378 replies to this topic

[cyberFluke]

Vassago Rain, on 14 April 2013 - 06:23 PM, said:

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?

By your own argument, what bearing does that have to do with a video game? I'm simply trying to add more to aiming, I get it, you don't like the idea but all you're doing is helping keep the thread at the top of the list. Keep flamebaiting, keep helping <3

[TruePoindexter]

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 inaccurate fire. Deal with it.

Every modern shooter has inaccuracies with fire - to keep people from having bullet hoses of death. You'll also notice that in those shooters you refer to that the top tier players always burst fire or single fire because of this.

Random variances in fire from continued fire or multiple weapons fire would only encourage the use of larger heavier weapons in this manner and cripple several stock mechs (Hunchback 4SP comes to mind).

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

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.

So we arbitrarily set a cutoff at 2 weapons and then what? How does this not punish groups of small weapons which are not what anyone was complaining about?

cyberFluke, on 14 April 2013 - 06:03 PM, said:

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..

Being honest I didn't see ERPPCs do anything impressive. They felt weaker than when you ran your laser Awesome or Gausspult. Sweet shot on that TDK with the Gausspult btw.

Quality looked fine by me! 720p with a high enough bitrate to read your weapon groupings. I felt for you when you had the HUD bug - I hate the feeling of helplessness that comes with it. Especially when you get pulled into a swirling fight where you can't differentiate between friend or foe.

Edited by TruePoindexter, 14 April 2013 - 06:38 PM.

[Cur]

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.

The entire reasoning behind the crosshair accuracy/size is to to with the flaw's of being human, running forward is going to have the gun swaying everywhere, the same happense with falling, jumping and colissions.

We are in the year 3050 again in 100 tonne robots that have equipment dedicated to keeping your arsanel aimed at where it is suposed to be.

Let's totally ignore anything that will actualy make the game legitly harder by making small and sensible changes, such asLegged mechs can still walk rather than getting a dead limb, having to drag it or possibly fall over because of it. Shooting out internals such as acuators has an effect on the movement on the attached arm, getting shot in the cockpit has a penalty or vision impairment. Overheating fogs up the cockpit. Response times of arms, legs and torso twist being effected by how much internal damage the mech has taken. Disable modules like a destroyed component should enough internal damage be taken to the right spots, hell maybe even add in a real Objective game mode, such as 1 team escorts a convoy the other must destroy it.



Needs more COD/BF-Ness in this game! It's not shitehouse enough yet!

[FrostCollar]

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.

Back up. You mean that the weapons would remain pinpoint accurate, the crosshairs would just widen? That wouldn't adjust game mechanics at all. It would just make things slightly more inconvenient for new players. I was talking about the idea that the OP suggested. This idea is just aesthetic and ultimately changes nothing.

[Vassago Rain]

cyberFluke, on 14 April 2013 - 06:33 PM, said:

By your own argument, what bearing does that have to do with a video game? I'm simply trying to add more to aiming, I get it, you don't like the idea but all you're doing is helping keep the thread at the top of the list. Keep flamebaiting, keep helping <3

You're the one who attempted to use the real world to directly justify why mechs should not be accurate.

[Targetloc]

Vassago Rain, on 14 April 2013 - 06:23 PM, said:

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?

Real life tanks don't have a lot of bearing on what makes sense in Battletech. It's a realm where 'Long Range' Missiles fly less than a kilometer, 12 meter tall war machines pack most of their firepower 6 meters off the ground and let's not even get into what the square cubed law has to say about their legs...


That said, the Abrams isn't perfectly accurate either. People bring it up a lot when trying to justify pin-point accuracy so I've tried to find out just how accurate it really is... but it doesn't seem to be readily available on the web.

I do know its targeting system is accurate within 35 meters out to 8 kilometers, so it's not perfectly accurate on everything it can see. The record for tank-to-tank kill is 5 km, so I assume it's pretty hard to hit at that range.

Most write-ups seem to say it can hit a tank-sized target from over a kilometer away, moving laterally at full speed over rough terrain... there's a big difference between 'hitting a tank-sized target' and hitting a specific component.

[Tekadept]

For interest info I found on M1A2 targeting accuracy.
M1A2 Abrams FTL gives accurate targeting data to a range of 8,000m with a CEP (circular error of probability) of less than 35m.
So 35m / 8000m = .004375 variance. Pretty tight considering the distance, quite amazing really though not pintpoint accurate..

If you were to apply that kind of variance to MWO at differing ranges gives below CEP.
@250 = 1.1m
@500 = 2.1m
@750 = 3.2m
@1000 = 4.3m
@1500 = 6.5m

Of course you can say technology would be better, yet why can a M1A1 tank round score at 5000m get a Gauss cannot? you can never compare it directly to real world, if there targeting would be so much better in 3050, why is there not a better counter to ECM then another ECM? you could argue till the comes come home on that one.

Edited by Tekadept, 14 April 2013 - 07:26 PM.

[cyberFluke]

Cur, on 14 April 2013 - 06:40 PM, said:

The entire reasoning behind the crosshair accuracy/size is to to with the flaw's of being human, running forward is going to have the gun swaying everywhere, the same happense with falling, jumping and colissions.

We are in the year 3050 again in 100 tonne robots that have equipment dedicated to keeping your arsanel aimed at where it is suposed to be.

If that's your argument, the game lore says the mechs have been rebuilt thousands of times, with second hand, salvaged parts, over the course of hundreds of years. The game lore almost specifically states that they're inaccurate as hell because of the reasons I've stated. You're Wrong.

[cyberFluke]

TruePoindexter, on 14 April 2013 - 06:37 PM, said:

Being honest I didn't see ERPPCs do anything impressive. They felt weaker than when you ran your laser Awesome or Gausspult. Sweet shot on that TDK with the Gausspult btw.

Quality looked fine by me! 720p with a high enough bitrate to read your weapon groupings. I felt for you when you had the HUD bug - I hate the feeling of helplessness that comes with it. Especially when you get pulled into a swirling fight where you can't differentiate between friend or foe.

Yeah, sometimes the PPC Cat is extremely effective, I've brought matches back from the brink on my own a couple of times, depends on the map and the pugs I get dropped with, other times I just get facepalmed three minutes in. The AWS did shine tonight though, had a chance to use it's maneuverability.

Glad the stream was ok, tweaking xsplit is a PITA. Wasn't looking forward to having to rework the settings.

[Malora Sidewinder]

cyberFluke, on 14 April 2013 - 03:09 PM, said:

Tell you what, You want to get personal you knuckledragging mouthbreather? Let the masses decide!

Scrublord or not? Streaming Live now at twitch.tv/cyberfluke

that was painful to watch. like, my eyes were bleeding from all of those missed shots and the horrible positioning you employed frequent... misuse... of.

[TruePoindexter]

cyberFluke, on 14 April 2013 - 07:44 PM, said:

Yeah, sometimes the PPC Cat is extremely effective, I've brought matches back from the brink on my own a couple of times, depends on the map and the pugs I get dropped with, other times I just get facepalmed three minutes in. The AWS did shine tonight though, had a chance to use it's maneuverability.

Glad the stream was ok, tweaking xsplit is a PITA. Wasn't looking forward to having to rework the settings.

Well it looked fine to me! I've contemplated running a stream but I play so infrequently and usually horribly late at night that I wonder if I would get many viewers. The time investment in creating one of my videos I think is sharing with the community enough .

[Elkarlo]

Tekadept, on 14 April 2013 - 07:22 PM, said:

For interest info I found on M1A2 targeting accuracy.
M1A2 Abrams FTL gives accurate targeting data to a range of 8,000m with a CEP (circular error of probability) of less than 35m.
So 35m / 8000m = .004375 variance. Pretty tight considering the distance, quite amazing really though not pintpoint accurate..

If you were to apply that kind of variance to MWO at differing ranges gives below CEP.
@250 = 1.1m
@500 = 2.1m
@750 = 3.2m
@1000 = 4.3m
@1500 = 6.5m

Of course you can say technology would be better, yet why can a M1A1 tank round score at 5000m get a Gauss cannot? you can never compare it directly to real world, if there targeting would be so much better in 3050, why is there not a better counter to ECM then another ECM? you could argue till the comes come home on that one.

Thank you and please remember the 120mm Rheinmetall would be something "light" as a AC/2 in BT
Terms of weaponary.
The whole Weaponsystem weights about 5.1 tons. And the Tanks Equipt with the Rheinrhuhr carry a big heavy Fire Computer for a SINGLE Gun. (Gyrosopic control can be feeded from the Mech Gyro, Range Adjusting from the Main Computer etc, but this all means that there will be always a little more off, and thats the reason why Clan Mechs with Target Computers are more accurate then Clan Mechs without.)
And the 120mm is 5 Meters long, a Mech has shorter Barrels.

So still my suggestion stands, that applying some Spread when firing lot of Weapons together and a single Weapon fired will remain accurate. As calculating a Single Weapon is not so hard as to calculate a whole cluster of Weapons, and this would need tons of Equipment to do so. ( 1 Ton for the Computer and 1 Slots per 4/5 Tons (IS/C) of equipment controlled actually).

It was never implemented before, but not implemented before don't mean " NONONO will never come in MWO".

And it would even allow some now Mechskills like Swift Targeting, Stable Gund Plattform, etc in the Mech Tree.

So Spread would be great for Clans to be implemented, and it together with Mechskills it will force to level Mech's more, meaning that we get a longer Experience from playing and a more urgent need to buy Premium, to get the Skills done.
Which means more Money for PGI.

[Tekadept]

Elkarlo, on 14 April 2013 - 11:32 PM, said:

Thank you and please remember the 120mm Rheinmetall would be something "light" as a AC/2 in BT
Terms of weaponary.

Just for reference on calibers below

Different manufacturers and models of autocannons have different calibers (25mm-203mm) and rates of fire. Due to this, autocannons are grouped into generic "classes" of autocannons with common damage ratings.

An example of the rating system: the Crusher Super Heavy Cannon is a 150mm weapon firing ten shells per "shot", while the Chemjet Gun is a 185mm weapon firing much slower, but causing higher damage. Despite their differences, both are classified as Autocannon/20s due to their damage output.

[Ilwrath]

crabcakes66, on 14 April 2013 - 02:32 AM, said:

Adding randomness = Skill?

Adding randomness = awful game. Its even worse than 3rd person view. It should only be use to prevent
game breaking cheese, like adding "shake" while jumpjetting to prevent poptarts. Forcing people to stop
when they want to take a shot is just silly and will make the game unfun.

[Oderint dum Metuant]

Came into thread expecting please add dice rolls to aiming.....

Went away without being disappointed.

Summary, OP is mad because he is bad.

[Marcus Cvellus]

Vassago Rain, on 14 April 2013 - 02:41 PM, said:

Hex stalkers are bad, and quad stalkers are far, far more dangerous.

You have to take on those like damn miniboss.

[Marcus Cvellus]

torgian, on 14 April 2013 - 02:48 PM, said:

Or we could go for the following: FOllow what the novels describe the fighting as.

I remember several instances where pilots had to wait for a solid lock before firing. This "solid gold lock" meant that the weapons had gained a solid lock on the target. There was also a "red" and "yellow" that I read a couple times, where red was no solid lock, and yellow was a medium lock. Pilots could still fire during these lock phases, but the accuracy was reduced.

it sounds like in flight weapon calibration and convergence adjustment for distance and rest of variables. That is actually a good idea.

More massive the weapon and depending on the type, the more time needed. It wouldn't throw lights off the balance (they anyway have additional callibration tools that work overtime if i remember well, to compensate for the speed), but it will hammer instashots back in their place.

You have my like good sir.

[Tekadept]

DV McKenna, on 15 April 2013 - 12:54 AM, said:

Came into thread expecting please add dice rolls to aiming.....

Went away without being disappointed.

Summary, OP is mad because he is bad.

I'm sure OP was expecting someone like you to come in too

Edited by Tekadept, 15 April 2013 - 01:27 AM.

[Oderint dum Metuant]

Tekadept, on 15 April 2013 - 01:27 AM, said:

I'm sure OP was expecting someone like you to come in too

Ofc he was, it appears there are many people in this thread who disagree that adding randomized assets to the game is not increasingly any skill, it's actually removing aspects of skill to artificially balance people who's skill level is lower than others.

His post lost any iota of sensible discussion around the topic at this juncture.

Quote

Any rounds/shots fired are randomly placed within the crosshair

Edited by DV McKenna, 15 April 2013 - 01:49 AM.

[cyberFluke]

DV McKenna, on 15 April 2013 - 01:47 AM, said:

Ofc he was, it appears there are many people in this thread who disagree that adding randomized assets to the game is not increasingly any skill, it's actually removing aspects of skill to artificially balance people who's skill level is lower than others.

Clueless. Thanks for the bump though. <3