378 replies to this topic

[Zylo]

cyberFluke, on 15 April 2013 - 02:40 PM, said:

Could I get an honest answer as to why not?

Would I be correct in the assumption that it is because most people are afraid of a challenge and want an easy, simplistic shooter with stompy robot pictures on it where they can pew pew and feel superior, while not actually performing a task a mildly trained monkey couldn't do for food?

Your suggestions do the opposite of increasing the skill level required. This is why players are against your ideas because you seem to be suggesting changes that introduce random chance of success rather than the current system which requires skill to aim and hit where you aimed.

The players who are afraid of a challenge are those who want more random chance systems as it is the only way they can hope to defeat an enemy with superior skills. By suggesting any system that takes away precision aiming skills you are implying that you can't deal with others having better aim so you want their skills countered by random chances to hit or miss.

[3rdworld]

cyberFluke, on 15 April 2013 - 02:40 PM, said:

Could I get an honest answer as to why not?

Would I be correct in the assumption that it is because most people are afraid of a challenge and want an easy, simplistic shooter with stompy robot pictures on it where they can pew pew and feel superior, while not actually performing a task a mildly trained monkey couldn't do for food?

I weep for the state of games (and indeed gamers) today. Games are supposed to be challenging tests of intelligence, strength and strategy, not a hand-holding, back patting, self congratulatory circle jerk to make you feel better about your crappy existence.

I find your false sense of superiority disturbing.

Is it so hard to accept your idea is bad?

Stopping to shoot well does 1 thing.

Buff alpha boating assaults. while kneecapping all mechs that rely on movement to survive....more or less everything not called stalker or atlas.

And you talk soooo much trash then get offended when people troll you.

[Mackman]

Let's take your system:

Two mechs are moving towards each other, but they can't see each other yet. Both are damaged, orange torso.

One is piloted by a vet who understands that it's usually better to stop before firing, because that's the only way to ensure a good hit.

The other is piloted by a relatively new player: He's jumpy, not really used to the mechanics yet.

Both mechs round a corner and come into sight of one another simultaneously. Both immediately train their weapons on the other, with the vet being a bit quicker on the draw: however, the vet stops, waiting for his crosshairs to stabilize, but the rookie panics and fires. By sheer RNG, his weapons hit and kill the vet.

Can you imagine being that player? Knowing that despite you doing everything right, despite your superior knowledge of the game, despite doing the right thing, you got screwed over by RNG and lost a fight that you otherwise would have won.

That's what introducing RNG does. It opens up the game to luck-based outcomes: Any time you catch someone out of position, every time you have an advantage, RNG is waiting to screw you over. RNG always favors the underdog, the lesser-skilled as opposed to the more-skilled. By its very nature, it reduces the impact of being skilled at aiming and, by extension, reduces (ever so slightly) the impact of being a superior strategist, a superior Mechwarrior.

Now, you are correct that introducing RNG would, in fact, introduce a new skill into the game: The skill at minimizing the impact of the RNG.

But is that a skill that should be necessary? And is the introduction of that skill worth the inherent reduction in the impact of all other skills? PGI doesn't seem to think so. The majority of forum-goers don't seem to think so. As for me? It might make the game more interesting. It might not. Just be honest about what it is you're asking for: A reduction of the impact superior skill has on the game right now.

[Ansel]

The vet didn't do "everything" right then, he should have backed off to a vantage point that would allow him to gain a positional advantage where he coudln't be shot while still getting close enough to kill his opponite without even getting seen or shot.

In other words "skill" as most of you seem to want to call it.

The addition of RNG mechanics do not take away or add to the overall skill cap of a game, only swing the point from positional to aiming.

A game needs both, and right now this game is really only about the aiming, and that is a very poorly implimented aspect of the game since they still use the outdated paperdoll from battletech that allows a player to shoot anywhere on a mechs CT and damage the entire section.

[Mackman]

Ansel, on 15 April 2013 - 03:33 PM, said:

The vet didn't do "everything" right then, he should have backed off to a vantage point that would allow him to gain a positional advantage where he coudln't be shot while still getting close enough to kill his opponite without even getting seen or shot.

In other words "skill" as most of you seem to want to call it.

The addition of RNG mechanics do not take away or add to the overall skill cap of a game, only swing the point from positional to aiming.

A game needs both, and right now this game is really only about the aiming, and that is a very poorly implimented aspect of the game since they still use the outdated paperdoll from battletech that allows a player to shoot anywhere on a mechs CT and damage the entire section.

So let's say the scenario occurs as the vet is heading to a vantage point? Or are you going to keep expecting more and more from the vet so as to eliminate the slightest possibility of retaliation?

Fine, let's go to a more even match between vets. Player A gets the jump on Player B, having superior positioning, knowing that by the time B's reticles stabilize, B will be dead. B knows this as well, so he doesn't wait for his reticles to stabilize: He fires and the gods of RNG award him a kill that should, by rights, have been A's.

Statistically, RNG always favors the underdog. Do you dispute that?

[Lostdragon]

Mackman, on 15 April 2013 - 04:02 PM, said:

So let's say the scenario occurs as the vet is heading to a vantage point? Or are you going to keep expecting more and more from the vet so as to eliminate the slightest possibility of retaliation?

Fine, let's go to a more even match between vets. Player A gets the jump on Player B, having superior positioning, knowing that by the time B's reticles stabilize, B will be dead. B knows this as well, so he doesn't wait for his reticles to stabilize: He fires and the gods of RNG award him a kill that should, by rights, have been A's.

Statistically, RNG always favors the underdog. Do you dispute that?

I do dispute that. If it is truly random then either outcome is just as likely. Besides, you haven't taken all the variables into consideration. If the crosshair size system were directly proportional to speed, then the veteran is probably going to peek around that corner slowly if he is close to dead so if he sees an enemy he will be able to get on target and fire quickly with a target reticle that is only slightly larger than normal. Unless he is a long way from his opponent his weapon spread will not be larger than his enemy's center torso so he will score a sure killshot.

I don't think anyone is saying the weapons should have a huge spread. The crosshair and circle would not need to increase very much in size in order to make it necessary to stop in order to hit either very long range shot or try to score head shots. A small size increase is not going to have much impact on engagements at medium and short range, but for those trying to snipe it would be a bigger factor to consider.

[Zylo]

Lostdragon, on 15 April 2013 - 04:18 PM, said:

If it is truly random then either outcome is just as likely.

This is the problem with the system. A random game mechanic removes the advantage a highly skilled player has over a lower skilled player. This reduces the need to be skilled and just encourages spray-and-pray gameplay because eventually that lower skilled player will get lucky and score the kill based on random chance alone rather than skill.

[Mackman]

Lostdragon, on 15 April 2013 - 04:18 PM, said:

I do dispute that. If it is truly random then either outcome is just as likely. Besides, you haven't taken all the variables into consideration. If the crosshair size system were directly proportional to speed, then the veteran is probably going to peek around that corner slowly if he is close to dead so if he sees an enemy he will be able to get on target and fire quickly with a target reticle that is only slightly larger than normal. Unless he is a long way from his opponent his weapon spread will not be larger than his enemy's center torso so he will score a sure killshot.

I don't think anyone is saying the weapons should have a huge spread. The crosshair and circle would not need to increase very much in size in order to make it necessary to stop in order to hit either very long range shot or try to score head shots. A small size increase is not going to have much impact on engagements at medium and short range, but for those trying to snipe it would be a bigger factor to consider.

Zylo, on 15 April 2013 - 04:24 PM, said:

This is the problem with the system. A random game mechanic removes the advantage a highly skilled player has over a lower skilled player. This reduces the need to be skilled and just encourages spray-and-pray gameplay because eventually that lower skilled player will get lucky and score the kill based on random chance alone rather than skill.

To expand on what Zylo said, you yourself have proven my point. A contest between two people of different skills should NOT have either outcome be just as likely. In a purely skill-based environment, the better-skilled Mechwarrior is going to beat the lesser-skilled MW every time.

Once you add in chance to that, you have the opportunity for the lesser-skilled MW to win because of random chance. Sure, the RNG will work in favor of the higher-skilled MW half the time... but he would have won anyway. ​

Every time the RNG does affect the outcome, it does so to the advantage of the lesser-skilled player.

[TruePoindexter]

Zylo, on 15 April 2013 - 04:24 PM, said:

This is the problem with the system. A random game mechanic removes the advantage a highly skilled player has over a lower skilled player. This reduces the need to be skilled and just encourages spray-and-pray gameplay because eventually that lower skilled player will get lucky and score the kill based on random chance alone rather than skill.

The Blue Shell effect basically only perhaps less extreme. Even in games like CS there was always the random chance that the noob spraying a MAC10 at long range would score the lucky headshot.

[Ansel]

As I said, the skill cap dosn't decrease if you add RNG.

It favors position more than accuracy.

What we have now is a system that favors accuracy more than position and failes to make accuracy matter.

Then on top of that the way armor works mitigates the need for skill. IE: you are not skilled because you can hit the huge sections on the mechs, you can point a mouse. Congrats.

IE: I can shoot anywhere that's painted as the CT and remove all of the armor from the whole section, again shooting anywhere that is painted as CT and hit the internal structure.

Where if the game were truly skill based you would have to shoot the exact same spot to remove armor from that spot, then shoot the spot where the armor was removed, and if you miss you hit armor again, that would be a skill based system in this game.

RNG isn't needed in this game.

A removal of the outdated battletech paperdoll that is based on RNG is what is needed in this game.

[TOGSolid]

Quote

Statistically, RNG always favors the underdog. Do you dispute that?

I like how there are years of competitive Counterstrike tournaments that prove this statement to be complete bunk and yet you guys keep repeating it.

[Koniving]

How about simply adding recoil to weapons so the follow-up shots aren't as accurate?


It was clearly something they thought of for the past. It should get put in.

[TOGSolid]

Koniving, on 15 April 2013 - 05:30 PM, said:

How about simply adding recoil to weapons so the follow-up shots aren't as accurate?


It was clearly something they thought of for the past. It should get put in.

That really won't do anything for solving the pinpoint issues. It'll actually just put an even bigger emphasis on running the highest possible alpha strike you can so that you get your damage out with just one pull of the trigger. This wouldn't affect anyone boating PPCs either since their recoil would have settled while they were cooling down/shut down.

That said, a little bit of non-gameplay affecting visual shake would be kinda cool though.

Edited by TOGSolid, 15 April 2013 - 05:32 PM.

[Vapor Trail]

Mackman, on 15 April 2013 - 03:21 PM, said:

Let's take your system:

Two mechs are moving towards each other, but they can't see each other yet. Both are damaged, orange torso.

One is piloted by a vet who understands that it's usually better to stop before firing, because that's the only way to ensure a good hit.

The other is piloted by a relatively new player: He's jumpy, not really used to the mechanics yet.

Both mechs round a corner and come into sight of one another simultaneously. Both immediately train their weapons on the other, with the vet being a bit quicker on the draw: however, the vet stops, waiting for his crosshairs to stabilize, but the rookie panics and fires. By sheer RNG, his weapons hit and kill the vet.

Sounds to me like the rookie took a risk by firing first and succeeded, whether he knew it or not, while the vet might not have assessed the situation as accurately as he needed to and maybe waited too long to pull the trigger. Risk management is also a skill. Doing it by accident, once, is luck. Recognizing what you did, and repeating the performance under pressure, is skill.

Here's another scenario.
Two players in CoD round corners at opposite ends of a long hallway at the same time, both toting subguns with poor long range accuracy. One is a vet, who knows that aiming down the sights before shooting is the best way to assure a kill. The other is a rookie simply pulls the trigger from the hip, spraying and praying. By sheer RNG the rookie gets a headshot and kills the vet.

So... is the vet going to simply spray and pray from the hip if he gets in that situation again, because it worked once? Or is he going to take what he knows is the high percentage shot with the sights?

My money is on the sights.

Like TDGSolid said, that 'Statistically, RNG always favors the underdog.' statement is pure bovine excrement. RNG, if truly random, is statistically neutral favoring neither player. Rarely a less skilled player gets lucky. Most of the time they get dead. And maybe, just maybe, they're better at risk management than you'd think they are.

Edited by Vapor Trail, 15 April 2013 - 05:34 PM.

[Davers]

cyberFluke, on 15 April 2013 - 02:40 PM, said:

not a hand-holding, back patting, self congratulatory circle jerk to make you feel better about your crappy existence.

Yeah, I miss dropping 8 man vs Pugs and streak cats too. *sniff*

[Royalewithcheese]

Vapor Trail, on 15 April 2013 - 05:32 PM, said:

Two players in CoD round corners at opposite ends of a long hallway at the same time, both toting subguns with poor long range accuracy. One is a vet, who knows that aiming down the sights before shooting is the best way to assure a kill. The other is a rookie simply pulls the trigger from the hip, spraying and praying. By sheer RNG the rookie gets a headshot and kills the vet.

So... is the vet going to simply spray and pray from the hip if he gets in that situation again, because it worked once? Or is he going to take what he knows is the high percentage shot with the sights?\

Well, if it's MW2 the vet is probably going to bust out the akimbo G18s, akimbo 1887s, or SPAS for running around corners

[cyberFluke]

Mackman, on 15 April 2013 - 03:21 PM, said:

Let's take your system:

Two mechs are moving towards each other, but they can't see each other yet. Both are damaged, orange torso.

One is piloted by a vet who understands that it's usually better to stop before firing, because that's the only way to ensure a good hit.

The other is piloted by a relatively new player: He's jumpy, not really used to the mechanics yet.

Both mechs round a corner and come into sight of one another simultaneously. Both immediately train their weapons on the other, with the vet being a bit quicker on the draw: however, the vet stops, waiting for his crosshairs to stabilize, but the rookie panics and fires. By sheer RNG, his weapons hit and kill the vet.

Can you imagine being that player? Knowing that despite you doing everything right, despite your superior knowledge of the game, despite doing the right thing, you got screwed over by RNG and lost a fight that you otherwise would have won.

That's what introducing RNG does. It opens up the game to luck-based outcomes: Any time you catch someone out of position, every time you have an advantage, RNG is waiting to screw you over. RNG always favors the underdog, the lesser-skilled as opposed to the more-skilled. By its very nature, it reduces the impact of being skilled at aiming and, by extension, reduces (ever so slightly) the impact of being a superior strategist, a superior Mechwarrior.

Now, you are correct that introducing RNG would, in fact, introduce a new skill into the game: The skill at minimizing the impact of the RNG.

But is that a skill that should be necessary? And is the introduction of that skill worth the inherent reduction in the impact of all other skills? PGI doesn't seem to think so. The majority of forum-goers don't seem to think so. As for me? It might make the game more interesting. It might not. Just be honest about what it is you're asking for: A reduction of the impact superior skill has on the game right now.

First, following the same example you gave, they would both be moving full speed and it's down to twitch reflex, the rookie panics and hit the CT of the vet and drops him. What's the difference exactly?

Second, I'm not asking for a reduction in the impact your supposedly superior skill has, I'm asking to expand that skill into far more than pure twitch reflex. The current system is too simplistic and arcadey to hold players for a significant length of time. Whether it's a randomised COF (cone of fire) or a similar system I don't care, but the current system *has* to be expanded somehow. That's what this discussion is about, but a lot of people (and I use that word loosely) can't (or won't) see past the word random.

For *anyone* else that wants to just call me a low skill scrub, post *your* stats before doing so, or you're the scrub. I've linked mine *twice* and will happily do so again. I'm aware I'm not an "uber" player, but I'm likely better than your sorry ***.

Ansel, on 15 April 2013 - 04:47 PM, said:

As I said, the skill cap dosn't decrease if you add RNG.

It favors position more than accuracy.

What we have now is a system that favors accuracy more than position and failes to make accuracy matter.

Then on top of that the way armor works mitigates the need for skill. IE: you are not skilled because you can hit the huge sections on the mechs, you can point a mouse. Congrats.

IE: I can shoot anywhere that's painted as the CT and remove all of the armor from the whole section, again shooting anywhere that is painted as CT and hit the internal structure.

Where if the game were truly skill based you would have to shoot the exact same spot to remove armor from that spot, then shoot the spot where the armor was removed, and if you miss you hit armor again, that would be a skill based system in this game.

RNG isn't needed in this game.

A removal of the outdated battletech paperdoll that is based on RNG is what is needed in this game.

An interesting idea, how would you set about changing the system?

Edited by cyberFluke, 15 April 2013 - 07:15 PM.

[Und3rSc0re]

This crosshair thing will never work there are ways to get around the crosshair blooming.... for one the crosshair for arms is a circle, which is really easy to just aim in the middle of it. The torso crosshair is aligned to the center of the screen so thats easy enough. Has no one here played crosshairless fps games? You get very used to not having rely on one, even if they implement this people will find ways to change the crosshair in game files so this will be a useless change to anyone that knows how to aim.

[cyberFluke]

Here's an example:

Take Counterstrike, a game we're all familiar with, and has a lot of similarities with MW:O, a lot of differences too, I'm aware, but still.

Make every weapon pixel perfect accurate every shot from the hip. What would happen?
There would be two weapons to use to be competitive, the AWP (highest single shot dmg) if you were confident of your aim, or whatever has the highest rate of fire to damage ratio if you're not so confident.

That's basically what we have here IMO.

[cyberFluke]

Vapor Trail, on 15 April 2013 - 05:32 PM, said:

Sounds to me like the rookie took a risk by firing first and succeeded, whether he knew it or not, while the vet might not have assessed the situation as accurately as he needed to and maybe waited too long to pull the trigger. Risk management is also a skill. Doing it by accident, once, is luck. Recognizing what you did, and repeating the performance under pressure, is skill.

Reminds me of a guy I used to see running around Dystopia (Damn that's a good game, shame not enough people played it)..
Guy was called "Frequent Luck = Skill"