Jump to content

Cof/unpredictable Randomness As A Fix For High Alphas/spike Damage? Who Needs It?!?


161 replies to this topic

#41 Mothykins

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Talon
  • Talon
  • 1,125 posts
  • Locationilikerice is my hero.

Posted 28 September 2014 - 05:42 PM

View PostPht, on 28 September 2014 - 05:08 PM, said:

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

View PostPht, on 28 September 2014 - 05:08 PM, said:

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

View PostPht, on 28 September 2014 - 05:08 PM, said:

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.
See above.

View PostPht, on 28 September 2014 - 05:08 PM, said:

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.
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.

View PostPht, on 28 September 2014 - 05:08 PM, said:

I didn't crop your quote. I took the whole chunk in context.
Here, let me just fully quote you here. Ahem.

View PostPht, on 28 September 2014 - 05:08 PM, said:

Cavale said:

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 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."

Quote

six shots in a row miss where you're aiming.
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.

View PostPht, on 28 September 2014 - 05:08 PM, said:

... 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.
You certainly seem to be acting that way.


View PostPht, on 28 September 2014 - 05:08 PM, said:

Yep, you're right. You didn't post that computers can't do this in real time.
Congrats. Basic reading comprehension is within your grasp.

View PostPht, on 28 September 2014 - 05:08 PM, said:

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.
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.

View PostPht, on 28 September 2014 - 05:08 PM, said:

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

View PostPht, on 28 September 2014 - 05:08 PM, said:

Garbled.

Your point?
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.

View PostPht, on 28 September 2014 - 05:08 PM, said:

Edited before you posted: "Yes, because I obviously posted the exact same thing as "add a RNG" to the system that underlies street fighter."
STILL SHOWING YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND A SIMILE. MISUNDERSTANDING ON PURPOSE DOES NOT MAKE YOU CLEVER, IT MAKES YOU AN A**HOLE.

View PostPht, on 28 September 2014 - 05:08 PM, said:

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*
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.

View PostPht, on 28 September 2014 - 05:08 PM, said:

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 perfect convergence
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.

Edited by Cavale, 28 September 2014 - 06:00 PM.


#42 WarZ

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 538 posts

Posted 28 September 2014 - 06:39 PM

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.

I played WoT for a year. I was a very skilled player. I absolutely HATED the CoF mechanic. Its the main reason I finally quit on the game. Even my real life friends couldnt keep me motivated to play. And since MWO came out at that time I never looked back.

WoT feels like junk compared to MWO. I will never subject myself to CoF games again. Unintuitive, buggy, and frustrating.

Its the main thing MWO got right.

#43 stjobe

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 9,498 posts
  • LocationOn your six, chipping away at your rear armour.

Posted 28 September 2014 - 10:53 PM

View PostKraftySOT, on 28 September 2014 - 05:17 PM, said:

To be fair...youre 'jacked in' to your mechwarrior.
[...]
The mech is as accurate as you are.

View PostKraftySOT, on 28 September 2014 - 05:26 PM, said:

There aint no joysticks.

NO.

I've explained it to you before, you're not "jacked in" to your 'mech, and it's the 'mech doing the aiming, not you:

Posted Image
(Tech Manual, p. 40)

Posted Image
(Tech Manual, p.42)

Edited by stjobe, 28 September 2014 - 10:56 PM.


#44 Mercules

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Nimble
  • The Nimble
  • 5,136 posts
  • LocationPlymouth, MN

Posted 29 September 2014 - 03:45 AM

View PostEddrick, on 28 September 2014 - 03:08 PM, said:

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.


There are not THAT many and PGI has started to make sure that they don't all come out the same "port" like they used to so even a mech that mounts two PPCs in one torso might have them hit over-under making a head shot with both nearly impossible and opening the possibility that it will cross the gap into another torso if the aim is right on the edge.

#45 Thorn Hallis

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,902 posts
  • LocationUnited States of Paranoia

Posted 29 September 2014 - 03:56 AM

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.

#46 Hatachi

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 456 posts
  • LocationUSA

Posted 29 September 2014 - 04:13 AM

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?

#47 Joseph Mallan

    ForumWarrior

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • FP Veteran - Beta 1
  • FP Veteran - Beta 1
  • 35,216 posts
  • Google+: Link
  • Facebook: Link
  • LocationMallanhold, Furillo

Posted 29 September 2014 - 05:16 AM

View Poststjobe, on 27 September 2014 - 11:55 AM, said:

I like it.

If I read it right, it's basically the various hit location tables from TT translated into percentages.

Should work splendidly, but I sense that people will react to your post in the manner they do to every suggestion that threatens perfect pin-point accuracy and instant convergence: "OMG NO RNG IN MAH SKILLZ". It's sad, really.

I want these people to prove their skillz on a rifle range! Then talk to me. -_-

#48 Eddrick

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Storm
  • Storm
  • 1,493 posts
  • Facebook: Link
  • LocationCanyon Lake, TX.

Posted 29 September 2014 - 06:03 AM

View PostMercules, on 29 September 2014 - 03:45 AM, said:


There are not THAT many and PGI has started to make sure that they don't all come out the same "port" like they used to so even a mech that mounts two PPCs in one torso might have them hit over-under making a head shot with both nearly impossible and opening the possibility that it will cross the gap into another torso if the aim is right on the edge.


My second prefered method for scattering shots, actualy doesn't stray to far from this. It's the method Chromehounds uses.

In Chromehounds, weapons don't converge to a pinpoint. They stop converging around the edges of the crosshair. Example: A weapon on the upper right side of the Mech will deviate to the upper right side of the crosshair. It creates a predictable spread the can be compensated for. If you want all of you weapons to hit the same point, you have to make small aim adjustmants when firing each weapon, one at a time. Which, encourages chainfire.

Chromehounds also has Recoil for the larger weapons. So, if you want all of your weapons to hit the same spot. You have to make larger aim adjustments, while firing the weapons one at a time.

Larger weapons have cooldowns WELL over 4 seconds in Chromehounds. I would like to see MWO do this more then anything.

Chromehounds has a working Role Warfare. It has several things that MWO doesn't have. Including, a role that MWO can have, but doesn't yet. A Mechs with mounted Artillery Weapons. Artillery Weapons that can be mounted on a Mech, exist in Battletech.

Edited by Eddrick, 29 September 2014 - 06:05 AM.


#49 3rdworld

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,562 posts

Posted 29 September 2014 - 06:24 AM

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

Posted Image

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

Posted Image

#50 Zyllos

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,818 posts

Posted 29 September 2014 - 06:56 AM

View PostSaxie, on 28 September 2014 - 05:39 PM, said:

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.


This is the reason why I call BS on this.

The game already does this for all weapons!!!

Ever fire a group of weapons at something very close or far away and have one weapon hit but the other miss? That is because it's individually calculating each weapon impact point already. It's just each individual weapon is aiming at the same location, the only difference is where it is mounted on a mech. This is why when you fire weapons at long range, but a target moves into the trajectory of the incoming weapon, only one of them hits while the other misses. This is because each projectile is already calculated individually.

The only variable that PGI has to add is how to randomize the shots themselves. This calculation can be as easy or hard as they want it to be. Beyond this, the server has no additional load for calculating individual locations for weapons as it's already being done individually already, just the aim point is aimed at a single location now.

This is why I disagree with any notion saying PGI can't implement this.

#51 Widowmaker1981

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Widow Maker
  • The Widow Maker
  • 5,030 posts
  • LocationAt the other end of the pretty lights.

Posted 29 September 2014 - 06:57 AM

The thing with all of the ‘remove convergence’ solutions being touted is all they will really do is change the criteria by which chassis viability is judged. Remove armlock so converging arms with torso weapons is hard? Fine, ill switch to mechs without mixed hardpoints (most victors are 100% arm hardpoints, banshee is 100% torso, Heavy metal is 100% arms, etc). Make torso weapons not coverage at all? Ill switch to mechs with all arm mounted guns.

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

I don’t have a problem with the way things are now, in all honesty – people complain, but making well placed shots to side torsos while moving on a moving target is hard. Im certainly not good at it, if im moving and my target is moving at anything more than close range ill aim for centre mass to make sure I connect. If other people have the skills? well good on them. They deserve the kill.

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. 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.

#52 Zyllos

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,818 posts

Posted 29 September 2014 - 07:01 AM

The only reason why PGI has not implemented this is because Paul, the game designer, thinks that having directly converging weapons is the best thing for the game.

#53 Zyllos

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,818 posts

Posted 29 September 2014 - 07:05 AM

View PostWidowmaker1981, on 29 September 2014 - 06:57 AM, said:

The thing with all of the ‘remove convergence’ solutions being touted is all they will really do is change the criteria by which chassis viability is judged. Remove armlock so converging arms with torso weapons is hard? Fine, ill switch to mechs without mixed hardpoints (most victors are 100% arm hardpoints, banshee is 100% torso, Heavy metal is 100% arms, etc). Make torso weapons not coverage at all? Ill switch to mechs with all arm mounted guns.

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

I don’t have a problem with the way things are now, in all honesty – people complain, but making well placed shots to side torsos while moving on a moving target is hard. Im certainly not good at it, if im moving and my target is moving at anything more than close range ill aim for centre mass to make sure I connect. If other people have the skills? well good on them. They deserve the kill.

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. 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.


Exactly. If a player is walking (considered 66% maximum speed of the mech) and fires a single weapon, it should be pin point accurate. If that same player fires multiple weapons, there should be some CoF involved. If that same play is running at maximum speed, there should be some CoF involved.

#54 wwiiogre

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,281 posts
  • LocationNorth Idaho

Posted 29 September 2014 - 07:23 AM

I also read this as, skill is used to gain the hit for the weapon. Then damage is figured on a percentage based chance to each box, based on a number of variables. Or more or less the hit location charts for table top BT.

I liked the OP for this very reason. Because PGI cannot figure out how to fix convergence and pretty much have disabled it. Giving perfect convergence, instantly at any range, any speed and any heat level. This completely goes against everything the Battle Tech Universe stands for. The only time you could pull off a called shot to a target location on another mech was if it was completely immobile (read shut down) and your mech was completely immobile and not moving. Even then it was considered very hard to pull off and had to be taken at very close range.

So this would also help srm, ssrm and lrm. As currently only ssrm use a variation of this. And it is a poor implementation. '

PHT I would use your small words next time and simplify the statement so most people will understand exactly what you mean.

Currently no convergence in MWO is a bad thing. Currently no penalty for aiming while overheated is a bad thing. It takes away skill and experience and control from a pilot turning MWO into a twitch game, not a simulation of Mech Warfare where controlling your heat was the name of the game. Choosing when to shoot more important than shooting as fast as you can since there are no penalties for running hot. While in battle tech being slightly overheated caused your aim to suffer and made your mech go slower. Making you an easier target for the enemy while making it harder for you to hit that same enemy.

So I am for your suggestion, knowing of course PGI will never implement it.

Chris

#55 3rdworld

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,562 posts

Posted 29 September 2014 - 07:26 AM

View PostZyllos, on 29 September 2014 - 07:05 AM, said:


Exactly. If a player is walking (considered 66% maximum speed of the mech) and fires a single weapon, it should be pin point accurate. If that same player fires multiple weapons, there should be some CoF involved. If that same play is running at maximum speed, there should be some CoF involved.


Comparatively nerfs lights and mediums.

Bad idea, go back to the drawing board.

Edited by 3rdworld, 29 September 2014 - 07:26 AM.


#56 Mcgral18

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • CS 2019 Top 8 Qualifier
  • CS 2019 Top 8 Qualifier
  • 17,987 posts
  • LocationSnow

Posted 29 September 2014 - 07:29 AM

View Post3rdworld, on 29 September 2014 - 06:24 AM, said:

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

Posted Image

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

Posted Image


Neither of the images work.

#57 3rdworld

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,562 posts

Posted 29 September 2014 - 07:34 AM

View PostMcgral18, on 29 September 2014 - 07:29 AM, said:


Neither of the images work.


Really? They work on my browser... Let me try tinypic.

Posted Image


Posted Image



Work for ya this time?

#58 Mcgral18

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • CS 2019 Top 8 Qualifier
  • CS 2019 Top 8 Qualifier
  • 17,987 posts
  • LocationSnow

Posted 29 September 2014 - 07:39 AM

View Post3rdworld, on 29 September 2014 - 07:34 AM, said:


Really? They work on my browser... Let me try tinypic.

Posted Image


Posted Image



Work for ya this time?


Yep.

Though I'm not sure magical, pinpoint instantaneous convergence is good for the game either. As the sig says, a nice point and click adventure.

#59 3rdworld

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,562 posts

Posted 29 September 2014 - 07:48 AM

View PostMcgral18, on 29 September 2014 - 07:39 AM, said:


Yep.

Though I'm not sure magical, pinpoint instantaneous convergence is good for the game either. As the sig says, a nice point and click adventure.



If there was no skill gap in this game I would possibly agree with the sig.


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.

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

Edited by 3rdworld, 29 September 2014 - 07:49 AM.


#60 Mcgral18

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • CS 2019 Top 8 Qualifier
  • CS 2019 Top 8 Qualifier
  • 17,987 posts
  • LocationSnow

Posted 29 September 2014 - 08:13 AM

View Post3rdworld, on 29 September 2014 - 07:48 AM, said:



If there was no skill gap in this game I would possibly agree with the sig.


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.

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


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.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users