54 replies to this topic

[Stringburka]

Zyllos: How would you feel about a convergence point that is set beforehand? So that someone who wants a really close convergence will adjust their torso mounted weaponry before the match to be like / | \ while someone who wants a further distance have them set like nearly | | |?

I agree that the current quickly adjusted convergence point is a bad idea though.

[Zyllos]

Stringburka, on 18 February 2013 - 06:36 AM, said:

Zyllos: How would you feel about a convergence point that is set beforehand? So that someone who wants a really close convergence will adjust their torso mounted weaponry before the match to be like / | \ while someone who wants a further distance have them set like nearly | | |?

I agree that the current quickly adjusted convergence point is a bad idea though.

Here is my problem with this: at some point, you can converge all your weapons at some point. I am looking for torso mounted weapons to never converge so you have to adjust your fire leading to you having to react differently with each shot based on location.

Missile weapons really are not an issue but Laser and Ballistic weaponry are where this issue comes into play. Players just want to destroy single locations to be as efficient as possible, especially in destroying side torsos.

Honestly, I would want all weapons never converge. They are all basically stuck facing a single direction. So the space between weapons mounted on an arm would also produce the same distance between impacts. The Jagermech is a perfect example of this effect, that AC/2 and AC/5 on the same arm would land equidistant with the weapons mounted on the arm. But the arm mounted weapons would converge on the Arm crosshair. While the 2 Medium Lasers would just be pointed straight ahead, facing the same direction as the Torso crosshair.

So to answer your question, I would take your idea over no change in the current mechanics but it would add more spread on damage than the current implementation, but it is not my ideal mechanic change.

sC4r, on 18 February 2013 - 06:18 AM, said:

...
this is already ingame man
...

It actually is not in the game. While the actuators act in the manner suggested, you can not destroy the actual actuators.

Edited by Zyllos, 18 February 2013 - 06:55 AM.

[Stringburka]

Zyllos, on 18 February 2013 - 06:52 AM, said:

Here is my problem with this: at some point, you can converge all your weapons at some point. I am looking for torso mounted weapons to never converge so you have to adjust your fire leading to you having to react differently with each shot based on location.

Yes, but having a single point of convergence means you can avoid this by being at the exact right distance - so positioning becomes more important. With no convergence at all you NEED to have great gunnery skills, with a fixed convergence you can sub lacking gunnery skills with careful positioning - although, as soon as they move closer/farther away you lose that again, potentially having even harder to hit than if you didn't set a convergence point at all. For example, if your weapons converge at 150 meters for a closecombat 'mech, anyone keeping at 300 meters will be hard to hit, and if someone's at 600 your torso weapons will be more or less useless.

It gives a choice to the pilot and allows those that are great at movement and positioning to somewhat compensate their lacking gunnery skills with that, which seems fair.

[focuspark]

... wait, doesn't this suggestion imply that SRM6 boats aren't the end-all-be-all of evil?

Oh, and just removing convergence from torso mounted weapons would do nearly the same thing

[Artgathan]

Inyc, on 17 February 2013 - 10:19 AM, said:

My Centurion has 10 tubes launcher on his torso with 3 hard points. If I equip 3 LRM 10s, 30 missiles fire out in a single volley from my 10 tubes. I think this is what the OP was talking about as being broken.

It only seems to work on certain mechs. For example, if you fire an SRM6 out of the Raven 3L's left (right?) arm (the one that comes with the Narc hole) each missile will fire one at a time (allowing for a hilarious LRM20 machine-gun). It's also working on the Cataphract 2X: there are only 4 missile ports, so missiles fire in volleys of 4 (if you fire an LRM5 it launches 4 missiles and then 1 more).

[Syllogy]

Torso Twisting already does everything you are talking about.

Instead of showing your chest to an enemy, twist your torso away after a shot so you arm works as a shield.

Pinpoint weapons aren't the issue. Pilots are.

[sC4r]

Zyllos, on 18 February 2013 - 06:52 AM, said:

"this is already ingame man "

It actually is not in the game. While the actuators act in the manner suggested, you can not destroy the actual actuators.

you never mentioned that you also wanted it to be possible to damage aculators only that the arms would act dependting on which aculators they had so in fact what you suggested in op is in the game

and this suggestion however isnt in game but yea this could encourage to shoot the arms... still its better to finish of enemy asap so CT is the way to go

Edit: very well you did suggest it later... sorry i often tend to read only OP and reply to that

Edited by sC4r, 18 February 2013 - 09:37 AM.

[Stringburka]

Artgathan, on 18 February 2013 - 09:22 AM, said:

It only seems to work on certain mechs. For example, if you fire an SRM6 out of the Raven 3L's left (right?) arm (the one that comes with the Narc hole) each missile will fire one at a time (allowing for a hilarious LRM20 machine-gun). It's also working on the Cataphract 2X: there are only 4 missile ports, so missiles fire in volleys of 4 (if you fire an LRM5 it launches 4 missiles and then 1 more).

From what I've gathered it works the same on all 'mechs.

Each missile tube will fire one missile from each weapon being fired at the same time.

So a narc tube will always launch one missile from each missile weapon in the part (in the case of the Raven though, there is only one missile hardpoint so it doesn't matter). The CTF on the other hand, has four tubes and two hardpoints - so if you equip a single LRM5, it will as you say launch 4+1. If you equip a single LRM10, it will fire 4+4+2. If you equip both, it will fire them at the same time, for a total of 8+5+2 through the four tubes.


EDIT: And while it's true that arms have decent armor and if you fire from straight ahead you should go for torso in a 1-on-1, arm armor is the same in the front and back, so if you are two people working in tandem it's easier to destroy an arm than a torso since you don't have to go through both CT front and back armor, and also can hit it easier from the side.

This is especially important if you are a lighter 'mech.

Edited by Stringburka, 18 February 2013 - 09:39 AM.

[IceSerpent]

Adridos, on 17 February 2013 - 11:04 AM, said:

Actually, it would give some reason to play a Jagermech instead of a K2.

It would, but it would merely replace K2 with Jager as a go-to ballistic mech - not a good approach imho. It would be much better to fix the darn convergence and have both configs equally viable.

Zyllos, on 17 February 2013 - 02:53 PM, said:

Yes, but you know how vulnerable arms are in this game? There should be a greater emphasis on wanting to destroy mech arms if you want to reduce the power of certain mechs instead of just always going for the torso.

It still would make torso-mounted weapons obsolete with the sole exeption of guided missiles, as they are unaffected by convergence (assuming that you feel like packing those).

MustrumRidcully, on 18 February 2013 - 01:16 AM, said:

I believe this isn't a big deal. Or rather, there is something that will mitigate the effect - if you go for putting all your guns in your arms, then they become prime targets. And the only thing with worse armour than the arms is the head. It suddenly makes not going for CT kills a lot more attractive.

It actually is that big of a deal - torso mounted weapons (non-guided ones) that don't converge are practically useless, so your "choice" would be either have guns that don't hit anything or put them in the arms - take your pick.

[Stringburka]

IceSerpent, on 18 February 2013 - 09:56 AM, said:

It would, but it would merely replace K2 with Jager as a go-to ballistic mech - not a good approach imho. It would be much better to fix the darn convergence and have both configs equally viable.

Yeah, it's important that the ballistics-weapon based 'mech isn't better at ballistics than the energy based one.

Quote

It still would make torso-mounted weapons obsolete with the sole exeption of guided missiles, as they are unaffected by convergence (assuming that you feel like packing those).

Not really, as many weapons can only be mounted on the torso of many 'mechs.

Quote

It actually is that big of a deal - torso mounted weapons (non-guided ones) that don't converge are practically useless, so your "choice" would be either have guns that don't hit anything or put them in the arms - take your pick.

How are they useless? They require a bit more aim and can't be alpha'd as easily, but having to aim slightly above the stalker's head to hit at distance with the side-torso mounted gauss, move the aim slightly to the right and fire the second one wouldn't mean those 30 damage where useless, they'd just be a little more difficult to use.

It would also give the dev's an additional way to balance weapons - right now it doesn't matter much where your weapons are placed horisontaly (and only for certain builds does it matter where vertically) but being able to change the location could be a great balancing tool. If they find the cicada 3M to be too weak they could put the lasers right beside each other, if it's too good they can spread it out and make the 'mech less effective.

[Mazzyplz]

i would say only limit convergence time (slower convergence) for torso hardpoints, except center torso.

that should fix everything.

[boobooo42]

Zyllos, on 17 February 2013 - 07:59 AM, said:

TLDR

Remove ability to fire multiple weapons out of the same weapon port at the same time.
Add arm actuator functionality.
Make torso weaponry not converge, but instead fire straight ahead.

1. No, this is why you have hardpoints.
2. Sure, it's getting there already.
3. No. It's stardate 3014.3234235. If their mechanics can't figure out how to zero in torso guns they need to be fired.

[Stringburka]

boobooo42, on 18 February 2013 - 11:47 AM, said:

3. No. It's stardate 3014.3234235. If their mechanics can't figure out how to zero in torso guns they need to be fired.

The same could be said as an argument to anything at all (though IIRC MWO takes place in 3048, or if they're into 3049 now since january).

Now, I'm not that into BT lore, so please correct me if I'm wrong, but: A lot of the technology the game uses is made from currently unobtainable technology (ingame); during the succession wars loads of knowledge, including that of how to make most 'mechs, was lost, and so most 'mechs are quite old by now.

EDIT: Also notice that these aren't some tommyguns on a jeep. The very lightest weapon systems weigh 500 kg, the heavier are at 10 tons or more. I mean, some of their weapons are big as a frakkin' schoolbus, that takes some work to move around.

Edited by Stringburka, 18 February 2013 - 12:37 PM.

[MaddMaxx]

An interesting topic indeed. How about separating the arm and torso reticules such that torso based missile weapons can't be used to target enemy Mechs with the arm reticules. Then after that, instead of disabling convergence in the torso totally, make the torso reticule be sized based on the # of weapons loaded into any one weapons group.

An example would be if we take the current torso reticule and reduce its square size to 1/4 or 1/5 (a 1 weapon min group), and then increase the reticule size by 1/4 or 1/5 for every additional weapon added to the center reticule based group.

With only 3 Mechs currently having 6 slots across the combined LT-CT-RT, once you have a group with 5 weapons in the torso reticule, it would be increased back to max size, or, as we see it now.

The downside would be that the more weapons in the torso based reticule group the less convergence is applied to all ranges and the benefit would be that the fewer weapons you put into a torso based group, the more accurate the spread would be via the smaller shooting square you see on the screen.

here is a Pic to demonstrate. Each circle represents another weapon on the center group and they all fire straight ahead. Spacing is up for grabs.

Edited by MaddMaxx, 18 February 2013 - 02:24 PM.

[IceSerpent]

Stringburka, on 18 February 2013 - 11:32 AM, said:

Not really, as many weapons can only be mounted on the torso of many 'mechs.

Many? The only one that doesn't fit in the arm of most mechs is AC20.

Quote

How are they useless? They require a bit more aim and can't be alpha'd as easily, but having to aim slightly above the stalker's head to hit at distance with the side-torso mounted gauss, move the aim slightly to the right and fire the second one wouldn't mean those 30 damage where useless, they'd just be a little more difficult to use.

That's pretty much the definition of being useless - why go through all this trouble when you can put all direct fire weapons into the arms and make the targeting much easier?

Quote

It would also give the dev's an additional way to balance weapons - right now it doesn't matter much where your weapons are placed horisontaly (and only for certain builds does it matter where vertically) but being able to change the location could be a great balancing tool. If they find the cicada 3M to be too weak they could put the lasers right beside each other, if it's too good they can spread it out and make the 'mech less effective.

So, you have a choice of HBK-4P with, let's say, all lasers in the same side torso, that requires you to always offset your targeting point from the actual crosshairs or HBK-4SP with lasers in the arms and possibly SSRMs in the torsos - which one would you choose?

[Zyllos]

sC4r, on 18 February 2013 - 09:35 AM, said:

you never mentioned that you also wanted it to be possible to damage aculators only that the arms would act dependting on which aculators they had so in fact what you suggested in op is in the game

and this suggestion however isnt in game but yea this could encourage to shoot the arms... still its better to finish of enemy asap so CT is the way to go

Edit: very well you did suggest it later... sorry i often tend to read only OP and reply to that

It's ok, I do that ALL the time.

"You didn't mention that at all, so your wrong!"

"Oh wait..."

Mazzyplz, on 18 February 2013 - 11:36 AM, said:

i would say only limit convergence time (slower convergence) for torso hardpoints, except center torso.

that should fix everything.

Limiting convergence time by a significant amount of time could also do the same thing as removing convergence. Anything to reduce the amount of pin-point alpha strikes with weapons will do.

boobooo42, on 18 February 2013 - 11:47 AM, said:

1. No, this is why you have hardpoints.
...

The hardpoints were not ment to hide weaponry on top of each other, they were ment to allow for more customization. If you wanted a location which could machine gun lasers, then you equipped multiple lasers in that point and just fired as fast as possible. But allowing both weapons to fire at the same time without other ports hides weapons. It is also used so you can converge/alpha strike as much of your weapons on a single location as easily as possible, which I think needs to be fixed.

IceSerpent, on 18 February 2013 - 12:57 PM, said:

...
That's pretty much the definition of being useless - why go through all this trouble when you can put all direct fire weapons into the arms and make the targeting much easier?
...

But that is kinda the point, at least wanting to have as much weaponry in the arms so you can converge weaopns. But the problem is that arms are non-lethal to lose when destroying the mech. It is also the easiest to destroy, usually.

The whole point is to reduce alpha strike capability (not by 100% but a good chuck of it) of all weapons hitting a single point.

Then it proves a pro/con of wanting to take mechs which can loadout everything in the arms. But since those arms are easy to destroy, if you lose them, your basically useless. Or you can take the loadout of mechs which protects the weapons behind lethal locations but heavily armored areas. The issue is you can't place all that firepower into a single location without some solid gunnery skill.

Or, mix your weaponry, so you are not overly focused on converging weaponry or being too defensive with no converging weaponry.

Edited by Zyllos, 18 February 2013 - 01:22 PM.

[Stringburka]

IceSerpent, on 18 February 2013 - 12:57 PM, said:

Many? The only one that doesn't fit in the arm of most mechs is AC20.

Aaaand everything you don't have hardpoints for. For example, the only way for a raven 3L to (effectively) use SRM-6 is to mount it in side-torso, and the only way for a cicada 3d to mount anything is in it's side torso.

IceSerpent, on 18 February 2013 - 12:57 PM, said:

That's pretty much the definition of being useless - why go through all this trouble when you can put all direct fire weapons into the arms and make the targeting much easier?

Which works for 'mechs with loads of hardpoints in the arms, and that can also armor their arms well.

IceSerpent, on 18 February 2013 - 12:57 PM, said:

So, you have a choice of HBK-4P with, let's say, all lasers in the same side torso, that requires you to always offset your targeting point from the actual crosshairs or HBK-4SP with lasers in the arms and possibly SSRMs in the torsos - which one would you choose?

As said, it can be used to balance the 'mechs - I did not say they would automatically be perfectly balanced as is (and seriously, the 'mech variants are very unbalanced as is now - most chassis have one or two models that clearly outperform the others). In the case of the 4P you'd use it if you want LOADS of lasers, as the 4P have 9 hardpoints and the 4SP only has 5. Also, note that apart from the cockpit mount they can converge exactly as well for an alpha if you're decently skilled - since you only have them in one side torso as well as the arms (and the arms can converge), so it's not that good of an example. Better to compare to HBK-4J, but that version already sucks anyway so...

[MustrumRidcully]

IceSerpent, on 18 February 2013 - 09:56 AM, said:

It actually is that big of a deal - torso mounted weapons (non-guided ones) that don't converge are practically useless, so your "choice" would be either have guns that don't hit anything or put them in the arms - take your pick.

You are overestimating what convergence does for torso mounted weapons. For those, aiming and leading is rather easy.

The challenge are the arms. AT least the arm itself needs convergence, otherwise it would be impossible to aim. TOrso weapons are so close tot he center of your mech that convergence has very little effect. That's why torso-mounted ballistics and PPCs are often preferrable - even if you lead and the convergence is off, it's not off by much.

[S1lent0ne]

IMO you should have to set a fixed convergence for torso weapons for the sake of realism.

[Syllogy]

S1lent0ne, on 18 February 2013 - 01:46 PM, said:

IMO you should have to set a fixed convergence for torso weapons for the sake of realism.

Please 'splain why that would be more real.