161 replies to this topic

[Pht]

KraftySOT, on 29 September 2014 - 10:00 AM, said:

Not according to Sarna or the books.

He quoted you the sections of the books that directly speak on the topic. Further, I have directly conversed with Mike Miller, aka CRAY, and the TM source that cray wrote IS authoritative on the subject; even the writers of the novels are required to conform to it AND if you insist on sarna:

Quote

The Outside limits

While the neurohelmet can help translate the MechWarriors basic intentions to the BattleMech and give a small amount of feedback to the MechWarrior, they aren't capable of real-time "mind reading" that would be necessary in order to directly control a battlmechs movements, nor can they input enough data to a MechWarrior to replace the cockpit information systems.
The first Star League could not make helmets capable of this and neither can the Clans.

http://www.sarna.net..._Outside_limits

YOU ARE WRONG.

Quote

Aiming isnt a matter of moving a crosshair (a crosshair thats attached to torso movement) with a joystick onto the target.

Wrong.

sarna said:

On the right

The main joystick. This is the primary control for targeting the weapons systems and control of the 'Mechs arms. It has firing triggers for each of the target interlock circuits (TIC), with as many as six triggers. Weapons aiming is achieved by using this stick to "point" with the reticule on the primary view screen and "clicking" with the desired weapons triggers.

http://www.sarna.net...gy#On_the_right

Quote

Its the helmet sending that information straight to your brain. Youre seeing the hud in your eye, via the transmissions from the helmet.

No.

sarna said:

Advanced neurohelmets are capable of providing sensor and balance information from the 'Mechs sensors to the MechWarrior. This "direct neural virtual reality" is very weak, because even the best neurohelmets cannot put enough signal power into the brain to overwhelm the natural biological sensory signals without cooking brain cells.

http://www.sarna.net...Putting_Data_In

If you insist on this wrong idea I can even pull the direct quotes from tech manual on the topic, along with links to the official forum where the writer of that article explains how this article + the tt rules are the official source on the topic.

[Pht]

WarZ, on 28 September 2014 - 06:39 PM, said:

F'ing NEVER. CoF is garbage and completely ruins an aim and shoot experience. I would quit this game the minute they announced such garbage, and not wait until it was actually patched in.

OP isn't CoF; unless you think that ANY weapons fire spread for ANY reason = Cof... ?

Thorn Hallis, on 29 September 2014 - 03:56 AM, said:

To make total randomness in hits work one would have to shift the entire focus of the game. Instead of getting shots placed at a certain location the game would center around getting ones 'Mech into the best position to have the highest chance of achieving a hit (shown in % on the HUD). I'm sure it would be possible to code, but I'm unsure if many players would want to play that.

Th, what do you mean by "total randomness?" Do you mean, "Not predictable and/or controllable at all..." Or something else?

Hatachi, on 29 September 2014 - 04:13 AM, said:

If I'm reading this correctly, this almost boils down to a "reverse cone of fire" system. It's sounds very similar to what was described in the novels with "my reticle going gold" and so on. I'll be going off this assumption with questions to the OP.

----

How would you use this to process with weapons that have different firing speeds? If I've held onto a target long enough for a soft lock would slow weapons automatically lead with the assumption that the target will continue in a straight line from its current path?

----

How would you handle weapons that reach different arcs on a single reticle? I know where I mount my weapons and so on so that I can swing my left arm ppc to hit someone swing by on my left, but a new player might not know weapon locations as well. Would you have the weapons list "red out" *Note, I'm not saying make them unable to be fired* weapons on the weapon list that are outside of their possible firing arc or what?

Yes, it's a lore thing, and the description from the novels of the Gold reticule and such is spot on. References made to the TT and other parts of the lore are made because following such gets the 'mechs to perform in combat like they do in the novels and the rest of the lore.

----


The color-coded reticule would actually be capable of indicating partial firing fix - some weapons with a good fix, some not. If memory serves, that would be a segmented gold/red reticule. You might see it when, say, using pulse weapons in combination with less accurate weapons, like clan heavy lasers or such. That said, the vast majority of the weapons systems fall within the same speed-to-lock.

----

TBH, either you'd have a "look left/right/rear/etc" function (tophat on joystick) that would show that arc and only have that weapons system, or you'd have to do the 360 into 160-180' hud, which, when used, would activate their own crosshairs.

Widowmaker1981, on 29 September 2014 - 06:57 AM, said:

Add complete RNG to where my shots go? Ill simply quit playing, as the frustration level would go through the roof.

By complete RNG you mean? ...

This is where these discussions become almost impossible; pretty much THE central terms aren't explained by people using them and the few times they have been defined it's come to light that people don't mean the same thing. I want to know what you actually MEAN.

Quote

The ONLY solution to this (other than delayed convergence which is off the table due to HSR/Cryengine issues) that I would be happy with is a dynamic cone of fire, affected by factors under my control – if im standing still and my heat isn’t spiked, then my shot had best go where I aimed it, but fine – I can take a cone of fire if im shooting while moving at max speed at 92% heat, it probably would mess with the sensors.

Ignoring the way it's implemented, (COF vs hard numbers on 'mech performance) your wanting it to be controlled by your choices and what you do ... this is exactly what I was pointing out in the OP.

Quote

From what I get from the Ops suggestion is something LIKE this, but it seems he wants the RNG calibrated at exactly tabletop values (for some reason, this isn’t a board game), and also to make it that to get a shot to go entirely where you aim you need to stand still for 6 weeks waiting. (yes, im exaggerating…. So sue me) –

----

It just comes across as a slavish devotion to tabletop because “they spent years balancing it” – yes. They did. For a turn based, top down, strategy boardgame. Which is not anything even remotely similar to a first person, real time video game.

"This isn't a boardgame" is not an argument. There is exactly ZERO reason why the values that we KNOW explain a 'mechs performance cannot be used in the real time format. What *should* matter is the discussion of "should we?" and than "why should/shouldn't we?"

"Stand for six weeks waiting" - you could have asked how long, you know. Under the most OBSCENELY long shot-situations, where you'd literally be shooting something 35 miles away, you'd wait a max of 30 seconds; In order to do an aimed shot with a single weapon WITHOUT an advanced targeting computer (still very high end) you'd wait 10 seconds, and the vast majority of your shots would take probably 3-5 seconds to FULLY lock - and you could STILL pull off faster shots; even though they would be harder for your 'mech to make.

----

The point isn't "follow the tt because it's tt and it's awesome." The point is follow it because it gives you the BASELINE in hard numbers that makes the mechs perform like they do in the novels and the rest of the lore. Yes, the basic necessary combat system rules ARE doable in real time; and you don't even have to have a ten second recycle time for all of the weapons.

3rdworld, on 29 September 2014 - 07:48 AM, said:

Spreading damage is the goal of the person being shot, putting it into one location is the goal of the shooter. Knowing movement and twisting to avoid having those 2 second side core episodes is a skill just as much as hitting the CT or ST consistently. Adding any type of forced missing de-emphasizes both the aiming and the movement of both the trigger man and the target. My opinion for what it is worth.

I suppose you missed the part that means the same thing as "knowing movment and twisting" (evasion) can and would make you a harder target to hit.

Quote

Also forced missing using weapons with 4 second cooldowns would be incredibly frustrating.

It' not "forced missing" if by "forced missing" you mean "this missed for non-player related reasons and in a completely unpredictable way." When you'd miss, you'd miss because of player choices (yours and the other guy) and player skill (if you want the easier hit rate at long range with a weapon, you have to be able to keep the crosshairs over nearly the perfect center of the target for 10 seconds or so).

[Ph30nix]

all they ahve to do is

1-2 weapons fire standard convergance
2+ weapons fired and weapons are set to converge on a point dependent on their location on mech
so
LA----LT--CT--RT-----RA

if each section had a weapon (head same as CT) and all fired at once then instead of all going dead center
the LA would be say 3 pixels left of center, LT would be 2 and CT would stay center,
so in close range it would spread damage slightly (some would spill to side torsos) so brawlers wouldnt be hurt badly
but at long ranges alphas would have their damage spread out alot more.

problem solved.

[Pht]

Eddrick, on 29 September 2014 - 08:22 AM, said:

Give lighter Mech enough agility to dodge a shot they see comeing or torso twist to place a shot they see comeing where they want it to hit. Yes, it blers the line between Mech and Mecha. But, if you want both sides to be in the players control. There is very little choice.

It would also, shift balance away from Assault Mechs. Because, all that heavy firepower means very little if the target if dodging your shots.

Under the OP the light mechs are harder to hit for two reasons - the first is that they move and change direction a LOT faster and thus your mech would have a harder time getting a good bead on them; second is that because of their lower visual volume they are harder for a pilot to keep under the crosshairs. In fact, some 'mechs, in certain profiles, would be harder to hit (vulcan from front or back, for example).

The reason that the light mechs don't just exploit the daylights out of this and shoot you in the back all day are pretty obvious - it doesn't take nearly as much damage to blast them apart. As a light mech does what he does to avoid incoming fire, it makes it harder for him to shoot targets as well.

KraftySOT, on 29 September 2014 - 11:06 AM, said:

Those two PPCs will never meet. You really gotta pick which side to aim your arm ppc with, so those two hit the same spot, and then other one is whacking an arm or torso.

The art is not the rules of how the lore works. I can also quote this directly from the books (across multiple generations of releases) and just to make a point again:

Paul said:

Correct, each weapon is aimed independently beyond the mobility of any limbs or torso or turret it might be attached to. Part of their weapon mass and bulk is taken up by this.
Targeting computers add more gear that makes this independent actuation more precise.
AES allows for more precise motion of the entire limb, which has similar consequences.
(But the upside is that it works for all weaponry, not just the kind that benefits from a TComp)

http://bg.battletech...96pc6#msg676374

Which is his answer in reply to this question:

"This is all built on the presumption that *any* weapon in a battlemech can individually be physically "aimed" by maybe, stepper motors, focusing lenses for lasers, that sort of thing, regardless if they are mounted in the torsos, legs, arms, or head?"

That's from the official forums to ask the people that control, write, and maintain the IP these exact sorts of questions.

We don't have to guess how things work in the lore. We know.

Edited by Pht, 30 September 2014 - 10:59 AM.

[Pht]

KraftySOT, on 30 September 2014 - 07:08 AM, said:

You dont have to have a DNI to be jacked in. Implants exist. Youre ignoring Manie Domini, and most of the Stackpole books. EI DOES work that way, and many mechwarriors have had implants that help make sense of the transmitted data from the neurohelmet. Star league helmets were worse, not better, than current helmets. I think you misunderstood that.

Yes, you DO have to have a DNI or equivalent to be jacked in.

Further more, the BT cartoon is NOT canon - what it IS in the lore is a in-lore propaganda cartoon for children.

From the horse's mouth:

Herb Beas said:

We have a rather simple matter of determining canon in-house: Whatever we establish for research material for the authors is canon.

Currently, that list includes:
All sourcebooks and novels produced for BattleTech by FASA and Roc in the United States
All sourcebooks and novels produced for Classic BattleTech by FanPro and Roc in the United States
All sourcebooks and novels (including electronic publications, such as BattleCorps) produced by InMediaRes (and its subsidiaries, BattleCorps and Catalyst Game Labs) in the United States
All material produced by WizKids for the MechWarrior: Dark Age/MechWarrior: Age of Destruction game lines

GENERAL INCLUSIVE NOTE: There are a few select instances where a story or article appearing even in these sources may be considered non-canon, but generally this is because the material was in error (such as date mishaps like original TRO3025's claim that the Zeus emerged from Defiance before the Mackie was even built OR Defiance even existed as such), or it was specifically published as a gag (such as Loren Coleman's infamous "Chapter 6" on BattleCorps)

The list does not include:
Magazines, even "official" ones such as BattleTechnology, 'Mech, and others
The MechWarrior, MechCommander, and MechAssault video and computer games, as well as the various BattleTech games produced for Nintendo and Sega game systems
The BattleTech cartoon series
The BattleTech comic book series

GENERAL NON-INCLUSIVE NOTE: Despite their non-canonical status, we have not gone into total denial about these sources either, but have simply opted to pick and choose what elements there are "canon" and what are not.
For example, the BattleTech cartoon series' events may not be canon, but the characters they contained were, and the series itself has been referenced as an in-universe "propaganda vid" for the children of the FedCom growing up in the wake of the Clan invasion.

- Herb

http://bg.battletech...86.msg8723.html (btw, this is what sarna references on the topic of canonicity as well).

The TM source over-rides the cartoon. Which should have been obvious.

Quote

Being a 'medium laser expert' or a 'sniper' or a 'hot shot' is an implant, as well as an earned skill.

Youre completely ignoring the Mechwarrior RPG rules.

I'm not ignoring the RPG rules. The skills you're referring to are known now as Special Pilot Abilities and DO NOT require implants; they simply require a certain level of gunnery skill and (for gunnery) usually require decent dex or good vision, etc. It's in page 219 and following of ATOW.

As for the WOB you refer to - they are fully jacked in WOB cyborgs and the elite of them reinforce thier being jacked in with full-body exoskeleton implants that tap into their nerve and nerual systems. WOB cockpits setup for WOB cyborgs are NOTHING like normal cockpits. Furthermore, the DNI, VDNI, and clan EI systems ALL result in early death, megalomania, varying but always bad to extreme levels of psychosis, blinding headaches, and the need for hardcore drugs to cope, drugs which carry their own horrible side effects.

BT implants are nothing like, say, the implants from anarchy online. BT implants are usually muscles being replaced with myomers, eye replacements (which only restore normal sight), blades, small weapons, etc.

[3rdworld]

Pht, on 30 September 2014 - 10:46 AM, said:

I suppose you missed the part that means the same thing as "knowing movment and twisting" (evasion) can and would make you a harder target to hit.

It' not "forced missing" if by "forced missing" you mean "this missed for non-player related reasons and in a completely unpredictable way." When you'd miss, you'd miss because of player choices (yours and the other guy) and player skill (if you want the easier hit rate at long range with a weapon, you have to be able to keep the crosshairs over nearly the perfect center of the target for 10 seconds or so).

Actually ya, I missed it. I generally don't read long winded posts because people that need large word counts to explain something like hit % in TT, are probably not worth reading. The rest you posted in reply to me confirms my theory.

So... I get forced missing if I don't hold the target for 10 seconds? But ya that is totally not forced missing, and my choices made the difference. sarcasm btw. I have difficulty believing you cannot see the logical gameplay conclusions of such a system, yet you clearly don't.

Edited by 3rdworld, 30 September 2014 - 12:35 PM.

[Saint Scarlett Johan]

Why are people still debating this with the guy?

Have they not realized he's had over two thousand posts and STILL NOT ACTUALLY PLAYED THE GAME? It says "recruit" under his faction icon. It means he hasn't even used up his cadet bonus.

Do you really want a guy like that making balance decisions on a game he doesn't even play?

Spoiler

[WarZ]

Mcgral18, on 29 September 2014 - 08:13 AM, said:

I'm a fan of removing convergence entirely; static crosshairs for separate weapons (or components) which stay parallel.

There would actually be some skill involved to put a large battery of weapons on a single location, instead of everything magically converging instantly. Current system is pretty bad, and has been the bane of balance for years, missile splash damage being the exception.

There are different solutions (HBs targeting computer overload) with varying degrees of effectiveness and difficulty of implementation, but I think the pinpoint, instant convergence is the largest issue in the game.

Mcgral18, on 29 September 2014 - 08:13 AM, said:

I'm a fan of removing convergence entirely; static crosshairs for separate weapons (or components) which stay parallel.

There would actually be some skill involved to put a large battery of weapons on a single location, instead of everything magically converging instantly. Current system is pretty bad, and has been the bane of balance for years, missile splash damage being the exception.

There are different solutions (HBs targeting computer overload) with varying degrees of effectiveness and difficulty of implementation, but I think the pinpoint, instant convergence is the largest issue in the game.

This is one of the few times I'll disagree with your Mcgral. Putting in even more targeting reticles on top of the the 2 we carry now starts getting silly, possibly confusing. Probably be a bit of an eye sore to boot. Making aiming more of a chore than it is now. We already have to combine sense of movement (inlcuding non instantaneous changes in acceration which have to be anticipated before actual movement occurs) and positional anticipation of our and enemy mechs, in addition to the 2 crosshairs. There is a bit of skill and experience involved to get to the point where making your shots go where you want occurs consistently.

Cone of fire is definitely NOT the way to go either.

The system as it stands is actually pretty good. Further tweaking as they have done recently that prevents the firing of "x" number of a weapon type (such as gauss and ppc) seems to be the best way to go. And it seems far more intuitive. Its even part of the lore / novels.

[Pht]

Cavale said:

Once again, Extrapolation. I'm not reading your mind, I'm extrapolating from the available evidence. A few folks here have mentioned that it looks similar to the table top systems. I'm not blind. Trying to pretend that there's not evidence proving me correct when its all over this topic is foolish and childish.

----

Let me quote here. Ahem. "This is what makes BattleMechs different than gundams and other eastern mechas that wall-jump, fly at obscene speeds, and shoot the center out of dimes on the other side of the solar system." " It's not a super-mecha, capable of perfect convergence." Seems pretty belittling and 'Mine is better than that' to me.

You posted "The proof happens to be your post, where you deliberately used more and more words to try and make your post better." link You had and have no way of knowing that I "deliberately used more and more words to try and make" ... my post better. You can only have irrationally assumed that I had. Your "extrapolation" was just that; an irrational assumption.

----

It wasn't and isn't belittling.

Quote

See above.

----

I offered evidence, and then asked you to perhaps consult someone with more knowledge or to DO YOUR OWN RESEARCH. My goodness. I'm such a villain.

Doesn't change the fact that you said "The only reason you're up in arms is because I returned it, and you don't like it. In fact, you're doing the same thing now, calling me a mind reader and attempting to belittle me in an attempt to retain superiority" ... which you can't have humanly known; if you can't have humanly known it, you couldn't have validly extrapolated it either. Call it whatever name you like, you made an irrational guess.

----

You did the exact equivalent of saying "all swans are white... see, look at this individual swan, it's white, and if you don't believe me, well, some unidentified people say all swans are white too." Also, I DID look up the Golden Sun RNG Exploit before I replied, and I didn't accuse you of being a villain.

Quote

Here, let me just fully quote you here. Ahem.

----

My my, By your system, if I aim at CT, I might just hit an arm six times. Gee. Gasp. Nice manipulation to see just what you wanted to strengthen your point.

All you've done is confirmed that I took the whole chunk and replied to it in context. I didn't even point out the fact that you posted "Deliberately cropping a quote to a give a different message than intended," yet again presuming for no valid reason that you KNEW I was "deliberately" "giving a message different than" you "intended" it. I replied to the whole chunk in context with the rest of your post.

----

The chances of that happening are very small, even though there are two arms and one CT. You may as well argue that everyone in florida is going to get struck by lightning.

Quote

You certainly seem to be acting that way.

----

Congrats. Basic reading comprehension is within your grasp.

No, I don't seem to be "projecting" and/or "acting like I think I'm smarter than I really am." You have the false idea that I am.

----

I'd bet that if I had said this to you ... you'd call it "belittling," if you judged it by the exact same standard you used against me earlier.

Quote

Now you're either misunderstanding me, deliberately or otherwise, you just have no reading comprehension, or you're not even bothering to read whats being talked about.

you: Targeting systems are not random. Never where, never will be.

me: So, no targeting system every made has produced unpredictable results? All weapons fired from a targeting system behave perfectly as the system intended?

You: No distributed and properly functioning targeting system released for production has ever given 100% random results, or it wouldn't be much of a targeting system. Iron sights, red dot, scope, tank turret, even out of adjustment are they are predictable. This is why it's a targeting system.

me: Now you're moving the goal around. No, somehow, I didn't propose known and predictable hit percentages, I've said there should be "100% random results" ... when I never posted any such thing or anything that means that.


First you said that no targeting system was "random," you gave NO clarification about what you meant by "random," I assumed normal usage (synonym for unpredictable) - an assumption which was made clear by my reply, and than you accused me of saying or meaning that targeting systems should produce "100% random (100% unpredictable) results," when I said nor meant any such thing. Emphasis added to show your false accusation. I never said that targeting systems do or should produce 100% unpredictable results.

Quote

A flimsy defense on your part makes me think I may be correct. Also, once again, get back what you put in.

----

Oh my, you missed my Edit and are outright dismissing me. Boy, you must have a great argument.

----

100% hit rates are signs of cheating and exploits. Even if you are the best, you can miss. You are human. Thus you can miss.

You accused me of "belittling" because I pointed out that you were, yet again, mind-reading me when you posted "Attempting to say otherwise because you are blinded by your love for a different system and type of game entirely is rather poor." You had no way of knowing that anything I posted was "because" I was "blinded by love" of some other system.

I was not and I am not attempting to say that I have not used the TT combat rules and numbers as a baseline. I have used the TT combat system and numbers, for the simple reason that they show in hard usable parameters how the 'Mechs perform in the lore ... "lore" meaning not just the tt but the novels and etc. What I want is for the 'Mechs to perform in the video game format like they do in the fictional novels.

----

Asking you what you meant is not dismissing you. It's ... asking you what you meant.

----

100% of WHAT? Did you even look to see what I meant? Is there some reason you didn't bother to ask? I have *meant* and continue to mean that it is possible to have 100% of all weapons that are fired hit the overall target in any given single instance, under the right conditions.

Quote

STILL SHOWING YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND A SIMILE. MISUNDERSTANDING ON PURPOSE DOES NOT MAKE YOU CLEVER, IT MAKES YOU AN A**HOLE.

----

At this point, just reading your posts seems to bring an arrogant fellow to mind, so..? I really don't see how I need to go and pull much more than I have at this point. You don't seem to be actually doing anything to prove me wrong.

The fact that you had no way of knowing that I'm "MISUNDERSTANDING ON PURPOSE" should have stopped you from going around the ninja-bot to curse at me. In fact, there's no reason for you to curse at me or anyone else, ever. You are acting as if belittling someone is only wrong when the one being belittled is you. You have repeatedly misunderstood that I did not mean "hit every time you fire" by "100% connection rate" - would it have been ok for me to have accused you of misunderstanding on purpose and to have cursed at you, instead of chalking it up to a simple mistake?

----

You couldn't "pull much more." You couldn't "pull" anything. It's not there to be quoted because it doesn't exist. You won't, can't, and couldn't prove your false idea that "I am an arrogant condescending jerk who thinks he's smarter than he is" from my posts because I've not been any of those things and nothing I've posted amounts to those things.

Quote

Oh my, this changes... pretty much nothing. This isn't table top. Gosh.

----

EDIT: Aside, you pretty much just proved that whole "Want it to be table top" thing right there. Thanks.

Should I curse at you for not understanding that the source I linked explains that the percentages explain in black and white how the 'Mechs peform *in the novels and the rest of the lore?*

----

No, it did not, if by "want to be tabletop" you meant "want it to be tabletop in the video game format."

Yet again, what I want is for the 'Mechs to perform in the video game format like they do in the fictional novels.

3rdworld said:

Actually ya, I missed it. I generally don't read long winded posts because people that need large word counts to explain something like hit % in TT, are probably not worth reading.

----

The rest you posted in reply to me confirms my theory.

----

So... I get forced missing if I don't hold the target for 10 seconds? But ya that is totally not forced missing, and my choices made the difference. sarcasm btw. I have difficulty believing you cannot see the logical gameplay conclusions of such a system, yet you clearly don't.

Number count as an excuse for ignoring what someone has to say ... By that standard, it would be right for me to say you have nothing worthwhile to say, because you don't feel the need to really explain it at "any length." ... or wordcount as an crummy excuse to ignore should be seen for just that, a crummy excuse.

----

Your theory being ... this?

Exhibit A: What a game rewarding accuracy of the pilot, looks like:

Exhibit B: What TT fanboys want it to look like:


Exhibit A: I'm guessing that you think that "accuracy of the pilot" is their accuracy in getting the weapons in the first pic to hit in spite of the fact that the weapons aren't auto-perfect hit whenever they're triggered? In other words, you value human skill overcoming the obstacles that the weapons behavior represents; you think that's fun?

Exhibit B: In context with the rest of your posting in this thread on the topic, you seem to be saying that I want you to be forced to miss *when you shouldn't be.*

I said near the top of the post that I want to see is the 'mech's part of the aiming put into the MW video game format. So, is it that you don't think that nothing a pilot does should affect their 'mech's ability to align the weapons mounted in it, or is it that you don't think the math that I posted explaining the 'mech's ability is right?

If you think those maths aren't representative, what do you have to say to the people who get paid to know and write the lore who say otherwise... AND that I've said more math along those lines should be constructed for other situations not covered?

----

That was a singular example, not the whole. You keep using the phrase "forced missing" and you haven't really explained what you mean by it - it could mean several different things. As I've already said, ballpark lock times would likely be from around 3-5 seconds - and that's not a number set in stone; and you can get partial lock faster than that.

Lord Scarlett Johan said:

Why are people still debating this with the guy?

Have they not realized he's had over two thousand posts and STILL NOT ACTUALLY PLAYED THE GAME? It says "recruit" under his faction icon. It means he hasn't even used up his cadet bonus.

Do you really want a guy like that making balance decisions on a game he doesn't even play?

Yes, because the validity of content doesn't matter (truth, who gives a darn about it), and nobody should ever listen to ANYONE who hasn't been able to play a game for reasons beyond their control, even if they've played the last two versions and the version the game was originally made from, watched the game being played, and they've been keeping up with what people who are playing the game have been saying, since the game started; even in when it was in closed beta.

You might as well say you couldn't have any knowledge of a (picks a random example) chess, from reading it's rules, watching it being played, reading what the players of it have to say, and what it's designers have to say.

No, the only option you offer is that "I simply have to be trolling."

Sad.

Edited by Pht, 02 October 2014 - 04:54 AM.

[CyclonerM]

Aresye, on 27 September 2014 - 11:36 AM, said:

If we can find a suitable solution that can help everybody, I'd be all for it, but so far the only solutions proposed will either benefit good players, or benefit bad players.

Why should we want to reward bad aim? I would say that you should benefit good players. Anyone willing to learn to play the game and get better should be rewarded, quiaff?

Eddrick, on 27 September 2014 - 11:46 AM, said:

We don't need any more randomness then we already have.

Excuse me, what randomness do we have, except LRMs and SSRMs in some way (but then you never control the exact point a missile is going to hit, unless you remotely guide it..).

Edited by CyclonerM, 02 October 2014 - 05:13 AM.

[Mcgral18]

CyclonerM, on 02 October 2014 - 05:12 AM, said:

Excuse me, what randomness do we have, except LRMs and SSRMs in some way (but then you never control the exact point a missile is going to hit, unless you remotely guide it..).

Arty
MGs
LBx
Crit system

I feel there are more...can't think of them.

[Widowmaker1981]

Pht, on 30 September 2014 - 10:46 AM, said:

By complete RNG you mean? ...

This is where these discussions become almost impossible; pretty much THE central terms aren't explained by people using them and the few times they have been defined it's come to light that people don't mean the same thing. I want to know what you actually MEAN.

what i mean (if you read the rest of the post other than the quoted bit itd be pretty obvious, but still...)

If im doing all i can to steady my aim - in this game meaning im not moving, and my heat is at a manageable level, i fire a direct fire weapon, and it doesn't go exactly where i aim, that is complete RNG. i dont care if the options its randomly choosing between are limited, its still RNG.

I think there should be an expanding cone of fire based on factors under the players control (movement, heat), because it would add a level of tactical management. But if it is permanently there it quite simply dumbs the game down, and allows people with bad aim to compete better. newsflash!! if you're bad at something, you practice to get better, you accept that you wont compete or you stop doing it. You don't get to change the rules to suit your deficiencys. (note that i know im not the absolute best shot, i often slow down/stop to maintain accurate fire. doesn't mean i want the rules changed so you can only fire when stopped, even though that would 'help' me)

[Joseph Mallan]

Widowmaker1981, on 02 October 2014 - 05:48 AM, said:

what i mean (if you read the rest of the post other than the quoted bit itd be pretty obvious, but still...)

If im doing all i can to steady my aim - in this game meaning im not moving, and my heat is at a manageable level, i fire a direct fire weapon, and it doesn't go exactly where i aim, that is complete RNG. i dont care if the options its randomly choosing between are limited, its still RNG.

I think there should be an expanding cone of fire based on factors under the players control (movement, heat), because it would add a level of tactical management. But if it is permanently there it quite simply dumbs the game down, and allows people with bad aim to compete better. newsflash!! if you're bad at something, you practice to get better, you accept that you wont compete or you stop doing it. You don't get to change the rules to suit your deficiencys. (note that i know im not the absolute best shot, i often slow down/stop to maintain accurate fire. doesn't mean i want the rules changed so you can only fire when stopped, even though that would 'help' me)

Fire a weapon at a target, see if the round goes EXACTLY where you aim everytime. Sorry there is a CoF for every weapon, otherwise targets would be 1" cause, I should hit what I'm aiming at everytime!

[Saint Scarlett Johan]

Joseph Mallan, on 02 October 2014 - 05:51 AM, said:

Fire a weapon at a target, see if the round goes EXACTLY where you aim everytime. Sorry there is a CoF for every weapon, otherwise targets would be 1" cause, I should hit what I'm aiming at everytime!

With a good bench rifle (a firearm that's literally had the human elements removed) are wicked "put the rounds in the same hole" accurate. It's the human elements that add the COF, the bullet is essentially going to go where the rifle is pointed, but is the shooter good enough to point the rifle where he wants the bullet to go?

[Joseph Mallan]

Lord Scarlett Johan, on 02 October 2014 - 10:09 AM, said:

With a good bench rifle (a firearm that's literally had the human elements removed) are wicked "put the rounds in the same hole" accurate. It's the human elements that add the COF, the bullet is essentially going to go where the rifle is pointed, but is the shooter good enough to point the rifle where he wants the bullet to go?

Is that used in practical application? I would bet wind has some effect on that accuracy at 500+ Meters!

[stjobe]

Lord Scarlett Johan, on 02 October 2014 - 10:09 AM, said:

With a good bench rifle (a firearm that's literally had the human elements removed) are wicked "put the rounds in the same hole" accurate. It's the human elements that add the COF, the bullet is essentially going to go where the rifle is pointed, but is the shooter good enough to point the rifle where he wants the bullet to go?

No, It's really not "just the shooter". There's all kinds of minute elements even a bench-fired rifle can't compensate for. Barrel heating, non-even powder burn, barrel/bullet imperfections, and so on.

There's a reason the CEP of the M1A2 is a whopping 35 meters at (an equally whopping) 8,000 meters. It's accurate as hell, but there's always - ALWAYS - random elements you cannot account for.

There's a reason even army and SWAT snipers are only held to that much accuracy:


(source: US Army (PDF link warning!)

You just can't ever guarantee perfect accuracy - except in MWO, of course, where six to ten multi-ton weapons are capable of aligning on the same millimetre spot in fractions of a second.

Edited by stjobe, 02 October 2014 - 10:57 AM.

[Mcgral18]

stjobe, on 02 October 2014 - 10:52 AM, said:

No, not really. There's all kinds of minute elements even a bench-fired rifle can't compensate for.

There's a reason the CEP of the M1A2 is a whopping 35 meters at (an equally whopping) 8,000 meters. It's accurate as hell, but there's always - ALWAYS - random elements you cannot account for.

There's a reason even army and SWAT snipers are only held to that much accuracy:



You just can't ever guarantee perfect accuracy - except in MWO, of course, where six to ten multi-ton weapons are capable of aligning on the same millimetre spot in fractions of a second.

The Jesus Box isn't the only magical thing in MWO.

[Saint Scarlett Johan]

Joseph Mallan, on 02 October 2014 - 10:20 AM, said:

Is that used in practical application? I would bet wind has some effect on that accuracy at 500+ Meters!

It can have quite an effect on a round. But at the Point Target range of 500m on the 62g M855 ball from an M4 it's still negligible unless the crosswind is absolutely intense (would be interesting to have a map with 30+ mph wind and have it affect the projectile weapons).

stjobe, on 02 October 2014 - 10:52 AM, said:

No, It's really not "just the shooter". There's all kinds of minute elements even a bench-fired rifle can't compensate for. Barrel heating, non-even powder burn, barrel/bullet imperfections, and so on.

There's a reason the CEP of the M1A2 is a whopping 35 meters at (an equally whopping) 8,000 meters. It's accurate as hell, but there's always - ALWAYS - random elements you cannot account for.

There's a reason even army and SWAT snipers are only held to that much accuracy:


(source: US Army (PDF link warning!)

You just can't ever guarantee perfect accuracy - except in MWO, of course, where six to ten multi-ton weapons are capable of aligning on the same millimetre spot in fractions of a second.

The Abrams main gun has a max effective range of 3500m (the range at which it can still kill enemy tanks) and the CEP for that is considerably smaller than 35m. And that range would be considered similar to 540m range of an AC20.

I'm not entirely averse to a CoF. I'm averse to a typical FPS CoF like WoT where it randomly decides I'm going to walleye a round and miss a 150m target by 40m because of some poorly designed CoF mechanic while the other guy rolls a pair of boxcars and hits my ammo rack.

[Tombstoner]

Lord Scarlett Johan, on 02 October 2014 - 10:09 AM, said:

With a good bench rifle (a firearm that's literally had the human elements removed) are wicked "put the rounds in the same hole" accurate. It's the human elements that add the COF, the bullet is essentially going to go where the rifle is pointed, but is the shooter good enough to point the rifle where he wants the bullet to go?

But at what range?... all weapons have some degree of error even lasers. That's what lacking in MWO. The weapons are just as good at all ranges. it's just that damage drops off. Its too good even for future space tech.... seen star wars they missed a lot. i don't want MWO to turn into a bunch of storm troopers fighting care-bears.... but skill should be in "piloting" a mech managing heat, movment, damage affects on weapon accuracy not in peek a boo alpha strike blobbed gang bangs.

[Tombstoner]

Lord Scarlett Johan, on 02 October 2014 - 12:44 PM, said:

I'm not entirely averse to a CoF. I'm averse to a typical FPS CoF like WoT where it randomly decides I'm going to walleye a round and miss a 150m target by 40m because of some poorly designed CoF mechanic while the other guy rolls a pair of boxcars and hits my ammo rack.

No one and i mean no one wants that. It's a huge miss conception made by the anti COF community. they presume it would be a flat random distribution in that circle. It could very well be made to follow a standard distribution curve with only a 5% chance that a shot would ever approach the edge of a COF. This would simulate real gunnery but be tweak able by PGI for some real weapon balancing.

Imagine a game where DOT lasers where the most accurate weapons in the game... it would take some real skill to keep your shots on one location for full damage. Accuracy could be balanced against damage/heat and others factors.
added realism i don't think is a bad thing. as far as future tech goes its only a 1000 years or so with multiple large scale wars and a technological dark age. perfect convergence should be available in game, just not on day one in your trial mech first match.

Stomping around blasting stuff for 10 minutes not knowing a dam thing is a lot of fun.... having your ars handed to you in 30 seconds is not... lots of experanced players like to start new accounts and rest their ELO for some noob stomps. this is very bad for the game. some form of accuracy modifier the improves over time i think would be a good thing.