161 replies to this topic

[Asyres]

Pht, on 27 September 2014 - 11:33 AM, said:

Sometimes people are actually precise in what they post, you know - even in their thread titles.

For instance: "Cof/unpredictable Randomness" .... "somehow use a Cone of Fire" or "just add unpredictable randomness and get over it."

If you'd like to bicker over what word or phrase to use, a synonym for what I meant would be something like "unpredictable weapons fire spread" ... better yet, "unpredictable nonsense spread based upon unknowable, unpredictable, and player-uncontrollabe factors."

So, not only do you not know what I meant, you're being arrogant and condescending about it.

Speaking of your not knowing ... are you seriously saying that, for example, when you aim for the front-center of mass (I would use one of the examples further down, but I suspect you didn't read, much less try to understand them) you can't KNOW that ... thus knowing that most of your shots will hit the CT?

Or are you making the mistake of thinking "If i can't predict exactly where every shot goes every time, I can't predict ANYTHING?"

Systems which are random are inherently unpredictable, except in the macro sense - and even then, you can only predict the frequency of an outcome, not what outcome will occur in a specific instance.

I've read your entire OP twice now (thanks, by the way, thanks for assuming it that I hadn't, or that I'd failed to understand it - who's being condescending, again?), and I still think it's a terrible idea.

Edited by Asyres, 27 September 2014 - 08:30 PM.

[Foxfire]

lartfor, on 27 September 2014 - 01:03 PM, said:

Most "Competitive" shooters have some form of cof, even if not significant. For that reason I don't think that this being a "competitive" (lol) game makes it a terrible mechanic. Instead I think cof is a terrible mechanic for this game simply because targeting specific areas of an enemy is far more important in this shooter than it is in most others. Unlike most other shooters, there is no "central" hp pool that a player has in mwo meaning that you can't die by a near miss to the arm when at low hp.

Most competative shooters have a COF that blooms from true shot to a wide spread on full auto weapons if you held the trigger down... and those that didn't have full auto would suffer from a 'jump' mechanic that was predictable and compensatable with experience with that weapon.

The key component of both systems is the ability to control to counter the mechanic.. either by controlled bursts for auto weapons and pulling opposite of the jump of the weapon. it gives a skill based counter and not a truly 'random' mechanic.

[Mystere]

Mcgral18, on 27 September 2014 - 01:02 PM, said:

WubShee would be moderately affected. No more 50 damage deathstar.

Though I'm never sure if you're serious about this suggestion.

My order of preference for convergence is as follows:

• Manually-adjusted (default set at Mech Lab, adjusted in-match via mouse wheel or keyboard)
  
• fixed (set at Mech Lab)
  
• none

From what I know, automatic convergence cannot be fixed due to issues with the CryEngine itself.

[Xarian]

OP, your post describes the system as how it should end up on average after all game mechanics are taken into consideration. That is, if you aim for the head, you should hit the head more often than you hit the feet with various levels of probability (I'm not going into the fine details of your percentages; those are secondary to the overall idea).

However, this in no way addresses the road to actually get there. This is a summary of your suggestion, in the most positive light possible:
1. Player aims at a specific location
2. ???
3. X% chance of hitting cockpit, Y% chance of hitting torso, etc.

You can use a brute-force probability method - figure out which hitboxes a shot hits, then inflict damage randomly with an appropriate formula. This is also the absolute worst way to handle a skill-based game such as MWO or any other first-person game - this isn't an abstract-combat level game, such as tabletop battletech, warhammer, etc. You don't need random numbers to figure out where the weapons hit - they fly out of a gun and hit somewhere on the enemy mech. Inflicting raw probability like this is just going to end up in a situation where you put your gun barrel-to-eye with a non-moving enemy mech, pull the trigger, and hit his left torso. If you adjust the probabilities to take into account other factors, like how fast your weapon and target are moving, distance to target, etc, you end up with the game exactly as it is right now. Those factors are already taken into consideration by the simulation itself, and it's adjusted for player skill.

So you need to think of pseudo-realistic, in-game mechanics that will help to eventually get you to these hit probability distributions and increase some of the problems with called shots being too easy to hit at medium range. Many examples:
1. Weapon convergence, or lack thereof - torso weapons converge much more slowly, meaning that they will not likely hit where you are aiming
2. Making weapons converge worse when moving quickly or firing quickly (similar to "cone of fire" except making it affect the weapons themselves instead of just making the bullets fly randomly - the weapons would behave realistically based on the conditions that caused them to move/shake)
3. Separate aiming reticles for each weapon with some sort of gimbal (or no gimbal) for various mechs and hardpoints to allow for tweaking convergence

You'll notice that what all these methods have in common is the effect of causing physical forces on the mech, rather than just randomly deciding "you hit here because the RNG rolled a 97", or "your projectile files at a 45 degree angle instead of a 43 degree angle because the RNG rolled a 15".

[Pht]

Cavale' Post='3768731 said:

I tried to read this and understand it. As I read, the words seemed to slowly melt and drip away in utter madness as this horrible, horrible word salad of a suggestion melted my frontal lobes.

When you can't find a good reason to reject something, and you won't simply say you just don't like it ... do the above!

Quote

This is garbage. Pure and simple, this is akin to applying Random dice rolls to a shooter, from what little bits of comprehensible words I can divine meaning from.

----

Pretty much, you are attempting to apply a combat system from a turn based RPG to a Multiplayer live action system.

----

This is a bad idea. You are aware that human mechanics, just from reaction time and being unable to control other players own reactions create highly dynamic odds for proper shot placement as it is?

----

You are adding the human to human margin of error to an RNG to create a substantially lower odd of hitting. This is poor design.

You to admit that you couldn't comprehend it, but you still somehow call it "garbage." ... exactly the same thing as saying "this math is wrong" when you've admitted that "I don't comprehend this math."

----

How can you say this when you've already admitted that you didn't comprehend the OP (which wouldn't be bad, if not for your irrationally hateful attitude). "Turn based RPG" - shockingly, I believe our computers can add small numbers and choose between 2-12 and 1-6 in real time - something pocket calculators could do more than 13 years ago: http://www.pryderock..._battletech.zip

----

It's possible to have 100% of all weapons hit, and the things needed to get this result are known and predictable - and practically doable. Hardware choices, gameplay choices, and human skill all can drive the weapons-connection percentage up to 100% - you just don't get to repetitively "pick your part" as long as you can hold the crosshairs over it and click at the right time. You would be piloting an armored combat unit instead of a large quake 3 avatar.

----

If this were enough of a factor than the armor and damage numbers would never have had to have been changed; and people would not STILL be requesting another doubling of them. Are you aware - even if you don't care - that there is, beyond arms/all else, NO 'mech weapons handling capability modeled in MWO?

IZeratulI said:

Randomized damage spreads decrease the relevance of skill and increase the relevance of luck.

----

FPS gamers as a demographic normally want to win or lose based on their own merits. They don't want to win or lose a game because a dice roll, outside of their control, determined success or failure.

One could just as validly say that perfect weapons convergence decreases the relevance of thought and increases the relevance of lucky clicking.

But that wouldn't be the whole story, would it?

It is possible to add reward into the game for thoughtfulness and training in what choices to make, in combat and out of combat, without removing skill as one of the absolutely necessary driving factors. Shockingly, some people want a Mechwarrior game where the 'mechs perform like ... mechs! Where knowing your 'Mech is of at least equal importance as skill controlling a crosshair on a HUD and timing a shot.

----

Skill in placing a crosshair and choosing when and what to shoot is NOT the only "merit" that exists to be rewarded. "Win or lose ... because a ... outside of their control." Here you are wrong - what spread happens... happens directly because of player choices and aiming skill - and the factors that affect the spread are known, knowable, and predictable. For example, you, as a player, would KNOW that things didn't hit because you were trying to hit a target at long range for your weapon, while your 'Mech was overheating. Not only that, You'd know exactly what to do to fix that situation - either get a longer ranged weapon, wait till the target was closer, and not try and make the shot while you were overheating.

Asyres said:

Systems which are random are inherently unpredictable, except in the macro sense - and even then, you can only predict the frequency of an outcome, not what outcome will occur in a specific instance.

----

I've read your entire OP twice now (thanks, by the way, for assuming it that I hadn't, or that I'd failed to understand it - who's being condescending, again?), and I still think it's a terrible idea.

Either a thing is unpredictable in any sense, or it isn't predictable in any sense. If by "random" you mean "unpredictable in any way" ... this is why these discussions are so hard. Nobody explains what they mean. Or ask what others mean.

Thank you for admitting that yes, it is predictable. Meaning it can be known. In this case, known and thus controlled for.

----

I didn't have to assume that you failed to understand it - you exhibited that you had: "Suggesting that what you've presented is not inherently unpredictable" if a thing is inherently unpredictable - than it can't be predicted in any way - macro, micro, you name it. Yes, I presumed you hadn't read the whole post; because of your missing the point; even if you disagreed with it.

Mystere said:

My order of preference for convergence is as follows:

Manually-adjusted (default set at Mech Lab, adjusted in-match via mouse wheel or keyboard)
fixed (set at Mech Lab)
none

From what I know, automatic convergence cannot be fixed due to issues with the CryEngine itself.

So, what do you think of the 'Mech itself doing the convergence?

Xarian said:

OP, your post describes the system as how it should end up on average after all game mechanics are taken into consideration. That is, if you aim for the head, you should hit the head more often than you hit the feet with various levels of probability (I'm not going into the fine details of your percentages; those are secondary to the overall idea).

However, this in no way addresses the road to actually get there. This is a summary of your suggestion, in the most positive light possible:...

----

1. Player aims at a specific location
2. ???
3. X% chance of hitting cockpit, Y% chance of hitting torso, etc.

Thank you for reading and considering before you replied.

At this point I would be happy as a bobcat locked into the hen-house if the 'Mech's weapons handling were put into the game like it should have been. However, I don't expect that to happen, which is why I said in the OP that it wasn't a suggestion - at least not a suggestion for MWO. I consider that ship to have irretrievably sailed.

----

You're absolutely right. I didn't post the math or the rules they work with. At this point, it's hard enough to get people to understand that human aiming skill and human choices WILL be the factors that control gameplay outcomes. The OP is pretty much strictly an example of gameplay witht he 'Mech's weapons handling performance put into the game, as it should be. The exact specifics are in another post I made a while back in the suggestions forum - a post I need to update with a few corrections.

Quote

You can use a brute-force probability method - figure out which hitboxes a shot hits, then inflict damage randomly with an appropriate formula. This is also the absolute worst way to handle a skill-based game such as MWO or any other first-person game - this isn't an abstract-combat level game, such as tabletop battletech, warhammer, etc. You don't need random numbers to figure out where the weapons hit - they fly out of a gun and hit somewhere on the enemy mech.

"inflict damage randomly" - It's only bad if by random you mean "unpredictable" and therefore not controllable by player skill and choices - which obviously wouldn't apply here, because the results are predictable - all the percentages are known and all the factors that control them are known - and are used based upon player skill and player choices.

Quote

Inflicting raw probability like this is just going to end up in a situation where you put your gun barrel-to-eye with a non-moving enemy mech, pull the trigger, and hit his left torso. If you adjust the probabilities to take into account other factors, like how fast your weapon and target are moving, distance to target, etc, you end up with the game exactly as it is right now. Those factors are already taken into consideration by the simulation itself, and it's adjusted for player skill.

As I said clearly - the examples listed aren't comprehensive, besides which the damage and armor numbers that will be used are BUILT to be used with said percentages. Even the online real-time video game format HAS to abstract things.

It would be perfectly acceptable to have a math table for for "target immobile, shooting unit standing as still as possible," obviously keeping in mind the damage and armor numbers.

No, you wouldn't end up with the game exactly as it is now - for the simple fact that BattleMechs aren't like other kinds of mecha - they are not capable of getting every weapon to reliably hit that tightly under the crosshairs; and there's nothing wrong with that; and this fact has been confirmed by the horse's mouth.

Quote

So you need to think of pseudo-realistic, in-game mechanics that will help to eventually get you to these hit probability distributions and increase some of the problems with called shots being too easy to hit at medium range. Many examples:
1. Weapon convergence, or lack thereof - torso weapons converge much more slowly, meaning that they will not likely hit where you are aiming
2. Making weapons converge worse when moving quickly or firing quickly (similar to "cone of fire" except making it affect the weapons themselves instead of just making the bullets fly randomly - the weapons would behave realistically based on the conditions that caused them to move/shake)
3. Separate aiming reticles for each weapon with some sort of gimbal (or no gimbal) for various mechs and hardpoints to allow for tweaking convergence

1: Actually, this is already in the lore: Weapons mounted in a 'Mech's torsos don't converge any slower than weapons mounted in it's arms. All weapons pretty much converge at the same speed.

2: "weapons converge worse" - you seem to be missing the point that the 'mech that converges the weapons. This convergence ability is already known in black and white numbers. Some weapons are easier for the 'Mech to converge, and some are harder. Most are baseline.

3: Seperate crosshairs is only valid here for firing arcs that not all weapons can aim into (rear mounted weapons, arm swinging around into a side arc). The crosshairs on the hud don't tell you where any given weapon is pointing at - they tell the 'Mech where to try and get the weapons pointed. Other visual/audible cues would inform the pilot of the quality of alignment.

Quote

You'll notice that what all these methods have in common is the effect of causing physical forces on the mech, rather than just randomly deciding "you hit here because the RNG rolled a 97", or "your projectile files at a 45 degree angle instead of a 43 degree angle because the RNG rolled a 15".

You seem to have missed the point that the percentages represent the 'Mech's physical and computational weapons-alignment capability in any given situation of getting the weapons mounted in it aligned at what the pilot is aiming at.

BattleMechs don't perform like giant quake 3 avatars - they perform like armored combat units out of a specific fictional setting. The units in the BT setting that DO behave like humans toting guns would be... humans toting guns, battle armors and possibly protomechs. If you wanted to try and do the impossible and do full physics (which themselves are a pure abstraction and not predictive) for each and every weapon that fired out of a 'mech, you'd STILL have to resort to those percentages if you wanted a MechWarrior game, instead of a "generic giant stompy bot that shoots other bots" game.

Edited by Pht, 28 September 2014 - 02:46 PM.

[Mercules]

Just remove convergence. Arms with lower actuators can converge some, torso weapons don't, head weapons do to limited effect. Now if I fire 12 lasers spread out among hardpoints across the mech they hit 3-4 different locations on the target mech. If I want them to hit specific parts I can chain fire the weapons adjusting my aim a small amount for each shot. Reticle would require more aim points to show up so we can determine where the various weapons will hit.

It would be a bit of work, but not as much as some other systems. Most of it is in designing new hud displays with multiple targeting points that are dynamic depending on if the hardpoint has a weapon there and what weapon it is.

[Eddrick]

Mercules, on 28 September 2014 - 03:00 PM, said:

Just remove convergence. Arms with lower actuators can converge some, torso weapons don't, head weapons do to limited effect. Now if I fire 12 lasers spread out among hardpoints across the mech they hit 3-4 different locations on the target mech. If I want them to hit specific parts I can chain fire the weapons adjusting my aim a small amount for each shot. Reticle would require more aim points to show up so we can determine where the various weapons will hit.

It would be a bit of work, but not as much as some other systems. Most of it is in designing new hud displays with multiple targeting points that are dynamic depending on if the hardpoint has a weapon there and what weapon it is.

That would be a partial removal of convergance. A full removal of convergance would be none of the weapons converging at all.

The argument against that is: I has little effect on Mechs with multiple weapons in the same location.

[Mothykins]

Actually? I was saying you write in a long, rambling garbage spiel to inflate your word count so you sound intelligent and instead managed to wrap so far around you came off as wearing your pants on your head. I do, in fact, understand "The math" as it's a basic hit percentage like found in many table-top and Turn based games. It's deviation. You turned it into this huge rambling thing with the hopes that by doing so you'd sound smart. I am not a fan of that, and felt that you should be knocked down a peg for the sheer smarmy arrogance you're extruding.

RNGs are generally for turn based play, and even then are frowned upon; Generally, in programming, especially games, RNGs are frowned upon for numerous reasons. Look it up. Seriously. The Golden Sun RNG Exploit is a pretty good example of WHY. Players found out how to make events with 1/256 probability occur one hundred percent of the time. Generally, not so good. Also, due to their very temperamental attitude, an RNG (Which isn't every really 100% random, really) that isn't being exploited in some way can do wonderful things like make six shots in a row miss where you're aiming. In a Skill Based game, all this will do is piss off everyone.

See, the thing is, This is NOT table top BattleTech. This is also not Mech-Commander. This is a first-person simulation, and applying random numbers to a system like this is a fairly poor design choice. Targeting systems are not random. Never where, never will be. Attempting to say otherwise because you are blinded by your love for a different system and type of game entirely is rather poor. If you want to play Table-Top, Go play table top. This is not that, and will never be that.

Human error is huge. No amount of Hardware will aid that. If they are getting 100% hit-rate, they are cheating. Full stop. It is a physical impossibly to hit 100% without the use of exploits (Or being incredibly picky and ramming yourself right into the opponent, and EVEN THEN,) Opponents MOVE. There is a highly dynamic hit chance happening the moment the other pilot takes controls. Even shooting at a stationary target you can miss. Saying otherwise is akin to saying that, for example, With better hardware and player choice, I can hit and win 100% of the time playing a game of Street Fighter against another opponent. It's simply not possible.

You have flawed reasoning and you're applying a random variable to a skill based system. Play Table Top for Table top, Don't try to apply pilot skills as a random variable to a game where, you, as the pilot, are the one delivering the Skills.

[JackPoint]

iits fine where it is, no need to QQ about being dumb attacking a DW/Whk solo..

[Aresye]

This game may be technically a, "first person shooter," but did everybody forget about the cooldown/reload times?

Excluding machine guns, LBX, and missiles, pretty much the rest of the weapons are pinpoint, right? Now, out of all those pinpoint weapons, the only one that even comes close to a standard weapon in an FPS, is the ultra-autocannon (specifically the 2 and 5 variants), which is closer to a semi-automatic sniper rifle than it is to a full auto assault rifle.

The rest of the weapons are single shot, with long cooldowns.

The long cooldowns are the main reason why CoF mechanics are a bad idea. Not to mention heat generated as well. Normal FPS games can do CoF because the weapons (even the semi-autos) have a very high rate of fire, so missing shots because of the spread isn't that big of a deal, even for ammo. AND there's no heat penalty.

Any weapons with very long reload/recharge times in FPS games generally have perfect convergence, or very close to it. They also tend to be 1-2 hit kill weapons.

The whole point behind this, is that cooldown/reload times in MWO do not facilitate a CoF mechanic. There's a long waiting period between shots, heat penalties, and other factors that would make implementing any form of RNG on aim extremely frustrating.

[Pht]

Cavale, on 28 September 2014 - 03:26 PM, said:

Actually? I was saying you write in a long, rambling garbage spiel to inflate your word count so you sound intelligent and instead managed to wrap so far around you came off as wearing your pants on your head.

... and yet you can't produce a single valid reason why your accusation here or in your first post is true. You're doing nothing more than appealing to people's emotions.

Quote

I do, in fact, understand "The math" as it's a basic hit percentage like found in many table-top and Turn based games. It's deviation.

Amazing - so now you say you DO understand it .... did you read it again till you understood it? Or are you just claiming that you understood it the first time? So, either you didn't bother to read it till comprehension the first time and you still decided it was perfectly valid to go off the rails with the school yard name-calling, or you did understand it even though you still said you didn't.

Quote

You turned it into this huge rambling thing with the hopes that by doing so you'd sound smart. I am not a fan of that, and felt that you should be knocked down a peg for the sheer smarmy arrogance you're extruding.

Ironic. You accuse me of arrogance, yet you are making statements about my personal internal desires (which I said NOTHING about) ... you'd have to be a mind-reader to know my desires. You are one, right? Or are you just being arrogant because of your irrational presumption?

Quote

RNGs are generally for turn based play, and even then are frowned upon; Generally, in programming, especially games, RNGs are frowned upon for numerous reasons. Look it up. Seriously. The Golden Sun RNG Exploit is a pretty good example of WHY. Players found out how to make events with 1/256 probability occur one hundred percent of the time. Generally, not so good. Also, due to their very temperamental attitude, an RNG (Which isn't every really 100% random, really) that isn't being exploited in some way can do wonderful things like make six shots in a row miss where you're aiming. In a Skill Based game, all this will do is piss off everyone.

You claim you understand... and yet you continue making statements about things things not even posted. All you've done is found *a* instance where a specific RNG setup was exploited, and you've than attempted to blow that up to suck in every RNG possible.

You don't even exhibit any understanding of my statement that it's possible to have a 100% connection rate, with the right tradeoffs ... "miss six times in a row."


However, I suspect you couldn't care less about what I actually meant and mean. You seem to care more about being the alpha-male who scores a point by trying to deflate someone, anyone, instead of arguing against what's meant and actually trying to show how you disagree.

Quote

See, the thing is, This is NOT table top BattleTech. This is also not Mech-Commander. This is a first-person simulation, and applying random numbers to a system like this is a fairly poor design choice.

Yes, I really said that mechwarrior should be tabletop/mech commander/etc. Because, again, our computers obviously can't handle small numbers in real-time.

Quote

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

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

Quote

Attempting to say otherwise because you are blinded by your love for a different system and type of game entirely is rather poor. If you want to play Table-Top, Go play table top. This is not that, and will never be that.

More mind-reading. Yes, you can read my mind so that you can know I want to play tabletop, not Mechwarrior.

Quote

Human error is huge. No amount of Hardware will aid that. If they are getting 100% hit-rate, they are cheating. Full stop. It is a physical impossibly to hit 100% without the use of exploits (Or being incredibly picky and ramming yourself right into the opponent, and EVEN THEN,) Opponents MOVE.

You can't make your mind up, can you? Either it's impossible to get a 100% hit rate, or it's not. You're saying it's impossible AND that it's possible - in the same sense and at the same time.

So, Instead of ASKING what it would take to get a 100% hit rate against an overall target, you resort to chasing your own tail.

Quote

There is a highly dynamic hit chance happening the moment the other pilot takes controls. Even shooting at a stationary target you can miss. Saying otherwise is akin to saying that, for example, With better hardware and player choice, I can hit and win 100% of the time playing a game of Street Fighter against another opponent. It's simply not possible.

Yes, because I obviously posted the exact same thing as "add a RNG" to the system that underlies street fighter.

Quote

You have flawed reasoning and you're applying a random variable to a skill based system. Play Table Top for Table top, Don't try to apply pilot skills as a random variable to a game where, you, as the pilot, are the one delivering the Skills.

More mind reading. Yes, you really read my mind to know that I thought ... or even said in a post somewhere (anywhere, explicitly or implicitly) that "pilot skills should be a random variable." You also read from my mind tha I love TT and want mechwarrior to be TT ...

You say you dislike arrogance ... than you turn right around and post arrogantly.

EDIT: Btw, it's not "you as the pilot" who are magically physically aiming all of the weapons. There's this thing that you're piloting that handles part of the aiming duties. It's not a super-mecha, capable of perfect convergence. It's fine to want to have a game with super-mecha; it's not fine to say a game that isn't about piloting super-mechas SHOULD be.

What a novel idea. The mech should matter in combat beyond how it moves around, where it's torsos are and can get to, and what weapons it's mounting.

Aresye, on 28 September 2014 - 03:46 PM, said:

The whole point behind this, is that cooldown/reload times in MWO do not facilitate a CoF mechanic. There's a long waiting period between shots, heat penalties, and other factors that would make implementing any form of RNG on aim extremely frustrating.

Predictable percentage spread based upon conditions prevailing when you shoot is NOT cone of fire.

Did you miss that I said that all weapons stats and behaviors go back to stock behavior? And before you say it, that doesn't require a ten second recyle time for the weapons. All the bandaids that have been built up to try and keep people alive with perfect convergence on all like-velocity weapons wouldn't be necessary anymore.

Edited by Pht, 28 September 2014 - 04:32 PM.

[KraftySOT]

Yup, get rid of convergence for torso weapons.

You could have made this post one sentence long.

Edited by KraftySOT, 28 September 2014 - 04:30 PM.

[Mothykins]

Pht, on 28 September 2014 - 03:54 PM, said:

... and yet you can't produce a single valid reason why your accusation here or in your first post is true. You're doing nothing more than appealing to people's emotions.

Amazing - so now you say you DO understand it .... did you read it again till you understood it? Or are you just claiming that you understood it the first time? So, either you didn't bother to read it till comprehension the first time and you still decided it was perfectly valid to go off the rails with the school yard name-calling, or you did understand it even though you still said you didn't.

Ironic. You accuse me of arrogance, yet you are making statements about my personal internal desires (which I said NOTHING about) ... you'd have to be a mind-reader to know my desires. You are one, right? Or are you just being arrogant because of your irrational presumption?

The proof happens to be your post, where you deliberately used more and more words to try and make your post better. You belittled other systems, other "giant robot" IPs, and spoke down on anything that Didn't agree with your short sighted Ideology. 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. Your desires are fairly transparent, as well as where you're drawing inspiration from, therefore it's easy enough to extrapolate from there. Moving on.

Pht, on 28 September 2014 - 03:54 PM, said:

You claim you understand... and yet you continue making statements about things things not even posted. All you've done is found *a* instance where a specific RNG setup was exploited, and you've than attempted to blow that up to suck in every RNG possible.

Oh my, I brought a single support to my reasoning and then asked of you to perhaps look into it, or maybe ask an actual programmer. Using the fact I presented at least one piece of evidence for my reasoning to debase me is pretty ******* stupid.

Pht, on 28 September 2014 - 03:54 PM, said:

You don't even exhibit any understanding of my statement that it's possible to have a 100% connection rate, with the right tradeoffs ... "miss six times in a row."

Deliberately cropping a quote to a give a different message than intended, while cute, doesn't prove your point, it just proves you're a *********. Good Job, by the way.

Pht, on 28 September 2014 - 03:54 PM, said:

However, I suspect you couldn't care less about what I actually meant and mean. You seem to care more about being the alpha-male who scores a point by trying to deflate someone, anyone, instead of arguing against what's meant and actually trying to show how you disagree.

It seems that you're mostly projecting here, though I am partially to fault. Pretty much I'm trying to knock down someone who thinks they're smarter than they are. And, my goodness, I Did try to show, I even gave an example of why it's not the best Idea. look at that.

Pht, on 28 September 2014 - 03:54 PM, said:

Yes, I really said that mechwarrior should be tabletop/mech commander/etc. Because, again, our computers obviously can't handle small numbers in real-time.

Small Numbers, like Damage calculations? My my, whenever did I say that computers can't calculate stuff real time? Seems someones putting words in my mouth.

Pht, on 28 September 2014 - 03:54 PM, said:

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

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.

Pht, on 28 September 2014 - 03:54 PM, said:

More mind-reading. Yes, you can read my mind so that you can know I want to play tabletop, not Mechwarrior.

Seeing that you're attempting to implement a system similar to it, I figured it was a fair guess. Being belittling like that isn't at all helping you, and makes it pretty transparent that you don't have a real argument.

Pht, on 28 September 2014 - 03:54 PM, said:

You can't make your mind up, can you? Either it's impossible to get a 100% hit rate, or it's not. You're saying it's impossible AND that it's possible - in the same sense and at the same time.
So, Instead of ASKING what it would take to get a 100% hit rate against an overall target, you resort to chasing your own tail.

Oh man, saying that if someone cheated, like, sayyyy An Aimbot, or, better yet, like the **** that's gone down on Warface (Which is built on the same platform and in the same manner as MWO) to achieve a 100% hit rate is the same as saying in the same breath that You can get a 100% hit rate without cheating. Get ******.

Pht, on 28 September 2014 - 03:54 PM, said:

Yes, because I obviously posted the exact same thing as the system that underlies street fighter.

Do you understand what a Simile is? If Not, please return to high school.

Pht, on 28 September 2014 - 03:54 PM, said:

More mind reading. Yes, I really read my mind to know that I thought ... or even said in a post somewhere (anywhere, explicitly or implicitly) that "pilot skills should be a random variable." You also read from my mind tha I love TT and want mechwarrior to be TT ...

You say you dislike arrogance ... than you turn right around and post arrogantly.

Already been addressed, you're pretty transparent.

Also, must really suck to get back what you put in, huh?

Pht, on 28 September 2014 - 03:54 PM, said:

Btw, it's not "you as the pilot" who are magically physically aiming all of the weapons. There's this thing that you're piloting handles part of the aiming duties. It's not a super-mecha, capable of perfect convergence. It's fine to want to have a game with super-mecha; it's not fine to say a game that isn't about piloting super-mechas SHOULD be.

What a novel idea. The mech should matter in combat beyond how it moves around, where it's torsos are and can get to, and what weapons it's mounting.

My goodness, targeting systems. How do they work? I mean, if my Computer can converge x in-game weapons on a single point, I think that highly advanced robots could as well, with their mobile arms and a simple thing like, oh, hydraulic rams on the x and y axis attached to torso weapons could adjust. I mean, it's not like we don't have functioning systems like this in real life, right now. Gosh.

Edited by Cavale, 28 September 2014 - 04:47 PM.

[KraftySOT]

If you can convince me the Hunchbacks AC/20 can move in its mount...you could sell icecube makers to eskimos.

[Pht]

Cavale, on 28 September 2014 - 04:39 PM, said:

The proof happens to be your post, where you deliberately used more and more words to try and make your post better.

Mind reading is a habit with you, isn't it?

Quote

You belittled other systems, other "giant robot" IPs, and spoke down on anything that Didn't agree with your short sighted Ideology.

I didn't. It's called disagreement. It has been known to happen from time to time.

Quote

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. Your desires are fairly transparent, as well as where you're drawing inspiration from, therefore it's easy enough to extrapolate from there. Moving on.

Ah, so, I couldn't POSSIBLY be validly pointing out that you have been making conclusions that require you to have knowledge you can't humanly have. No, I ... MUST ... be doing something else.

So, all in all, it's perfectly ok for you to magically read my internal desires, thoughts, etc, as long as it serves your end, whatever that may be.

Quote

Oh my, I brought a single support to my reasoning and then asked of you to perhaps look into it, or maybe ask an actual programmer. Using the fact I presented at least one piece of evidence for my reasoning to debase me is pretty ******* stupid.

Your evidence didn't support your statement. You made a general claim, and than tried to use a single particular to say that ALL particulars must be the way you claimed they were.

Quote

Deliberately cropping a quote to a give a different message than intended, while cute, doesn't prove your point, it just proves you're a *********. Good Job, by the way.

I didn't crop your quote. I took the whole chunk in context.

Quote

It seems that you're mostly projecting here, though I am partially to fault. Pretty much I'm trying to knock down someone who thinks they're smarter than they are. And, my goodness, I Did try to show, I even gave an example of why it's not the best Idea. look at that.

... and now I can't POSSIBLY be doing anythign but projecting. To top that off, you now magically know that I think I'm smarter than I really am.

Quote

Small Numbers, like Damage calculations? My my, whenever did I say that computers can't calculate stuff real time? Seems someones putting words in my mouth.

Yep, you're right. You didn't post that computers can't do this in real time.

Quote

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.

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.

Quote

Seeing that you're attempting to implement a system similar to it, I figured it was a fair guess. Being belittling like that isn't at all helping you, and makes it pretty transparent that you don't have a real argument.

Now, not only is it ok for you to think you can know things you have no way of knowing, it's "belittling" to point this out.

Quote

Oh man, saying that if someone cheated, like, sayyyy An Aimbot, or, better yet, like the **** that's gone down on Warface (Which is built on the same platform and in the same manner as MWO) to achieve a 100% hit rate is the same as saying in the same breath that You can get a 100% hit rate. Get ******.

Garbled.

Your point?

Quote

Do you understand what a Simile is? If Not, please return to high school.

Edited before you posted: "Yes, because I obviously posted the exact same thing as "add a RNG" to the system that underlies street fighter."

Quote

Already been addressed, you're pretty transparent.

Also, must really suck to get back what you put in, huh?

No, it's not transparent. It's not even there. You're making assumptions. In no way can you pull in-context quotes from my posts and than show how they REQUIRE the conclusion that "I am an arrogant condescending jerk who think's he's smarter than he is."

Say, something like:

All men are mortals

Socrates is a man

so, socrates is a mortal

Thus making your conclusion *unavoidable*

Quote

My goodness, targeting systems. How do they work? I mean, if my Computer can converge x in-game weapons on a single point, I think that highly advanced robots could as well, with their mobile arms and a simple thing like, oh, hydraulic rams on the x and y axis attached to torso weapons could adjust. I mean, it's not like we don't have functioning systems like this in real life, right now. Gosh.

Quote

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. Aimed shots represent idealized circumstances and elaborate computer controls assisting a gunner who'se trying to pull off such shots under the same conditions, and thus applies modifiers to skill to reflect the difficulty.

Thanks,

- Herb

http://bg.battletech...huho3#msg676405

The percentages represent the battlemech's capability of aligning it's weapons; per the guy that controlled the IP, and this has not changed. BT battlemechs are not capable of that level of convergence in combat.

KraftySOT said:

If you can convince me the Hunchbacks AC/20 can move in its mount...you could sell icecube makers to eskimos.

"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."

From the official forums in the offical place to get answers from the horse's mouth. This is dittoe'd in the techmanual mech writeup, which is currently the fluff source that explains the hard rules about how battlemechs work. A 'mech can physically align every direct-fire weapon mounted on it... even a hunchback's ac20 is aimable enough to cover the entire front arc of the 'mech.

-http://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php/topic,29328.msg676374.html#msg676374

Edited by Pht, 28 September 2014 - 05:14 PM.

[KraftySOT]

To be fair...youre 'jacked in' to your mechwarrior.

The way a Stinger aims its medium laser, is you think about moving the arm with the mount, and aim it the same way you would if you had a laser strapped to your actual arm.

The mech is as accurate as you are.

The computer may give a piper showing you where to aim (like War Thunder) but actually aiming, is up to you. Convergence is the same way. If you can do it with two handguns in real life, you can do it while jacked into a machine with arm weapons.

if you cant. You cant.

So imagine as a Hunchback pilot...its like having a shotgun mounted in your actual right shoulder. Youd aim it the same way you would aim that if it were surgically implanted.

It doesnt converge on its own. Its mounted. You physically can move.

The sad fact is that in the lore, mechs are less like lumbering warmachines, and more like robotech mechs or Titanfall mechs.

Some might lumber...like a Direwolf...but a Commando?

And like many have suggested...we need a real pilot, and a real pilot skill tree...or at least a skill slider, like Warthunder has. This can help buff your ability to converge your weapons and aim.

Its really counter intuitive for people to come into this game from other shooters, OR from the TT, and every mech is running around like its Quake 3 Instagib.

It takes you out of the immersion. It hurts the experience. It certainly drives away new players, just like Instagib did.

You EXPECT when a huge war machine opens up with a plethora of weapons,that they dont all hit the same point, but pepper a target with firepower.

This is why AAA titles that have big war machines...do that. Its more immersive.

[KraftySOT]

http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Neurohelmet

And then there was the DNI, and the DNI adaptation the clans used.

Implants were widely available to assist in the help of neurotransmission, and alot of warriors opted for the surgery. Some clanners were even genetically engineered to have more pronounced brainwaves to help control the mech.

There aint no joysticks.

** there were joysticks, just not in the mechs we have besides the Banshee, and that was ripped out hundreds of years ago in favor of more advanced helmet designs that removed that functionality.

In the age of the star league, people had really ornate neural helmets and it was fashionable, not useful, to have joy sticks and pedals and such like that.

Edited by KraftySOT, 28 September 2014 - 05:28 PM.

[Eddrick]

KraftySOT, on 28 September 2014 - 05:26 PM, said:

http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Neurohelmet

And then there was the DNI, and the DNI adaptation the clans used.

Implants were widely available to assist in the help of neurotransmission, and alot of warriors opted for the surgery. Some clanners were even genetically engineered to have more pronounced brainwaves to help control the mech.

Pretty much takes the idea of "a Mech being like an extention of your own body" to a new level.

Edited by Eddrick, 28 September 2014 - 05:33 PM.

[ShinobiHunter]

Ok I didn't read the entire post. I'm sorry but I have ADD, and that's just too much for me.

That said, (assuming I read it right) if you are both standing still, under ideal conditions, you get 64% accuracy? If that is the case, it is utter rubbish. I really don't want a set % of my shots to hit, if I take the time and aim perfectly on an immobile target, I had better get 100% accuracy. Dice roll type percentages may work well for TT, but I would likely go back to MW4 if they implemented that here. (If I missed something in the OP, please feel free to point it out.)

[ApolloKaras]

You would be asking HSR to do an insurmountable number of calculations. There would have to be so many checks/calls/inquiries on all mechs weapon systems movement on the battlefield that I don't think that it would be remotely possible.

That aside I like the work you put into it.