54 replies to this topic

[Stringburka]

I don't think "realism" is the right word as much as "verisimillitude", but most art shows the torso-mounted weapons as pretty much set in place in a very stable and fixed manner (for extreme examples, look at the ballistics ports of a HBK-J and AS7-D). They don't seem able to move around a lot.

[Syllogy]

Torso-mounted guns don't move around alot as they are right now.

In any case, a 5% twist is minimal near the pivot point, but has a massive effect at any measurable range.

Taking that away will dramatically effect the dynamics of how firepower works, and not necessarily in a good way.

Edited by Syllogy, 18 February 2013 - 03:59 PM.

[IceSerpent]

Stringburka, on 18 February 2013 - 01:16 PM, said:

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.

Which brings us back to my original point of mechs with a lot of torso hardpoints becoming useless...

Quote

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

...and such mechs would become the only ones you'd see in game.

Quote

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...

Except that 4P would converge 2 lasers in the arms in the crosshairs, 1 laser in the head directly above the crosshairs, and 6 lasers in the RT slightly above and to the right of crosshairs. While 4SP can simply pack bigger lasers in the arms (and converge them all in the crosshairs) and use Streaks as backup weapons (if weight / heat allows). Which one do you think would be less awkward to use and therefore elevated to "the go-to HBK" position?

MustrumRidcully, on 18 February 2013 - 01:20 PM, said:

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.

That's only true in case of a Catapult that has side torso hardpoints very close to its centerline, which is why it's a prime choice for a ballistic boat. Convergence issue is a royal pain for a Cataphract's torso ballistic hardpoint for example. Leading and aiming won't do you any good when target is 50m out and leading causes your reticle to rest on a rock 1km away - the round will go way off to the side and there's nothing you can do about it.

[ohtochooseaname]

I've thought for a long time that torso/non-shoulder arms weapon convergence needs to be removed.

[Zyllos]

I would like to post an update on how arms should converge.

The weapons mounted on the arms themselves will not converge, just the arm's pointed direction will be converged on the Arm crosshair. A good example of this is the HBK-4SP.

You noticed both arms have 2 laser points, one below and to the outside of the hand. Basically, the arms will point directly at the Arm crosshair but the lasers themselves will land just below and to the left/right of the Arm crosshair.

[IceSerpent]

Zyllos, on 22 February 2013 - 10:54 AM, said:

I would like to post an update on how arms should converge.

The weapons mounted on the arms themselves will not converge, just the arm's pointed direction will be converged on the Arm crosshair. A good example of this is the HBK-4SP.

You noticed both arms have 2 laser points, one below and to the outside of the hand. Basically, the arms will point directly at the Arm crosshair but the lasers themselves will land just below and to the left/right of the Arm crosshair.

So, we would have lasers spreading damage and being DoT on top of that, SRMs spreading damage and not being DoT (and having higher alpha)...please remind me again, why would anybody use anything other than SRM6 Cat in this scenario?

[Zyllos]

IceSerpent, on 22 February 2013 - 02:15 PM, said:

So, we would have lasers spreading damage and being DoT on top of that, SRMs spreading damage and not being DoT (and having higher alpha)...please remind me again, why would anybody use anything other than SRM6 Cat in this scenario?

Because SRM/6 can only deal damage out to 270m, and is spread out. Up close, yes, SRM/6s will deal a lot, but you have to remember, you can not launch all those SRMs at the same time due to not have enough missile ports.

Also, up close, those weapons firing straight become less of an issue for trying to land everything on a single point. It will be harder than it is now, but it will be much easier than out at 500m.

And, those lasers, while they do deal DoT, if you notice, many people wield those weapons in large numbers so that each "tick" deals so much damage that you can just spray all over the mech and it will still deal a ton of damage. The Battletech community wants MWO to feel more like Battletech, instead of CoD with mechs.

PGI is helping push this in the right direction every week but there are still several areas of core gameplay that is still missing or not inline with the Battletech style. And I think this one, pin-point alphas and convergence, is one of those gameplay problems with MWO that is majorly effecting the game in a negative way.

[Nexus Omega]

+1

Convergence should be at the max range of the weapon.
Same with arms that can't turn left or right (Raven, Jenner, Catapult etc)

I think it would look cooler on the Hunchback 4P Zap!

I would also like the whole, Chain fire if there aren't enough weapon ports thing.

[Zyllos]

Nexus Omega, on 22 February 2013 - 07:17 PM, said:

+1

Convergence should be at the max range of the weapon.
Same with arms that can't turn left or right (Raven, Jenner, Catapult etc)

I think it would look cooler on the Hunchback 4P Zap!

I would also like the whole, Chain fire if there aren't enough weapon ports thing.

Ya, I am suggesting this as a way to add more variability in the location of hits while not adding a cone-of-fire.

Just everyone (and PGI, I believe said this too) is so against cone-of-fire. But there needs to be some type of mechanic to spread the amount of damage around by controlling the amount of fire you can do out of a single location and allowing them to all converge on a single location.

The only convergence mechanics they have are the Arm/Torso crosshair, which is not enough as you can clearly see. People are just building mechs which boat as many weapons as possible on one of the two crosshairs so they can all hit a single point.

[Zyllos]

Does anyone else think this is a good idea?

[Zyllos]

Just an update, these two threads go hand in hand:

This one and MWO is Dooooomed (With Regard to Weapon Balance). Part 2, Continued from Closed Beta

I would suggest starting on around page 40 or so, unless you like to read a lot about various arguments and reasonings.

Edited by Zyllos, 27 February 2013 - 02:56 PM.

[Zerstorer Stallin]

In closed beta there was a HUGE discussion on and about convergance. As you can see it went the way of pinpoint. There were alot of people who said their should be convergance for arm mounted weapons but not torso. I agree 100% that convergance is a problem that is easy to solve by the above suggestions, however like alot of things here, PGI isnt listen to the long term players. They seem to being down the road of "herp derper" land.

[Zyllos]

Zerstorer Stallin, on 27 February 2013 - 03:05 PM, said:

In closed beta there was a HUGE discussion on and about convergance. As you can see it went the way of pinpoint. There were alot of people who said their should be convergance for arm mounted weapons but not torso. I agree 100% that convergance is a problem that is easy to solve by the above suggestions, however like alot of things here, PGI isnt listen to the long term players. They seem to being down the road of "herp derper" land.

Well, I have not given up yet. They say they will not change things but I have seen them overturn a decision made earlier. We just need to make a convincing argument that PGI will give a response on.

I remember them saying that they did not want to introduce any type of "spray or cone-of-fire" mechanic to the game. I think this is a way to add less convergence without a "spray or cone-of-fire" mechanic they speak of.

And I remember them mentioning that they are implementing Public Test servers. I think this would be a perfect time to try this out for the future. And the fix should be extremely easy to add, knowing other programmers. Just turn off convergence of ray-traces from weapons when firing.

The arms already point in the direction (and converging) on the Arm crosshair and the torsos point toward the Torso crosshair. All the weapons fire exactly where you want them to. No random spray or cone-of-fire, just no convergence of torso weaponry with arm weaponry and no convergence of weapons in the same location (2 weapons mounted in the same arm will not converge).

Edited by Zyllos, 27 February 2013 - 03:14 PM.

[Zerstorer Stallin]

IceSerpent, on 22 February 2013 - 02:15 PM, said:

So, we would have lasers spreading damage and being DoT on top of that, SRMs spreading damage and not being DoT (and having higher alpha)...please remind me again, why would anybody use anything other than SRM6 Cat in this scenario?

uhhh they arent now?!? oh wait they also use 4+ PPC builds, and raven 3l's... thank god I was worried for a second.

If there isnt coveragnce it would force people to stop using boating as then all the weapons would hit. This was and is a good idea.

[Zyllos]

I have noticed a lot of people have been giving ideas and suggestions on how actuators should work and how to reduce the amount of boating.

While my suggestions are not meant to be as a deterrant from boating (because some builds are meant to be boats), they do help balance weapons across arms and torsos. Thus, generally, boats can be negatively effected because if they mount torso weaponry, it is impossible to land your weapon fire with the arms because of convergence at the same firing period.