agree that the chance to hit locations was the factor in why the CT can hold more than the LT/RT, than the LL/RL, than the LA/RA (CT had the most because it was the most hit location based on dice rolls) in CBT/TT?

I never played any kind of BT before this game, but I highly doubt that. It doesn't make sense on any level. The logical purpose for CT having more armor is because if you lose CT, your mech is instantly dead. Unless you're running an XL engine, you can lose any of the other locations and still keep going. Also, CT is generally a larger area, and therefore more easy to hit (hence why it still needs more armor than LT/RT even with an XL engine. It has absolutely nothing to do with some random chance-to-hit factor.

Quote

Can we agree that since there is no randomization (other than Splitting Arm/Torso convergence locations only during torso movement, lasers being DoT), certain locations will take disportionally more damage than other locations because everyone can converge their weaponry onto a single location?

Having no randomization is fantastic, because it allows the player to decide what his best target is. Do you want to go straight for the kill? Go for CT - but be aware, getting through that heavy armor may take a while. Maybe it's more important to just remove some of the damage you're taking ASAP. Go for the more lightly-armored arm or side torso. Or maybe your target's mobility is a problem. Go for the legs.

Quote

If weapons did not converge, then it takes a player much more skill to hit all their weapons onto a single location, which is a MUCH better translation from CBT to MWO.

How "good" the translation is, should and does take second priority to how fun the game is to play.

Again, if that is your key focus, this is not the right game for you. I know, the right game doesn't exist, and I'm sorry for that. But this game is not, cannot, never will be that direct translation you're looking for.

[Shumabot]

Quote

Most players don't know what properly simulated recoil on modern weapons is like in a video game, because they've never seen it. It really is too bad the creators of the old Tactical Ops mod for the original UT didn't have the funding to get their mod well-known. They DID properly simulate recoil in it, over 10 years ago, and it was good, and fun. All the players I introduced to it thoroughly enjoyed it, and as a result, feel more or less the same way as I do about cone of fire in modern shooters.

That's an uninformed lie and many games do exactly what you describe. Stop making stuff up and defaming other games just to to prop up your own ill informed and badly stated side.

[Shumabot]

As an aside, in the TT mech weapons and locations were based on the art, not the other way around. There was no forward thinking design process in BT TT. Hell, most of their most popular mechs were stolen from anime and stuffed into the game. They absolutely didn't design the mechs for balance and then assemble the looks based on that balance.

The idea that they really thought about how weapon placement effected gameplay in their badly made ultra random TT game with truly abysmal balance is a joke.

Edited by Shumabot, 27 February 2013 - 11:28 AM.

[Heeden]

HRR Mary, on 27 February 2013 - 05:20 AM, said:

The build he uses is the same as mine, and I have the same observations : I CAN fire all day, with some lull to cool down (usually 3-4 seconds), which is exactly what a light pilot is about "hit and run", without adding Heat sinks other than the ones in the engine. Sure if I get into an heavy engagement, I have to watch my heat, but since there is no penalty for running hot, I can continue to do so all along the match.

3 to 4 seconds down-time gives you enough heat to fire 2 of your medium lasers, if I'm going to engage with my Jenner I like to be able to get out at least a couple of full volleys. Even with 2 extra heat-sinks (so 10@2.0 + 2@1.4 = 22.8EHS) it would take about 9-10 seconds to dissipate the heat from a single alpha-strike. That is a completely different ball-game to being able to fire all day with no heat concerns.

[Vapor Trail]

Bubba Wilkins, on 27 February 2013 - 09:59 AM, said:

The only flaw is in your inability to recognize that any randomization in CBT is an attempt to introduce pilot error/skill into the equations. Since we have pilots who indeed error and have different skill levels, no additional randomization is required.

And the absolute best possible pilot in the TT game, with the best possible aim, (excluding Targeting Computers) STILL had to roll location individually for each weapon, and the random hit location was applied AFTER the gunnery check. Skill level really didn't enter into that randomization much. This is not currently the case in MWO. Therefore there's something still missing. It doesn't need to be much, and I think Insanity's suggestion works to add that missing something.

Insanity's suggestion won't make the best pilots look like Boober McNoobsalot. It just changes the paradigm, so that you either place every shot individually, or run the risk of scattering damage or even missing a shot altogether. After a couple games, I'll expect the stellar pilots to adjust and still be kicking metal plated tushie by using pacing and placing their shots accurately, as well as learning the bloom patterns and exploiting them when closing to a range that lets them cut loose and likely concentrate their fire on the desired component, probably killing a mech before bobbing and weaving their way back out.

His suggesstion also introduces an avenue whereby Targeting Computers and C3 networks (as they affect direct fire weapons) can be introduced that actually have a significant effect on gameplay. AFAIK both of these were basically dead tonnage in most other MW titles.

For example: An active TC when mounted in a mech can reduce the bloom of the CoF when firing groups or quickfiring chains by a large percentage. Allowing much more accurate group and alpha fire. An active C3 link will reduce the bloom of group fire by a percentage that increases based on the closest friendly C3 unit to the target.

Heeden, on 27 February 2013 - 11:47 AM, said:

3 to 4 seconds down-time gives you enough heat to fire 2 of your medium lasers, if I'm going to engage with my Jenner I like to be able to get out at least a couple of full volleys. Even with 2 extra heat-sinks (so 10@2.0 + 2@1.4 = 22.8EHS) it would take about 9-10 seconds to dissipate the heat from a single alpha-strike. That is a completely different ball-game to being able to fire all day with no heat concerns.

3-4 seconds additional to the normal 4 second cycle time.
==> Total of ~7 to 8 seconds between alphas of 4 MLs.
==> 2.28 * 7 to 2.28 * 8 = 15.96 to 18.24 heat dispersed.
==> 1 full alpha of 4 MLs (16 heat) dispersed in that time frame.

4 MLs that can pretty much alpha all day @ max rate require ~14-15 heat sinks on top of the engine's 20. Requires 4 heat dissipation.

4 heat dissipation - 2 heat dissipation (engine sinks) = 2 heat dissipation
2/.14 = 14.28 additional double heat sinks.

This is doable... maybe not easily, but doable in a Jenner chassis. It's easier to pull off in a Cicada chassis.

Edited by Vapor Trail, 27 February 2013 - 12:15 PM.

[Sephlock]

The devs just need to keep the core of the mechs' respective roles in mind:

Lights:


Mediums:


Heavies:


Assaults:

[Tombstoner]

Doc Holliday, on 27 February 2013 - 10:20 AM, said:

Um.. sorry, but that's way too incoherent to make sense of.


No they won't. The OP's ideas reduce the options by making all weapon systems more alike. And that's NOT subjective. Less variety generally makes games worse, not better. (That's subjective, but generally proves true.)


You haven't posted an objective thing yet, and most of your reasons behind your subjective posts are very poor, bordering on flat-out wrong. Likewise for the OP.


I propose that the current core system works just fine, and you should stop wasting your time on something that doesn't need to be fixed.

And we don't agree, for a host of clearly articulated reasons.
i will presume you have never played CBT and come from a back ground of mw3,4, CS, COD console FPS and such.
I have played CBT, all MW titles, CS and i hate console FPS.
This colors our view of the game.

[Doc Holliday]

Tombstoner, on 27 February 2013 - 12:32 PM, said:

And we don't agree, for a host of clearly articulated reasons.
i will presume you have never played CBT and come from a back ground of mw3,4, CS, COD console FPS and such.
I have played CBT, all MW titles, CS and i hate console FPS.
This colors our view of the game.

You would be correct about one thing: I've never played CBT. Never had the opportunity.

You would be incorrect about the rest: I've also never played any other MechWarrior game, and I absolutely despise console FPS. The only good thing I can say about console FPS is that on some of them you can play 4-player split screen with your IRL friends. GoldenEye for N64 was the only console FPS I ever enjoyed, and that was only because I hadn't discovered real FPS's on PC yet.

[REDACTED]

Edited by Viterbi, 27 February 2013 - 03:48 PM.
Removed directed reference

[Zyllos]

Doc Holliday, on 27 February 2013 - 11:02 AM, said:

Quote

Doc, and any others who think along the same lines he/she does, just say yes or no to these questions and give a reason why:

Can we agree that the armor values are a direct relation to the CBT, except at 2x the value (32 points per ton instead of 16)?

Like everything else, armor values were directly translated and then changed as needed to better suit a FPS. It's no longer a direct translation. How exactly it was changed is moot.

Quote

Can we agree that the chance to hit locations was the factor in why the CT can hold more than the LT/RT, than the LL/RL, than the LA/RA (CT had the most because it was the most hit location based on dice rolls) in CBT/TT?

I never played any kind of BT before this game, but I highly doubt that. It doesn't make sense on any level. The logical purpose for CT having more armor is because if you lose CT, your mech is instantly dead. Unless you're running an XL engine, you can lose any of the other locations and still keep going. Also, CT is generally a larger area, and therefore more easy to hit (hence why it still needs more armor than LT/RT even with an XL engine. It has absolutely nothing to do with some random chance-to-hit factor.

Quote

Can we agree that since there is no randomization (other than Splitting Arm/Torso convergence locations only during torso movement, lasers being DoT), certain locations will take disportionally more damage than other locations because everyone can converge their weaponry onto a single location?

Having no randomization is fantastic, because it allows the player to decide what his best target is. Do you want to go straight for the kill? Go for CT - but be aware, getting through that heavy armor may take a while. Maybe it's more important to just remove some of the damage you're taking ASAP. Go for the more lightly-armored arm or side torso. Or maybe your target's mobility is a problem. Go for the legs.

Quote

If weapons did not converge, then it takes a player much more skill to hit all their weapons onto a single location, which is a MUCH better translation from CBT to MWO.

How "good" the translation is, should and does take second priority to how fun the game is to play.

Again, if that is your key focus, this is not the right game for you. I know, the right game doesn't exist, and I'm sorry for that. But this game is not, cannot, never will be that direct translation you're looking for.

Thank you, I see progress here.

In regards to the first question, yes, I agree that it was changed due to it being a FPS. But that is still the same system of distribution of armor relating to CBT (just doubled) while having all weapons hit a single point.

It's like this, they doubled armor to compensate for MUCH higher damage output to a single location at any given shooting. As you can tell, people are still dealing WAY too much damage to these single locations. There is no reason to aim for arms because it takes you 1 or 2 extra alphas to just destroy a torso section (removing the arm with it) or killing the mech outright.

So, if you decide more armor is needed to keep this from happening, it will reinforce this behavior more. If you redistribute the amount of allowed armor more to the torso sections, away from the limbs, then the limbs will just be instant removal from alpha strikes. There is no way to fix this because all the weapons can hit the same location at any given firing.

Relating to the second question, yes, it is logical in how armor was distributed. Yes, the CT means you lose your mech, but the CT is also the location where you hit the most. And that distribution of tonnage of armor allowed is exactly to the distribution of chance to hit a specific location.

The third question, is 100% true, and I agree. But it really did not answer the question asked, in respect to the first two questions. A location will receive disportionally more damage than the distribution confers to portray. I am ok with letting the player converge some of the weaponry onto a location they aim, but some of the other weaponry also need to be extremely hard to hit the same location without taking time to aim the weapon, thus making it impossible to converge all those weapons onto the same location.

And the last question, I think this is the game, because PGI said they played CBT and they are trying to draw as much as possible from CBT. They want many of the aspects from CBT to be translated into MWO. The issue is that they thought just splitting the aiming between arms/torsos is enough of splitting the convergence of weaponry so that people can't just alpha strike all their weapons.

Their solution was not enough. And this is especially true when your movement is stopped, thus both arms and torso weaponry converge onto the same single point, which is WAY too much firepower for the current distribution of armor.

Edited by Zyllos, 27 February 2013 - 01:18 PM.

[Doc Holliday]

Zyllos, on 27 February 2013 - 01:17 PM, said:

Thank you, I see progress here.

In regards to the first question, yes, I agree that it was changed due to it being a FPS. But that is still the same system of distribution of armor relating to CBT (just doubled) while having all weapons hit a single point.

Like I said, they changed what they needed to in order to make it work properly for an FPS. The current system works fine. I don't see anyone dying too quick to any single mech. You should die quickly if you get focus-fired by a lot of mechs. There's nothing wrong with that.

Quote

It's like this, they doubled armor to compensate for MUCH higher damage output to a single location at any given shooting. As you can tell, people are still dealing WAY too much damage to these single locations. There is no reason to aim for arms because it takes you 1 or 2 extra alphas to just destroy a torso section (removing the arm with it) or killing the mech outright.

And that all works fine. Sure, maybe they need to tweak armor distribution a bit to make arms (for example) a more desirable target. There's nothing here though that demonstrates any kind of need to scrap the whole aiming/firing system and put in something that does little except homogenize weapons and take the potential for player skill out of the equation.

Quote

So, if you decide more armor is needed to keep this from happening, it will reinforce this behavior more. If you redistribute the amount of allowed armor more to the torso sections, away from the limbs, then the limbs will just be instant removal from alpha strikes. There is no way to fix this because all the weapons can hit the same location at any given firing.

I don't see a problem with that at all. If a mech builds for that kind of alpha strike, he's leaving himself with other kinds of gaping weaknesses. You're also giving PPC snipers way too much credit.

Quote

Relating to the second question, yes, it is logical in how armor was distributed. Yes, the CT means you lose your mech, but the CT is also the location where you hit the most. And that distribution of tonnage of armor allowed is exactly to the distribution of chance to hit a specific location.

Duh. Of course it is. That's because the chance to hit table is supposed to represent a human pilot with human error attempting to shoot the center torso, because that's where the quick kill is. Neither the chance to hit nor armor distribution is based off the other. They're both based off the simple logic of shooting at a machine designed to resemble a human. There's no mystery there.

Quote

The third question, is 100% true, and I agree. But it really did not answer the question asked, in respect to the first two questions. A location will receive disportionally more damage than the distribution confers to portray. I am ok with letting the player converge some of the weaponry onto a location they aim, but some of the other weaponry also need to be extremely hard to hit the same location without taking time to aim the weapon, thus making it impossible to converge all those weapons onto the same location.

You asked a bunch of loaded questions. I'm not going to give you a simple yes/no answer like you were trying to force, because that's not the kind of answer your question deserved. I gave you the best answer.

Quote

And the last question, I think this is the game, because PGI said they played CBT and they are trying to draw as much as possible from CBT. They want many of the aspects from CBT to be translated into MWO. The issue is that they thought just splitting the aiming between arms/torsos is enough of splitting the convergence of weaponry so that people can't just alpha strike all their weapons.

It doesn't matter what PGI said at this point, because what we have is a shooter, not a mech sim. You're looking for a mech sim. This game is not what you're looking for. It's that simple. Did they lie to you? Probably.

Quote

Their solution was not enough. And this is especially true when your movement is stopped, thus both arms and torso weaponry converge onto the same single point, which is WAY too much firepower for the current distribution of armor.

Their solution is perfect for a shooter. You don't want a shooter. I get that. You want an in-depth tactical Mech sim where 1 on 1 fights take a minute or more, and depend on the skills of the mech as much as the pilot.

This is not that game. You may as well take your head out of the sand and face up to it. You'll be a lot happier if you do.

Edited by Doc Holliday, 27 February 2013 - 01:37 PM.

[Karr285]

I still like how this thread has turned into a No we dont even want to think about trying to test a change even for 1 week then revert just to see how people feel about it.

may as well leave the game as is and go Full open game because any change is a bad idea even without testing it first.

[Shumabot]

Karr285, on 27 February 2013 - 02:07 PM, said:

I still like how this thread has turned into a No we dont even want to think about trying to test a change even for 1 week then revert just to see how people feel about it.

may as well leave the game as is and go Full open game because any change is a bad idea even without testing it first.

You cant institute the changes suggested here in one week. It would require the creation of an entirely new mechanic, the application of that mechanic to everything, and then bug testing on it. They already can't do things without a month lag, so we'd be looking at probably 2-4 months of what is a truly awful solution to a problem that doesn't exist. Not a week.