1126 replies to this topic

[Yokaiko]

Rebas Kradd, on 12 April 2015 - 12:15 PM, said:

All that your randomization will do is make MWO even more of a "shoot the center torso" game than it already is.

Where did I ever say random? But yes, the idea you target center mass, but EVERYTHING i.e. that dual PP dual guass alpha DOESN'T hit one panel.

Rebas Kradd, on 12 April 2015 - 12:15 PM, said:

Think about it. Let's say that six medium lasers are fired at someone's right arm, with some assurance of spread. That means some lasers hit the arm, some hit the RT, and some miss the mech entirely.

Also means that some hit when you miss.

Plus you are using a hitscan weapon example, you can correct it.

Rebas Kradd, on 12 April 2015 - 12:15 PM, said:

What behavior will players then adopt to ensure that all their lasers are doing at least some damage? They'll probably start shooting further to the inside of the mech, namely the CT. Arm shooting and especially leg shooting would become a thing of the past. You just fixed one aspect of MWO, but at the cost of another - the component game.

The component game is largely a false economy, I use a large number of mechs that I HOPE you hit the arms, it means the STs that I DO care about are going to take a lot less damage because of the way that damage transfer works.

Rebas Kradd, on 12 April 2015 - 12:15 PM, said:

Your sledgehammer solution also probably misdiagnoses the problem. I sense a lot of people are looking at their paperdoll right before death, seeing one torso section dramatically redder than the others, and assuming it's pinpoint at work. The reality is probably more likely that that's just the component the players are exposing, and that there are a LOT of mechs shooting at him. But even if that's not the case and pinpoint is the issue, just any old solution isn't the answer.

There are incremental solutions that use a scalpel instead of your sledgehammer. Take out the "heat containment" efficiency, for example, and you cut heat threshold by 20%; that adds four seconds between alphas onto my Dire Wolf (2ERLL, 4ERML) if I want to avoid shutdown. Throw in other penalties like movement, visibility, and more damage. Make all penalties start at 90% instead of 100%. If you implement simpler solutions like that, there's no need for more complicated ones like randomization.

Again, we USED to have a sliding convergance.....well still pay XP for in ....that is pin point. PGI took it out because the le servers couldn't handle the load, with 8v8 and DX9 in closed beta.

You want real time penalties based on a heatscale that is constantly varying? Its not going to happen.

[Yokaiko]

1453 R, on 12 April 2015 - 12:20 PM, said:

Let's try this a different way.

Pbiggz, Mystere, Yokaiko, McGral, whoever. Let's examine the following 'Mech, shall we?

TBR-PRIME: Marksman set-up

Assuming a fairly typical convergence proposal set-up, this is pretty much the most accurate 'Mech I can make. it equips two and only two weapons, each in an arm equipped with full articulation (just assume it's there, looks like Smurfy won't give me elbows anymore again >_>). Pulse lasers are TT-canonically the most accurate direct-fire weapon I know of, and the 'Mech includes both a maximum-sized TC and an active probe to assist with targeting and acquisition. It does not have any jump jets to throw its aim off, it has no recoil-inducing weapons whatsoever, and its 'alpha strike' consists of firing two weapons at the same time. Assume for the sake of argument that any adjusted skill/efficiency system for the 'Mech is also bent on placing accurate fire.

In your opinion, would this 'Mech be allowed to hit what it shot at? If so, how would it do so? Could I, for example, hit what I was aiming at in this Timber Wolf while moving? How fast could I go before this Timber Wolf would no longer be able to hit what it aimed at? Could I hit what I was aiming at if I had been fighting for a while and was sitting around 35% on my heat bar? Could I potentially hit what I was aiming at outside the C-LPL's effective range, i.e. in its long-range damage dropoff zone?

What would I have to do, in your convergence system, to be able to hit what I was aiming at in a 'Mech which sacrifices everything it possibly can for accuracy? What benefits would that set-up right there give me, in your ideal convergence system? Would I have any benefits at all over, say, any of these, which all possess vastly superior firepower but would, in your system, all have absolutely dismal accuracy? Would I be able to leverage the improved precision of my low-overall-firepower fit to pull a hit-and-run marksman style where each of the shots I take goes where I tell it to?

Let's find out. Be honest now, folks - how would that particular Timber Wolf, built to absolutely maximize its chances of hitting the target, work in a system which tries as absolutely hard as it can to disallow hitting the target?

Actually what I have been saying since CB is that torso mounted weapons HAVE no convergence they go straight from centerline, where that is in comparison to the retical is on you.

Arm mounted weapons should have convergence, they are easier to blow off.

[Mystere]

1453 R, on 12 April 2015 - 11:58 AM, said:

Assume for the moment that weapons fire in MWO is crosshair-accurate, as that Peanutside 2 video demonstrated, while one is perfectly stationary, zeroed out on heat, and firing a single weapon at a time. Move, and you lose five degrees of deviation from your accuracy. Generate heat, and you lose another five degrees of deviation, total ten. Fire another weapon(s) simultaneously with the first and you lose five degrees of deviation per additional weapon fired. Ergo, a typical 5ML Jenner, just as a random, relatively well understood example, performing a typical Jenner drive-by would fire at what he aimed at, save for:

-Moving (+5 DoD)
-Heat (+5 DoD)
-Extra Weapons (4x +5 DoD)

So...this Jenner would hit where he aimed at...within thirty degrees of deviation of his aimpoint. For doing what a light 'Mech is supposed to do and shooting while on the scoot.

Jenner performing a typical drive-by suffers from 30-degree deviation? At brawling range? You offer nothing more than exaggerations and hyperbole, coupled with a heavy dose of ranting via a huge wall of text.

Edited by Mystere, 12 April 2015 - 12:53 PM.

[Yokaiko]

Mystere, on 12 April 2015 - 12:50 PM, said:

Jenner performing a typical drive-by suffers from 30-degree deviation? At brawling range? You offer nothing more than exaggerations and hyperbole, coupled with a heavy dose of ranting gibberish.

FTFY

[Adiuvo]

Mystere, on 12 April 2015 - 09:30 AM, said:

He has no real arguments to present. As such, did you expect anything better?

Mystere, on 12 April 2015 - 09:50 AM, said:

Here are 2 key points you can already get just from the first two and a half minutes of the Planetside 2 video posted above:

• CoF makes very little difference at close range.
  
  • At close distances, you can pretty much keep on firing.
• CoF effects become more significant the farther you are away from the target.
  
  • At long distances, it is imperative to minimized the effects of CoF.

Those 2 key points work in shooter games. Those same 2 key points work in simulation games. And finally, those very same 2 key points also work in real life.


Given the above statement, what is your point again in objecting to CoF?

As for your 2 questions, I think the above points already answered them.

What's hilarious about this quote pairing is that you made his argument for him while at the same time declaring it 'not real'.

Elaborating, cone of fire, no matter if it's under a normal distribution or not, will result in long range combat being unreliable. How do you plan to make a system where the tolerances are precise enough to allow for 800m combat while still having an impact on 500m? How do you plan on doing that for 400m and 700m?

It's not very hard to close range in this game. Streaks have a 400m range, and under current lock mechanics it's not possible to give those a CoF mechanic. So why wouldn't the best builds suddenly become streakboats? Furthermore, if long range was possible, what incentive would have you to move? Pushing on an entrenched team is already stacked against you. If you add convergence issues to the pushing team and none for the stationary one, then you will literally see camping all the time.

pbiggz, on 12 April 2015 - 09:38 AM, said:

They arent offended by you not wanting TT rules. Adapting a table top game to a real time action sim is stupid, you take precedents from TT, one for one rules.

They're fighting you because you refuse to listen to the real core of their arguments, which I have mentioned in my above post. Cone of fire is an accepted game mechanic that is widely used across MANY games and you refuse to see or acknowledge that. That makes you willfully ignorant and removes any credibility your arguments have.

The Mechwarrior series has never been a copy of TT rules. You can't seriously expect a board game to translate 1 to 1 to a user controlled environment? If MWO was an RTS then sure. It doesn't work if you have control over an individual mech.

Games have a CoF on automatic weapons. We don't have any of those in MWO besides machine guns. We also have a varied heightmap which makes the actual aiming process more difficult than typical flat-ground maps.

Edited by Adiuvo, 12 April 2015 - 12:54 PM.

[Yokaiko]

Adiuvo, on 12 April 2015 - 12:53 PM, said:

It's not very hard to close range in this game. Streaks have a 400m range, and under current lock mechanics it's not possible to give those a CoF mechanic.

Why would streaks need a CoF they are already ALL OVER the place if they hit at all.

[Adiuvo]

Yokaiko, on 12 April 2015 - 01:19 PM, said:

Why would streaks need a CoF they are already ALL OVER the place if they hit at all.

Any sort of hit is better than a miss.

[Mystere]

Adiuvo, on 12 April 2015 - 12:53 PM, said:

What's hilarious about this quote pairing is that you made his argument for him while at the same time declaring it 'not real'.

What? Are you referring to his gibberish I was reacting to?

Adiuvo, on 12 April 2015 - 12:53 PM, said:

Elaborating, cone of fire, no matter if it's under a normal distribution or not, will result in long range combat being unreliable. How do you plan to make a system where the tolerances are precise enough to allow for 800m combat while still having an impact on 500m? How do you plan on doing that for 400m and 700m?

Call me crazy, but I myself would like to have 2 or 3-meter R95 at 1000m while stationary and firing only one weapon (i.e. sniper) at a specific component, although many would probably want pixel-perfect precision.

At full run and firing XXX number of weapons or more? I'll have to get back to you on that. I was initially thinking of having 0.25 degree deviation at my desired R95 at 1000m, and a maximum of 1 degree at the other extreme. But the numbers are not as good as I would like, especially given all the variables involved.

Adiuvo, on 12 April 2015 - 12:53 PM, said:

Games have a CoF on automatic weapons. We don't have any of those in MWO besides machine guns. We also have a varied heightmap which makes the actual aiming process more difficult than typical flat-ground maps.

But we do have the ability to fire multiple weapons at the same time. So CoF can be applied with that in mind.

[Y E O N N E]

All of the weapons in MWO are automatic in the strictest sense, with Gauss being the solitary exception. The rest will continue to fire and cycle as long as you keep the trigger held down and you've got ammo or heat capacity to spare.

[Hidirian]

Adiuvo, on 12 April 2015 - 12:53 PM, said:

What's hilarious about this quote pairing is that you made his argument for him while at the same time declaring it 'not real'.

Elaborating, cone of fire, no matter if it's under a normal distribution or not, will result in long range combat being unreliable. How do you plan to make a system where the tolerances are precise enough to allow for 800m combat while still having an impact on 500m? How do you plan on doing that for 400m and 700m?

It's not very hard to close range in this game. Streaks have a 400m range, and under current lock mechanics it's not possible to give those a CoF mechanic. So why wouldn't the best builds suddenly become streakboats? Furthermore, if long range was possible, what incentive would have you to move?Pushing on an entrenched team is already stacked against you. If you add convergence issues to the pushing team and none for the stationary one, then you will literally see camping all the time.

The Mechwarrior series has never been a copy of TT rules. You can't seriously expect a board game to translate 1 to 1 to a user controlled environment? If MWO was an RTS then sure. It doesn't work if you have control over an individual mech.

Games have a CoF on automatic weapons. We don't have any of those in MWO besides machine guns. We also have a varied heightmap which makes the actual aiming process more difficult than typical flat-ground maps.

Simple, add a movement modifier to COF. The longer you sit still the narrower your cof becomes. You claim then there is no reason to move as you would have the COF advantage at range. But really who would sit still in a combat situtation where you could easily be hit with lrms and airstrikes?(grenade down a hallway of entrenched enemies analogy) The second they move to get out of fire they've lost that stationairy COF advantage, its on the group that wants to push to come up with a tactical solution.(like going around behind them or airstriking them or scouting and pelting them with lrms)

As for which weapons get COF, the only ones that should apply should be balistics and lasers(Recoil + targeting computer/weapon alignment+mech movement/shake). Lrms have a lock mechanic which means they dont need cof and srms already HAVE COF so they dont need it.

Oh and as for COF having an effect on convergence at specific weapon ranges thats already there with the weapons designated optimal range. While standing still you would be almost center with your shots with a say med laser at 270m, past that it loses damage and its convergence gets worse.

Edited by Hidirian, 12 April 2015 - 02:41 PM.

[Y E O N N E]

Airstrikes generally require line of sight to the target to be laid down. LRMs require at least one person to have line of sight or, at the very least, take a gamble to get a NARC or UAV up over the targets. All of these things let those entrenched 'Mechs employ their CoF bonus.

What this game needs to break entrenchment like that is an indirect fire weapon that does splash damage to anything around the impact site. 'Mech Mortars, Long Toms, and Arrow IV missiles are of that variety.

Otherwise, the only way to break an entrenched position is to have an organized group make a dedicated charge and hope the enemy is less organized.

Edited by Yeonne Greene, 12 April 2015 - 02:43 PM.

[Rebas Kradd]

Yokaiko, on 12 April 2015 - 12:35 PM, said:

Where did I ever say random? But yes, the idea you target center mass, but EVERYTHING i.e. that dual PP dual guass alpha DOESN'T hit one panel.

Dual gauss isn't something that most people are worried about. It's relegated to either glass-cannon heavies requiring an XL engine (Jager, Phract or Catapult) or slow, waddling fatties that lack the ability to choose their engagements or avoid a focus order (Dire Wolf, King Crab). If those mechs achieve anything in most matches, they've pulled off a triumph of positioning and accuracy and deserve their win. I do believe this conversation is about laser vomit.

Yokaiko, on 12 April 2015 - 12:35 PM, said:

The component game is largely a false economy, I use a large number of mechs that I HOPE you hit the arms, it means the STs that I DO care about are going to take a lot less damage because of the way that damage transfer works.

You're missing the point on three fronts.

First, even if players targeting components isn't much of a game right now, it still could be in the future, and it shouldn't be buried to address a different mechanic that can be fixed in other ways. And there ARE situations where component aiming could be important. If I'm in a 1vs1 match against an Executioner-D, you bet I'm going after that right arm in order to keep myself alive.

Second of all, that side torso of yours you want people to avoid? They won't even be able to hit THAT with reliability with lack of convergence. So again, they'll just resort to center-torso shooting. There goes the strategy of aiming to take out the Atlas' autocannons or the Banshee's lasers. You're shallowing the game.

Third of all, again, removing energy convergence guarantees the legging game will evaporate. It will become a lot more efficient to shoot the CT than to shoot the legs when your energy weapons are spraying.

Yokaiko, on 12 April 2015 - 12:35 PM, said:

Again, we USED to have a sliding convergance.....well still pay XP for in ....that is pin point. PGI took it out because the le servers couldn't handle the load, with 8v8 and DX9 in closed beta.

They also took it out because of player feedback that complained about the very thing you want put in - randomization and weapons not going where they're pointing.

Yokaiko, on 12 April 2015 - 12:35 PM, said:

You want real time penalties based on a heatscale that is constantly varying? Its not going to happen.

What? I'm saying that if any mech breaches a certain heat threshold, whatever that threshold is for that mech, they start experiencing penalties. That's not difficult; it is, in fact, already in the game at a 100% threshold. I'm simply suggesting it be lowered a bit.

Edited by Rebas Kradd, 12 April 2015 - 03:07 PM.

[pbiggz]

Adiuvo, on 12 April 2015 - 12:53 PM, said:

What's hilarious about this quote pairing is that you made his argument for him while at the same time declaring it 'not real'.

Elaborating, cone of fire, no matter if it's under a normal distribution or not, will result in long range combat being unreliable. How do you plan to make a system where the tolerances are precise enough to allow for 800m combat while still having an impact on 500m? How do you plan on doing that for 400m and 700m?

It's not very hard to close range in this game. Streaks have a 400m range, and under current lock mechanics it's not possible to give those a CoF mechanic. So why wouldn't the best builds suddenly become streakboats? Furthermore, if long range was possible, what incentive would have you to move? Pushing on an entrenched team is already stacked against you. If you add convergence issues to the pushing team and none for the stationary one, then you will literally see camping all the time.

The Mechwarrior series has never been a copy of TT rules. You can't seriously expect a board game to translate 1 to 1 to a user controlled environment? If MWO was an RTS then sure. It doesn't work if you have control over an individual mech.

Games have a CoF on automatic weapons. We don't have any of those in MWO besides machine guns. We also have a varied heightmap which makes the actual aiming process more difficult than typical flat-ground maps.

You spotted a mistake. I meant to say you take precedents, NOT one for one rules. I think most of my posts support that, and i do agree, using TT rules as is, is virtually impossible, and if not, very stupid.

[Khobai]

Quote

Nah 12 v 12 is superior in all ways to 8 v 8.

Nope. 12v12 is awful. It blots out individual skill in favor of mob mentality. Especially on small maps. Maps like river city cant handle 12v12 and its obvious to anyone who's played on that map. We should have the option to play 8v8 or 12v12, or at the very least the small maps should be 8v8 only.

I wouldnt mind 1v1, 2v2, and 4v4 on a solaris arena map either. that would be way better than 12v12. Individual skill and small team tactics should be how MWO is played. Rather than brainlessly mobbing up in one place and deathballing like 12v12 encourages.

The main problem with 12v12 is theres no real potential for game upsets or turnarounds. Generally the team that gets 2-3 mechs down loses simply because of the snowballing effect. In 12v12 individual skill doesnt count as much because its impossible for a single player to take out a team of 8-12 mechs on their own. However in 8v8 it was entirely possible for one player to win a 1v4 or in rare cases even 1v5. That made 8v8 much more exciting because there was always the possibility of a skilled player pulling a win out of nowhere.

Edited by Khobai, 12 April 2015 - 07:03 PM.

[Armorine]

Khobai, on 12 April 2015 - 06:44 PM, said:

Nope. 12v12 is awful. It blots out individual skill in favor of mob mentality. Especially on small maps. Maps like river city cant handle 12v12 and its obvious to anyone who's played on that map. We should have the option to play 8v8 or 12v12, or at the very least the small maps should be 8v8 only.

I wouldnt mind 1v1, 2v2, and 4v4 on a solaris arena map either. that would be way better than 12v12. Individual skill and small team tactics should be how MWO is played. Rather than brainlessly mobbing up in one place and deathballing like 12v12 encourages.

The main problem with 12v12 is theres no real potential for game upsets or turnarounds. Generally the team that gets 2-3 mechs down loses simply because of the snowballing effect. In 12v12 individual skill doesnt count as much because its impossible for a single player to take out a team of 8-12 mechs on their own. However in 8v8 it was entirely possible for one player to win a 1v4 or in rare cases even 1v5. That made 8v8 much more exciting because there was always the possibility of a skilled player pulling a win out of nowhere.

I disagree. I've has ALOT of games where we've been down 4-5 mechs and we suddenly drop 4 of there's in 10-15 seconds. Combat loss grouping is real and glorious. Towards the end of a game if you fart in the direction of a mech it'll usually drop.

[Telmasa]

Mystere, on 12 April 2015 - 09:06 AM, said:

Well, if you haven't figured that one out yet, then I am afraid I cannot help you.

Many just want to avoid those "Oh ****!" moments. But it is a rare gem who prevails in spite of them.

Yeah, I'm a bad-ass at Dead Space. Still doesn't make it enjoyable in a competitive multiplayer arena. For me, at least.

Quote

FTFY. (I want to play a BattleTech game of war in the InnerSphere and beyond, not simulate being on a rifle range play another version of Call of Duty like some others seem to idealize want.)

Less "Battletech", more like prior MechWarrior titles (not including console versions), and vehement dislike of anything that mimics Call of Duty or the cancerous aspects of World of Tanks.

Quote

But you are already working with the Devil, since the first time you played the game. Denial will just allow him to possess your soul.

The Devil has his uses in carefully measured & small partitions. It's when you embrace the Devil that things go wrong.


All banter aside, I'm thinking about your idealized CoF - and how big a cone are you talking here?

Cause, to my mind, you're saying it's fine as long as the CoF is kept very small.
I'm not seeing, at that point, how it'd function better than giving weapons separated points of aim while still retaining precision and accuracy - like you might as well just go with this latter idea.

Would it be possible for you to take a couple screenshots, one for "stationary", "on the move", "close up", "at range", or whatnot, and just paint in with MSpaint or something how you think the aiming reticule should look, so I can get a better idea of what you're saying?

Cause the worst case scenario for me is that it looks exactly like something out of World of Tanks...while the "best" possible scenario to my mind (if we're talking CoF) would look rather like a center dot that's been enlarged to a still pretty tiny circle, just large enough that shots at a distance would vary a little.

There's a problem here too, though, that just occured to me: how the heck would CoF work if you've got a Gauss Rifle, an SRM6, a Large Pulse Laser, and an array of SPL/Machine guns?
I mean, if you use a unified, one-CoF-for-all-weapons scheme, seems to me that would just indirectly buff shortrange weaponry, since it'd still effectively be pin-point while combat at range would be hindered. Since shortrange weapons in large numbers is already quite advantageous compared to heavier-tonnage, long-range weapons, I don't think that kinda help is necessary.

I think at that point it'd be easier to just go with the perfect-accuracy, separated-convergence train of thought.

1453 R, on 12 April 2015 - 10:07 AM, said:

You are supposed to just up and deal with the fact that three out of five shots you fire are going to miss wildly, and the remaining two will hit where you were actually aiming only by the grace of the heavens, no matter what you do. Because that is by God how BattleTech TT works, and thus that is how MWO should work.

Screwwww that. NO. Nein. Nyet. Bad. Evil. Ban it. Shun it. Burn it with fire. Bury it six feet deep. Never again.

Seriously, if you want to get me to quit the game, this right here is how you do it. No amount of cool stompy robot combat could ever possibly redeem that level of cancerous luck-based ridiculousness. It wouldn't be a competitive game anymore - anytime raw number-luck is involved in determining how combat goes, fun/balance/fairness/competition fly out the window.

I want a MECHWARRIOR COMBAT SHOOTER, not a DICE-ROLL SIMULATION ON STEROIDS.

If I want a slot-machine with lasers, light beams, explosions, and other special effects, I can visit a casino.

Edited by Telmasa, 12 April 2015 - 07:35 PM.

[Ragtag soldier]

....is there some reason why "degrading convergence" means "cone of fire" for you kids? there's more than one way to handle this problem.

[MW Waldorf Statler]

the convergence is nevertheless already simulated by weapons have optimal distance for the full Scahden, and then this percentage change with increasing distance, the exception is currently only the Gauss, which, however, their structure but has a completely different operation (basement with hyper-fast acceleration).
And when I see how hit by faulty Hitreg and pings in the Pugs some players already not a goal in 20m, which is the gameplay certainly not be conducive to beginners and more will go

Many new Players firing of the undamaged Spider in Front ,and not seeing the redcored Daishi in the own Back

Edited by CSJ Ranger, 12 April 2015 - 08:22 PM.

[1453 R]

Ragtag soldier, on 12 April 2015 - 07:53 PM, said:

....is there some reason why "degrading convergence" means "cone of fire" for you kids? there's more than one way to handle this problem.

There is.

A proper, working heatscale system - and by that I mean something like a 60-point system, in which the bottom thirty points of a bar are your 'safe zone' representing TT's ability to sink a certain amount of heat safely, before it hit your heatscale, and the top thirty points represent increasingly disastrous potential consequences - would go a long, long way towards defusing the convergence folks' issues with heavy alpha strikes without completely decoupling 'aiming' and 'hitting' the way they keep trying to do. This would simultaneously make the game feel more 'BattleTech' while also allowing people to still meaningfully affect where their fire goes.

Why nobody wants to do that - or rather, why nobody wants to do just that, rather than "sure, do that, and then ALSO do insane convergence shenanigans so that firing a high-damage laser alpha not only risks coolant failure, actuator damage, and pilot heat stroke effects, but also DOESN'T ACTUALLY HIT THE TARGET" - is the thing that boggles my mind.

[MW Waldorf Statler]

Which role has CoF, if 5 Team players simultaneously firing at a target ? While many Player only fire at a single target, or wild move between Targets, which are then against teams and veterans do not stand a chance






how many fire several players in ARMA, BF or CoD simultaneously for a few seconds on an enemy in Close Combat,and the damage is added! in This Games OneHitHeadshots are not uncommon by Sniper

Edited by CSJ Ranger, 13 April 2015 - 02:18 AM.