1063 replies to this topic

[C E Dwyer]

TheForce, on 07 January 2013 - 07:52 PM, said:

With group fire and pinpoint accuracy, this game is NOT MechWarrior.

MW2, MW3, and MW4 were NOT MechWarrior either.

These are all "MinmaxWarrior Robot Wars" games.

This game will NEVER be MechWarrior unless group fire and pinpoint accuracy is addressed.

Unfortunately 1/2 the people (or even more) playing this game only know the previous games and think hey are MechWarrior

without some serious changes to the way it works completely agree

[C E Dwyer]

Niko Snow, on 28 April 2013 - 09:24 PM, said:

Finally going to speak up in this thread which I've been watching grow for months now and try to ask a question without hurting the sensitivities of anyone involved.... am I the only one here reading the title in the voice of Invader Zim?

A post on what is basically the core of 80% of the arguments about MWO, you throw in levity..

Its Abit like Batman telling a joke...

Uncalled for

[TemplarGFX]

Ballistic direct fire weapons should be effected by gravity and wind making long range shots more skillful. Also, any ballistic weapon should never be 100% accurate, unless the ammo is guided it is not going to fly in a super straight non-varied path.
Are ballistic shots effected by mech momentum? They should be


I think the idea of adding spread just when shooting in a group is idiotic, firing them in a group does not change the weapons statistics or make the physical weapon suddenly and temporarily less accurate. They should have spread at all times. even a TINY amount of spread (0.05-0.1 degrees) would be enough to make CT glancing shots have potential to hit the L/R torso, but a clean centred shot will always hit the CT.

[Vapor Trail]

Ballistic drop on most ballistic weapons would be less than 4.9m, meaning you aim a bit above the head for a center of mass shot, and even then you'd get arguments about how the crosshairs are supposed to automatically correct for ballistic drop at range...

Try to add random wind speeds and directions (not to mention middle of match shifts) and you're likely to get the "no RNG" crowd in an uproar.

TemplarGFX, on 12 May 2013 - 06:38 PM, said:

They should have spread at all times. even a TINY amount of spread (0.05-0.1 degrees) would be enough to make CT glancing shots have potential to hit the L/R torso, but a clean centred shot will always hit the CT.

Depends on what weapon you're asking for to have the 0.1 spread.

Just so everyone's on the same page, 0.1 degree of spread, at 540m (PPC optimum range) is less than a meter radius, or a maximum impact area of 2.79 square meters.

This is what that impact area (red) looks like, when centered on the nose of a Stalker:

Yes, that little greeble is supposed to be partially included. Did this fast so it has a couple flaws.

Even the largest deviation (0.1 degrees, or 6 MoA) is fairly small.

At 270m (medium laser optimum range) the radius would be half that radius.

I could get behind having all weapons having a roughly equal base accuracy at their respective optimum ranges.

Edited by Vapor Trail, 13 May 2013 - 12:49 PM.

[TemplarGFX]

Vapor Trail, on 13 May 2013 - 12:41 PM, said:

Ballistic drop on most ballistic weapons would be less than 4.9m, meaning you aim a bit above the head for a center of mass shot, and even then you'd get arguments about how the crosshairs are supposed to automatically correct for ballistic drop at range...

Try to add random wind speeds and directions (not to mention middle of match shifts) and you're likely to get the "no RNG" crowd in an uproar.



Depends on what weapon you're asking for to have the 0.1 spread.

Just so everyone's on the same page, 0.1 degree of spread, at 540m (PPC optimum range) is less than a meter radius, or a maximum impact area of 2.79 square meters.

This is what that impact area (red) looks like, when centered on the nose of a Stalker:

Yes, that little greeble is supposed to be partially included. Did this fast so it has a couple flaws.

Even the largest deviation (0.1 degrees, or 6 MoA) is fairly small.

At 270m (medium laser optimum range) the radius would be half that radius.

I could get behind having all weapons having a roughly equal base accuracy at their respective optimum ranges.

This is exactly what I head pictured in my head. the spread is not huge, and means if your a good shot, it still hits the area your shooting at, but shots closer to the borders of two body sections may hit the adjasent areas.

[HRR Mary]

TemplarGFX, on 13 May 2013 - 01:28 PM, said:

This is exactly what I head pictured in my head. the spread is not huge, and means if your a good shot, it still hits the area your shooting at, but shots closer to the borders of two body sections may hit the adjasent areas.

Keep in mind that anyone who can aim will keep on alphastriking ad nauseam with that kind of option. I know that I will still be able to land CT shots at 500+ meters with the same precision as today.

Your idea has merits, but does not adress totally the main issue that is combining multiple weapons of the same type to create "UberWeapons". It also rewards people that actually close in and unload their full volley at 180m, on a specific pannel.

EDIT : not that I'm opposed to having brawlers viable, mind you, but the overall goal is to give AlphaStriking, and to a lesser extent Group firing some drawback, as today they are the dominating way of playing, and negate the purpose of having doubled the armor values in the first place.

Edited by HRR Mary, 14 May 2013 - 12:29 AM.

[Roadbuster]

There are 2 approaches to reduce alpha strike viability and limit the pinpoint accuracy.

1. Remove the added effect of heat sinks increasing the heat threshold of a mech to limit the number of weapons (especially heat intensive weapons) that can be fired at a time without the risk ov overheating.

2. Remove the instant convergence of weapons to spread hits and therefore damage over a mech.

Mech quirks could have an effect on 1. (increased threshold for Awesomes for example) and it could be possible to hit the same spot with all fired weapons if you could keep your crosshair on it for 3 seconds for example.

Make mixed loadouts more viable by limiting the advantages of full loadout alpha stikes.

[TemplarGFX]

I like the idea someone else mentioned of having manually set convergence on non-arm weapons. like 2 keys that inc/dec convergence for these weapons in realtime in game. It still allows you to set the right convergence for your sniping, but requires adjustment should you or your target move, and increase the difficulty while actively moving to converge all your weapons on a single point.

[Vapor Trail]

HRR Mary, on 13 May 2013 - 11:59 PM, said:

Keep in mind that anyone who can aim will keep on alphastriking ad nauseam with that kind of option. I know that I will still be able to land CT shots at 500+ meters with the same precision as today.

Your idea has merits, but does not adress totally the main issue that is combining multiple weapons of the same type to create "UberWeapons". It also rewards people that actually close in and unload their full volley at 180m, on a specific pannel.

EDIT : not that I'm opposed to having brawlers viable, mind you, but the overall goal is to give AlphaStriking, and to a lesser extent Group firing some drawback, as today they are the dominating way of playing, and negate the purpose of having doubled the armor values in the first place.

This would be the "base accuracy." Basically this is what you'd have normally. The other side of the coin is heat based penalties. The hotter your mech is, the bigger the spread gets. So the second alpha is going to scatter itself all over the mech... if it hits at all.

[Pht]

TemplarGFX, on 12 May 2013 - 06:38 PM, said:

Ballistic direct fire weapons should be effected by gravity and wind making long range shots more skillful.

The 'Mech calculates all the ballistics and other such things. The MechWarrior does not do these calculations, and indeed, couldn't do them anywhere near fast enough or precisely enough.

TechManual, Pg 42 said:

But BattleMech computers do handle an incredible amount of lower-level decision-making. The T&T system, for instance, sorts, processes and interprets sensor data for the MechWarrior, who only has to look at his screens or HUD to get a concise picture of the battlefield. When targeting, a MechWarrior merely uses a control stick to aim a crosshair on a display that shows the enemy. It is up to the BattleMech to actually aim the weapons with all the calculations that entails.

It is also mostly up to the BattleMech to compensate for the recoil of its autocannons or the blasts of hostile fire while moving in the direction a MechWarrior sets. Yes, a MechWarrior can correct the BattleMech on its balance, such as telling the BattleMech when to ride with the blasts rather than leaning against them, or when to throw itself off -balance and into another BattleMech, but a lot of the decision-making gets done by the DI computer.

http://www.battlecor...roducts_id=1876

... and yes, this TM source is authoritative on the topic:

Cray said:

Pht said:

For example, are the Tech Manual "fluff" descriptions of how a BattleMech's targeting and tracking system and diagnostic interface do the grunt work of aiming 'Mech weaponry something that novelists and other writers would have to adhere to? Or can such "fluff" be ignored at will by novelists to provide their versions of how BattleMech's perform and behave?

That fluff of Tech Manual would be adhered to by default. I can and have pointed out mistakes in control descriptions in BattleCorps stories and referred the author to the Tech Manual for the correct descriptions.

http://bg.battletech....html#msg591660


Skill in calculating lead/convergence is replaced by having to know how well your 'Mech can handle whatever situation is occurring when you pull the trigger(s) and what you can do to make it's job easier.

----------

I think it somewhere between odd and funny that all of this work is being spent trying to invent an ultimate precision ceiling for battlemechs when we already know how well they can get multiple weapons to hit a single armor panel:



"front/rear" is for a shot to center of mass, left side is for left center of mass, right side is for right center of mass.



Shot from Above is for when a Mechwarrior is trying to aim for the neck/shoulders/cockpit area, shot from below is from aiming at legs, and notice, if you aim low or high, you can't hit the opposite end, so no, you can't aim at his foot and hit his cockpit - people who tell you this don't know what they're talking about.

... and yes, the hit-tables represent the MECH'S ability to get multiple independently aimed weapons aimed onto a single location versus a mobile 'Mech sized target:

Herb Beas (BT Line developer) said:

As to Hit Location Tables, they are designed to approximate the basic targeting system's goal of aiming for center mass (which is why they weight the bell curve to the torsos), while both attacker and target are in motion on a chaotic battlefield filled with ambient electronic noise.

http://bg.battletech...j6gd6#msg676405

Above tables are from:

Total Warfare - http://www.battlecor...s=total+warfare

&

Tactical Operations - http://www.battlecor...roducts_id=2124

More detail here: http://mwomercs.com/...different-idea/

Edited by Pht, 15 May 2013 - 05:45 PM.

[Skinflowers]

*Nudge*

Don't let this issue die guys.

[NoxMorbis]

I agree with a lot of what you are saying here about weapons. I stopped playing a few weeks ago because of it. It's like every mech I loved and every mech now seems like you're shooting with a bb gun. I started playing my 3L more and it was much funner, but that gets old.

The huge damage reduction on SRMs was my last straw, as my favorite mech loads used them and were reliant on them doing the damage they did to be effective. I may come back and try the new spreads as that would increase damage by allowing more misssels to hit the target area.

It also semed to me that if you got enough weapons on a heavy or assualt, you know, to do assualt like damage, you would just simple overheat ever other shot. I mean having 3 AC2s would shut, shut you down with any type of sustained fire--which is necessary using AC2s. It was rediculous.

There are some good things in the last patch, so when I get time I'll try again.

[Banditman]

While I admit to not reading all 51 pages, I did read the OP. I am not a fan of the solution as presented there.

What I could see working is a modified system of convergence that takes weapon location (arms vs torso) and speed of the firing mech into account.

First off, as someone else mentioned, it doesn't really make any sense that torso mounted weapons can vary their convergence point. They should have a fixed convergence based on their optimal range. So, a torso mounted Medium Laser for instance should converge at 270 meters. That would begin to help the problem, but it would also introduce some weird problems in firing at a laterally moving target. I'm not sure it would work in practice, but I'd be willing to jump on the test server to see how it feels.

Secondly, instead of addressing a cone of fire directly at a group of weapons, address a cone of fire by basing it on the speed of the firing player. A mech standing still probably can put up pinpoint damage against a target. On the other hand, a mech moving 70 kph probably should have a significant cone of fire for his weapons. Basically, have the cone size based on speed. The faster you're moving, the larger your cone is. Slow down to take good shots, speed up to be a harder target.

I'm not sure either of those two will really address the bigger issue of MWO trying to draw in the Counter Strike crowd. The general FPS crowd wants the ability to kill in a single strike, or at most two. We see this constantly. It's not truly a problem until you try to mix the people who want that sort of gameplay with the ones who want to see an Atlas stand up to 30 seconds or more of focused fire. This is where your real problem sits right now.

Some people want a strategic style game with time built in to the actual gameplay itself. Others want 2 minutes of gameplay and on to the next match. I hate to break it to PGI, but they can't attract both crowds. They're going to have to pick on crowd and focus on it. Trying to please both creates a game that neither crowd enjoys. Oh, look where we are!

[Pht]

Banditman, on 12 June 2013 - 08:33 AM, said:

While I admit to not reading all 51 pages,

How dare you admit you have a life!

Quote

I did read the OP. I am not a fan of the solution as presented there.

Ditto, although I totally agree with him about the problem he's pointing out.

There are other fixes - some people advocate a pure cones of fire system... and I seem to be the odd man out, advocating something else than cones of fire, or accurate chain fire, etc: http://mwomercs.com/...different-idea/

Quote

First off, as someone else mentioned, it doesn't really make any sense that torso mounted weapons can vary their convergence point.

Not only does it make sense that they can be individually aimed by the 'mech, they actually are - see this post above yours, for a "straight from the horse's mouth" confirmation on this.

Basically, they're mounted to stepper motors, or have focusing lenses, etc.

Quote

Secondly, instead of addressing a cone of fire directly at a group of weapons, address a cone of fire by basing it on the speed of the firing player.

Yes on this, just not on the cone of fire idea. There are also many other (intutively grasped) conditions that can cause a battlemech to have trouble aligning it's weapons - many of which are listed on that link further up in my post.

Quote

A mech standing still probably can put up pinpoint damage against a target.

Actually, they can't - and this is just one of the quirks of the lore. VS a target that can't move ("Immobile"), however, any mech can get a good chunk of it's weapons to hit a single armor panel.

This might seem annoying but actually, given the TT armor values vs the TT weapons damage profiles, it's fine. Yes, the mechs really are like this in the lore - BT fictional setting weapons are obscenely accurate - it's just that the 'Mechs themselves aren't capable of consistently getting multiple weapons to hit a single armor panel on a targeted mobile 'mech.

Quote

On the other hand, a mech moving 70 kph probably should have a significant cone of fire for his weapons. Basically, have the cone size based on speed. The faster you're moving, the larger your cone is. Slow down to take good shots, speed up to be a harder target.

Ditto - and listed at link in post above in hard black and white math.

Quote

I'm not sure either of those two will really address the bigger issue of MWO trying to draw in the Counter Strike crowd. The general FPS crowd wants the ability to kill in a single strike, or at most two. We see this constantly. It's not truly a problem until you try to mix the people who want that sort of gameplay with the ones who want to see an Atlas stand up to 30 seconds or more of focused fire. This is where your real problem sits right now.

Yes, the balance between insta and almost insta-kill gameplay vs rewarding thinking players is a problem.

Most of the time this coms out in what people call "balance" discussions.

Most of the times I've seen balance discussed, most people advocate what amounts to whack-a-mole balance. No one weapon or thing can be much better or worse than any other. However, this means that there will be a "the best" style of gameplay and *nothing else* will work nearly as good as said tactic.

Myself, I prefer a different type of balance - any tactic can work as long as it's reasonable (for instance, unreasonable = using a small laser boat on an extremely hot totally flat desert map, etc). This way, some weapons and mechs can be actually ... better... or worse - and this doesn't effect gameplay.

Also, this sort of balance allows for multiple different gameplay types - not just high damage pinpoint alphas or such.

Long story short, if the armor/weapons damage/combat system were more like the novels (and the TT combat system by that proxy) - insta-kill players could make those extreme tradeoffs to be able to insta-kill... and more stragetic thinkers could be rewarded for their time spent planning.

It's just a different idea of what "balance" is.

Edited by Pht, 12 June 2013 - 03:57 PM.

[Leafia Barrett]

Let me preface this by saying that I personally don't give 2 ****s about the lore, and I did not read all 51 pages, though I did read through the first 5 or so. I'm also not the most experienced pilot, so perhaps I don't have the world's best grasp on how exactly this might affect the game balance, but this is my own personal opinion.

Let it be known that I do not support cone of fire for straight-shooting weapons. Adding a randomness element to a skill-based game is not, never has been, and never will be a good idea. When I defeat somebody, I want it to be because I either outwitted them or outplayed them, not because I got lucky. However, I do agree that simply being able to point and click with no thought to the aiming process and getting a full burst focused on one point is a bad idea. I suggest a system of convergence based on 5 factors. In no particular order:
1) The speed the attacking mech is moving.
2) The speed and distance at which the reticle's target is focused on is changing.
3) The body part that the weapon is attached to.
4) (arms only) The mech in question.
5) The weapon in question.

1: The speed the attacking mech is moving
This is obvious. The computer would have more trouble converging while the mech's position is constantly changing.

2: The speed and distance at which the reticle's target distance is changing
Trying to converge on a quickly moving enemy should be difficult, obviously.
To clarify what I mean by distance: The angle adjustment for aiming at something that changes between 1000m and 900m is considerably smaller than the adjustment between 150m and 50m. The reason for that specification is that holding a steady shot on something 1000m away that's approaching at 150kph requires less rapid movement than the speed would suggest.

3: The body part that the weapon is attached to
As a rule of thumb, the arms would be easier to adjust convergence on by the simple function of being arms, and thus being able to move faster. Torso weapons would still be able to converge, but because they rely solely on the equivalent of fine motor controls (subtle lens changes or very small gimbals), they would take longer. However, arms would also be "twitchier", so to speak: if your aim were to slip off the target and onto something 400m behind it, i.e. a wall, the arms would make a sharp adjustment, which could make getting convergence on the arms back tougher, while the torso-mounted weapons would hold steadier.

4: (Arms only) The mech in question
Obviously, a mech with fully articulated arms will have faster arm convergence than a mech that only has rotating discs, such as the Jenner. (This mainly applies to horizontal convergence, but vertical convergence isn't as big of an aspect in the first place, so...)

5: The weapon in question
Here's where any sense of real-life logic has to take a backseat to game balance. A powerful long-range weapon, such as an ERPPC, should take longer to get a bead on a target than, say, a small laser. And by that logic, constant-fire weapons (MGs and Flamers are the only ones right now, I think) would have close to instant convergence, mainly because the only way for them to really be effective is to hold a truly constant stream of damage- they don't have enough burst damage to hold up otherwise.

Edited by Leafia Barrett, 18 June 2013 - 07:01 AM.

[Frisk]

Again, there was a minority of us at the very beginning that were railing the fact that allowing modifications to the mechs will result in a game that is unable to be "truly" balanced.

If you want to fix everything cited here, simply lock variants to their stock configurations and problem solved.

BT:3025 did this and at first (being a MW2-4+ player) I was upset, but quickly realized it allowed for easier balancing and a greater amount of mech diversity.

JUST A THOUGHT (suggestion):

What if it was required to have a module slot used to change a weapon. For example... my CN9 has its stock loadout. If I'd like to change my AC5 to an AC10 I would have to have the appropriate module to allow for the change...

Edited by Frisk, 13 June 2013 - 08:53 AM.

[HRR Mary]

Leafia Barrett, on 13 June 2013 - 08:42 AM, said:

Let it be known that I do not support cone of fire for straight-shooting weapons. Adding a randomness element to a skill-based game is not, never has been, and never will be a good idea. When I defeat somebody, I want it to be because I either outwitted them or outplayed them, not because I got lucky. However, I do agree that simply being able to point and click with no thought to the aiming process and getting a full burst focused on one point is a bad idea. I suggest a system of convergence based on 4 factors. In no particular order:

I wish anyone could explain to me how having a cone of fire, dependant on how you are firing weapons, is needing less skill than firing all weapons at once on a single point.

it seemed to me the first one rewards discipline and a good coordination, while the second is just point and click...

[Lightfoot]

You can't transition random dice hit locations. Players are being tested on whether or not they can hit them, that puts interactive skill into MWO. At the same time the critical hits that destroy the mechs are random.

You could probably come to a compromise by making the CT and side torso hitboxes smaller and have the arm section extend over the shoulders.

If you did add a cone of fire you would also have to standardize the size of the hitboxes or you would get a horribly balanced game.

[Buzzsaw Bob]

wow, this is the longest thread my eyes have ever seen. I got eighteen pages in before I had enough. I don't think that anyone has ever had their point of view changed by a forum discussion.
Sometimes I feel like I am one of the few who has a really good time playing the game. I have found something I like and my pals and I consistently play through the nerfs and changes (with much grumbling to each other, but not crying out for more changes) we play, we find out what works, we experiment, and we find builds that are effective and fun
Sometimes I feel that people who enjoy the game are a vocal minority, since rarely does one make signs and camp out in front of an institution and chant "EVERYTHING IS FINE, EVERYTHING IS FINE, EVERYTHING is ..... you get the picture.

It is a universal truth that you cannot please everyone, I would not recommend trying.......that way lies madness...

[StaIker]

If cone of fire is a fixed value it will strongly favor close range combat over ranged, as there will be negligable spread at ~200m compared to 600m+. You would have to be very careful that the effect didn't make ranged weapons an ineffective deterrent against a rushing force. If they can confidently get into close range with only moderate damage and little or no risk of dead Mechs then ranged weapons cease to have any worthwhile function except as a softening and harassing tool. All combat will degenerate into rushes once this is discovered. At close range the alpha strike effect will still retain it's full power.

This is my main worry, any system that makes killing stuff at range a difficult proposition compared to point blank will naturally evolve into a game where no one even bothers using long range weapons - or the tactics that go with them.