378 replies to this topic

[Vassago Rain]

Purplefluffybunny, on 14 April 2013 - 04:37 PM, said:

Yes, I get what you are getting at. A lack of balance forces us all to use certain load outs and kills variability?

Yes.

[Bobzilla]

FrostCollar, on 14 April 2013 - 02:06 PM, said:

I'm really not sure where this argument keeps coming from. How does reducing the ability of a player to aim increase skill? It reduces the benefits to be gained from accurate aiming and effectively puts into place a skill ceiling where any ability to aim more accurately than the spread lets you is lost.

It makes all mechs less accurate, long range weapons much less useful, skill less of a factor in deciding engagements, and encourages static gameplay and usage of heavier mechs.

It wouldn't reduce a players ability to aim at all, it reduces their dependance on crosshairs. I find it too easy to choose a spacific part, I just feel it should be harder. Im not saying the weapon should fire from some random point inside the wider crosshairs, just in the exact center of them, so you can still aim, and if your used to it, aim well. But it would make it much harder to do pinpont while moving and at extreme range.

It does not "reduce the benefits to be gained from accurate aiming", it just makes that aiming harder if your moving or running hot, all the benefits still there. Long range mechs will only suffer if they are running too hot or moving, other wise it will be just the same.

I don't see how there's a skill ceiling anymore than there is now, as you can just stop or cool off to make it the same it is now.

Skill should be less of a factor in deciding engagements, tactics should be a bigger factor.

Hey i get why you'd be against it, you think you couldn't run fast in a light and aim at a head hitbox, but i think you still could when you got used to it. Maybe it would cause too much of a rift between new players and skilled ones, i'd still like to try it as the mm should separate them anyways.

[Purplefluffybunny]

cyberFluke, on 14 April 2013 - 03:46 PM, said:

I pilot mostly Awesomes, that [Reacted] don't fly here.

Eh? You even look at the post I was agreeing with?

Vassago Rain, on 14 April 2013 - 04:39 PM, said:

Yes.

I agree with you on that.

Edited by Egomane, 15 April 2013 - 12:56 AM.
Quote clean-up

[cyberFluke]

Purplefluffybunny, on 14 April 2013 - 04:40 PM, said:

Eh? You even look at the post I was agreeing with?

Hit quote on the wrong post, my bad

[TruePoindexter]

cyberFluke, on 14 April 2013 - 04:45 PM, said:

Hit quote on the wrong post, my bad

Watched some of your games. I didn't see long range precision fire being a deciding factor in a single one of them. Strategic/tactical decisions and team maneuvers won or the lost games I watched.

Edited by TruePoindexter, 14 April 2013 - 05:53 PM.

[Tekadept]

Without making things "random cone of fire" I reckon for convergence it should have a slight delay, Ie you point at a target, the range finder detects its at 300m range, after a brief period your weapons converge on that point, Move reticule over a target a cm to the left which is at 900 metre again a short period whilst your weapons converge. You targeting computers does all the calculations for you , but it takes a little time for the convergence to happen. You can still fire whilst your weapons aren't converged and they go where ever they are mid movement. Kind of like how it takes a bit of time for your arm to catchup with your torso effect.

For convergence "I assume" there is a mechanism like servo motors/actuators which manipulate the orientation of weapons to converge on that point on the torso's and minute adjustments to the arms, this merely adds a slight delay for that to happen as I'm sure they wont move at the speed of light. What kind of delay? who knows who cares, it wont be done so I don't know why I'm bothering so meh.

[Targetloc]

Tekadept, on 14 April 2013 - 05:19 PM, said:

Without making things "random cone of fire" I reckon for convergence it should have a slight delay, Ie you point at a target, the range finder detects its at 300m range, after a brief period your weapons converge on that point, Move reticule over a target a cm to the left which is at 900 metre again a short period whilst your weapons converge. You targeting computers does all the calculations for you , but it takes a little time for the convergence to happen. You can still fire whilst your weapons aren't converged and they go where ever they are mid movement. Kind of like how it takes a bit of time for your arm to catchup with your torso effect.

For convergence "I assume" there is a mechanism like servo motors/actuators which manipulate the orientation of weapons to converge on that point on the torso's and minute adjustments to the arms, this merely adds a slight delay for that to happen as I'm sure they wont move at the speed of light. What kind of delay? who knows who cares, it wont be done so I don't know why I'm bothering so meh.

That's how it works right now.

[Tekadept]

Targetloc, on 14 April 2013 - 05:23 PM, said:

That's how it works right now.

Well to be honest I have noticed no real difference whipping from a close range target to a distant one and firing as soon as my ERLL have cycled so perhaps they need to tweak those numbers a little?? due to my ping only since HSR my observations are based on, prior to that who knows where my shots went

And I'm not talking about Arm torso convergence.

Edited by Tekadept, 14 April 2013 - 05:37 PM.

[John Norad]

I think the OP meant something along the lines of "more emphasis on tactical skill" instead of twitch gameplay shooter skill.
If that's the case I do agree to a certain degree. Developing and playing a Mechwarrior game on a pure shooter level kinda falls very short of it's potential.

On a side note, what's with all those reading comprehension failures and ad hominem insults? It's really aggravating.

[Vassago Rain]

Bobzilla, on 14 April 2013 - 04:39 PM, said:

It wouldn't reduce a players ability to aim at all, it reduces their dependance on crosshairs. I find it too easy to choose a spacific part, I just feel it should be harder. Im not saying the weapon should fire from some random point inside the wider crosshairs, just in the exact center of them, so you can still aim, and if your used to it, aim well. But it would make it much harder to do pinpont while moving and at extreme range.

It does not "reduce the benefits to be gained from accurate aiming", it just makes that aiming harder if your moving or running hot, all the benefits still there. Long range mechs will only suffer if they are running too hot or moving, other wise it will be just the same.

I don't see how there's a skill ceiling anymore than there is now, as you can just stop or cool off to make it the same it is now.

Skill should be less of a factor in deciding engagements, tactics should be a bigger factor.

Hey i get why you'd be against it, you think you couldn't run fast in a light and aim at a head hitbox, but i think you still could when you got used to it. Maybe it would cause too much of a rift between new players and skilled ones, i'd still like to try it as the mm should separate them anyways.

Skill is your ability to use the proper tactics and strategy to defeat the opponent. In the quake series, scrubs assume you win by being the twitchking, when it's really all about controlling the map's resources and chokepoints. Good players will seemingly always spam the best weapon. Well, genius, that's because they control and patrol the routes where the ammo for said weapons can be found.

This is why scrubs don't get to decide game rules. They don't understand what they're really asking for. More randomness has NEVER meant a more balanced or 'skill' based game. If it did, CoD would take so much skill, not a single human being would be able to play it. Same with Mario kart.

[Tilon]

I am endlessly amused by the hordes of zombies who join every one of these threads, equating the idea with randomness. Every FPS has some inaccurate fire. Deal with it. If you don't like it, minimize your inaccuracy.

To the people who say a Vehicle FPS should have perfect aim...uh...what precedent are you using for that? I've never heard of one. A mech doesn't canonly have perfect aim. Sorry.

It gives you more factors to control. Speed. Heat. You can get accuracy, you just have to manage your mech better, especially with regards to group firing.

As to the person who said that this obsoletes light mechs, no it does not. The accuracy spread scales by percentage of max speed, not total speed. So a Jenner will get the same inaccuracy at max speed that an Atlas does at a far slower speed.

The idea isn't to make every shot inaccurate. The idea is to penalize boating shots, so as to encourage diversity and allow the weapon variance to shine again.

Edited by Tilon, 14 April 2013 - 06:00 PM.

[cyberFluke]

TruePoindexter, on 14 April 2013 - 05:06 PM, said:

Watched some of your games. I didn't see long range precision fire being a deciding factor in a single one of them. Strategic/tactical decisions and team maneuvers won or the lost games I watched.

I concede that the demonstration didn't show that, but it wasn't supposed to. It wasn't a well co-ordinated play session either, it was a pug on TS, some of whom I knew, others not. The point was I was making shots with twin ERPPCs while flying at 82KPH, backwards, in a heavy mech designed to be an LRM support boat. The broken, it hurts.

Aside: What was the stream quality like? I've not fired xSplit up in a while and haven't optimised it for MW:O..

Tilon, on 14 April 2013 - 05:58 PM, said:

I am endlessly amused by the hordes of zombies who join every one of these threads, equating the idea with randomness. Every FPS has some inaccurate fire. Deal with it. If you don't like it, minimize your inaccuracy.

To the people who say a Vehicle FPS should have perfect aim...uh...what precedent are you using for that? I've never heard of one. A mech doesn't canonly have perfect aim. Sorry.

It gives you more factors to control. Speed. Heat. You can get accuracy, you just have to manage your mech better, especially with regards to group firing.

As to the person who said that this obsoletes light mechs, no it does not. The accuracy spread scales by percentage of max speed, not total speed. So a Jenner will get the same inaccuracy at max speed that an Atlas does at a far slower speed.

The idea isn't to make every shot inaccurate. The idea is to penalize boating shots, so as to encourage diversity and allow the weapon variance to shine again.

This man here gets it. +1 beer for you

Edited by cyberFluke, 14 April 2013 - 06:09 PM.

[cyberFluke]

Targetloc, on 14 April 2013 - 03:16 PM, said:

Mota Prefect and Voodoolou? Streaming straight from the old folks home?

They happened to be on TS when I landed

[Wildman13]

Vassago Rain, on 14 April 2013 - 02:58 AM, said:

>I want more skill.
>I don't want people with good aim to own the battlefield.

You don't want skill, but a handicap to compensate for your own lack of skill. Man, I'm old and tired, too. I ain't got the reflexes for twitch shooting no mo', but you don't see me complain about this.

When I play crysis 3 against the kids, I use precision to kill them with the bow or precision rifle. In MWO, it used to be sneaky movement and brawling one-two punches.

It's always a mixture of sadness and pride when your kids start beating you at video games.

[Cur]

How about a No to the "Let's make mechwarrior harder by adding in modifications to the crosshair size/accuracy for things you'd expect in a modern day first person shooter that would also just happen to be completely irrellivant to the operation of a 100tonne war machine"

But hey while you're add it, why not add in some smoke and EMP grenades and randomly have eclipses/solar flares change the time of day at random as these thigns totally make the game "harder" and would premote more "skill" in this game.




How about a big yes for upping the Quality/Content in this game so it attracts a larger playerbase which then becomes competative which raises the overall difficulty of the game which will force people to either get more skills or sore arses.

Edited by Cur, 14 April 2013 - 06:17 PM.

[Alois Hammer]

cyberFluke, on 14 April 2013 - 11:33 AM, said:

What we're trying to simulate here

Where do you get this "we" nonsense? We're pointing out the holes in your attempt to simulate everyone else sucking as badly as you.

[cyberFluke]

Cur, on 14 April 2013 - 06:15 PM, said:

How about a No to the "Let's make mechwarrior harder by adding in modifications to the crosshair size/accuracy for things you'd expect in a modern day first person shooter that would also just happen to be completely irrellivant to the operation of a 100tonne war machine"

But hey while you're add it, why not add in some smoke and EMP grenades and randomly have eclipses/solar flares change the time of day at random as these thigns totally make the game "harder" and would premote more "skill" in this game.

The constant swaying, jarring, slamming and crunching of said hundred tonne war machine has no bearing on the accuracy of the weapons? The clue, it went ==> that way.

Alois Hammer, on 14 April 2013 - 06:15 PM, said:

Where do you get this "we" nonsense? We're pointing out the holes in your attempt to simulate everyone else sucking as badly as you.

Problem is, I don't. I'm not exactly Top Ten material but I can more than hold my own, thanks.

[Vassago Rain]

cyberFluke, on 14 April 2013 - 06:19 PM, said:

The constant swaying, jarring, slamming and crunching of said hundred tonne war machine has no bearing on the accuracy of the weapons? The clue, it went ==> that way.



Problem is, I don't. I'm not exactly Top Ten material but I can more than hold my own, thanks.

It actually doesn't, and hasn't since about the 1960s. Modern tanks can plug their cannon shells into targets kilometers out, while on the move, at night, in heavy rainfall.

You do know this, yes? Or are you assuming tanks, aircraft, and battleships don't have systems that make it much easier to aim?

[Alois Hammer]

cyberFluke, on 14 April 2013 - 06:19 PM, said:

The constant swaying, jarring, slamming and crunching of said hundred tonne war machine has no bearing on the accuracy of the weapons?

I don't see where it would have any more bearing than the swaying, jarring, slamming and crunching of a current-day M1A1 does on its main gun. Ever seen how those do accuracy-wise while on the move? Yeah, the clue went ==> that way.

Quote

Fluke
-------
Warning: Does NOT suffer fools gladly.

Translation: paragon of self-loathing.

[Vassago Rain]

FatDaddy, on 14 April 2013 - 06:13 PM, said:

It's always a mixture of sadness and pride when your kids start beating you at video games.

Predator bow. The best way for old men of the quake era to compete with the CoD generation.