378 replies to this topic

[cyberFluke]

Nice to see some sense and reason prevailing

[FrostCollar]

cyberFluke, on 14 April 2013 - 12:03 PM, said:

There is a lot more to maneuverability than simple velocity, as you suggest. You're way oversimplifying things here, as well as making out like I want anyone moving to be stupidly inaccurate. I simply want to stop MW:Os devolution into a game of circle strafing/run'n'gun with the biggest guns you can carry.

Maneuverability is a function of speed and turn rate, both of which are affected by engine size and mech weight. That, and jump jets. I'm simplifying because I am against your idea in the abstract as well as the particular.

Circle strafing is an example of what I mean. It's not even a very viable tactic - you shoot the circling mech when it's good enough to circle back around into your firing arc. If your aim is true in that case, they're getting hit. Any shot divergence would result in some well aimed shots missing and some poorly aimed shots hitting. That sounds like reducing the effects of skill to me.

cyberFluke, on 14 April 2013 - 12:03 PM, said:

You are neglecting to mention the fact that it will make lights *harder* to hit by a margin, actually helping them as much as hindering. It should make fights take longer.

I'm not neglecting that at all, because I want the difficulty in making a shot determined by the skill of the pilot shooting, the skill of pilot being shot at, the size of the target mech, and other conditions. Your suggestion makes lights inherently harder to hit regardless of skill. I don't like that it seems unfair anyway you slice it. Unfair to the lights who will no longer be able to benefit as much from accurate target tracking on the move that they have learned, unfair to slower mechs that can no longer effectively counter lights because they can't hit them despite what they've learned.

[Nightcrept]

Making the game what you call harder would also make it more unrealistic for a mech game and more like a twitch fps game like cod etc.

Mech warrior is a hybrid of sorts between a sim, strategy and shooter.



Regardless the idea of mechs in the year 3050 not being able to target as well as weapon systems from the year 1985 is a bit amusing....lol.

Your asking for mechs to aim like tanks from WW2.

Edited by Nightcrept, 14 April 2013 - 12:26 PM.

[Hedonism Robot]

Why doesn't the OP add some skill and learn to hit lights?

[Royalewithcheese]

Nightcrept, on 14 April 2013 - 12:24 PM, said:

Your asking for mechs to aim like tanks from WW2.

Or like mechs do in Hawken. Different sort of game, different sort of mechanics. I don't think one is necessarily worse than the other, but it's important to realize that games where aiming for some or all weapons is deterministic usually do that for a reason. Take Tribes - would that game work if you had a variable cone of fire on your spinfusor?

Edited by Royalewithcheese, 14 April 2013 - 12:28 PM.

[Targetloc]

I agree with the OP to a degree.

Right now it's far too easy to continuously hit the same section on a mech even when running around at full speed. And a big part of balancing the TT numbers was the fact that different weapons had different accuracies.

I think most people who are opposed imagine a targeting spread something like this:


When really it could be more like this:



Part of why it's too easy to put all your shots where you want them, and why mechs drop so quickly is because any of this counts as a CT hit:



Very few people are actually landing 5 shots like this:



Reintroducing some of the TT accuracy penalties (for movement and heat) would still allow precision targeting, but would really separate the men from the boys. You would actually need to be dead-center of what you were aiming for, and it would increase mech survivability quite a bit. (and give some new options for balancing weapons)

[Ranek Blackstone]

cyberFluke, on 14 April 2013 - 11:26 AM, said:

Jesus effing christ, you people are ******* stupid.

Randomness *does* add skill. Is Texas Holdem a game of skill, or chance? I'll say this once, and those that understand, will get it. Those that don't, I honestly don't give a rats arse if you get hit by a bus tomorrow.

Texas Hold'em, like every other card game in the world, is pure luck. You can try and get inside the heads of the other players and maybe psych them out a bit, but at the end of the day you win or lose entirely on deal, which you had no control over.

[cyberFluke]

FrostCollar, on 14 April 2013 - 12:23 PM, said:

Maneuverability is a function of speed and turn rate, both of which are affected by engine size and mech weight. That, and jump jets. I'm simplifying because I am against your idea in the abstract as well as the particular.

Circle strafing is an example of what I mean. It's not even a very viable tactic - you shoot the circling mech when it's good enough to circle back around into your firing arc. If your aim is true in that case, they're getting hit. Any shot divergence would result in some well aimed shots missing and some poorly aimed shots hitting. That sounds like reducing the effects of skill to me.


I'm not neglecting that at all, because I want the difficulty in making a shot determined by the skill of the pilot shooting, the skill of pilot being shot at, the size of the target mech, and other conditions. Your suggestion makes lights inherently harder to hit regardless of skill. I don't like that it seems unfair anyway you slice it. Unfair to the lights who will no longer be able to benefit as much from accurate target tracking on the move that they have learned, unfair to slower mechs that can no longer effectively counter lights because they can't hit them despite what they've learned.

You're forgetting acceleration and all the advantages it brings...

As other people have pointed out, in words far more eloquent than mine could ever be, you're assuming a lot. Why are you so afraid of a little challenge?

[Eury]

• Heat. Higher heat, larger crosshair.
  
• Velocity. Higher velocity, larger crosshair.
  
• Use of jump jets. While burning fuel, crosshair gets larger.

so what your saying is in the future when we build robots and the advanced electronics wont be able to make a gun fire accurately so we should dumb it down to some call of duty style spray and pray

well done sir you have reached the idiocy mark

[cyberFluke]

Ranek Blackstone, on 14 April 2013 - 12:33 PM, said:

Texas Hold'em, like every other card game in the world, is pure luck. You can try and get inside the heads of the other players and maybe psych them out a bit, but at the end of the day you win or lose entirely on deal, which you had no control over.

And being able to look at a hand and essentially recite the odds of winning means nothing? Open your eyes.

[Royalewithcheese]

Eury, on 14 April 2013 - 12:38 PM, said:

call of duty

Speaking of Call of Duty, I wonder if implementing variable weapon spread for some of the weapons in that game made it strategic and slow-paced?

(Spoilers: no.)

Edited by Royalewithcheese, 14 April 2013 - 12:45 PM.

[cyberFluke]

Eury, on 14 April 2013 - 12:38 PM, said:

• Heat. Higher heat, larger crosshair.
  
• Velocity. Higher velocity, larger crosshair.
  
• Use of jump jets. While burning fuel, crosshair gets larger.

so what your saying is in the future when we build robots and the advanced electronics wont be able to make a gun fire accurately so we should dumb it down to some call of duty style spray and pray



well done sir you have reached the idiocy mark

You want to get like that? Canon says these machines have been rebuilt more times than you've drawn breath. They are not the machines they once were.

[Redacted]

Edited by Egomane, 15 April 2013 - 12:49 AM.
Insults

[Royalewithcheese]

Cyber, maybe you shouldn't be flaming people who disagree with your opinions on computer games? It's not really something to get mad over.

[cyberFluke]

Royalewithcheese, on 14 April 2013 - 12:44 PM, said:

Speaking of Call of Duty, I wonder if implementing variable weapon spread for some of the weapons in that game made it strategic and slow-paced?

(Spoilers: no.)

But it did massively increase the skill required to regularly place headshots... Way to prove my point for me.

[FrostCollar]

cyberFluke, on 14 April 2013 - 12:35 PM, said:

You're forgetting acceleration and all the advantages it brings...

I consider that under the larger aegis of "speed," but that is also determined by engine size and mech weight (and quirks, I suppose). I use Cicadas, a mech that can often be as fast but not as maneuverable as opposing lights, quite a bit and believe me, I fully appreciate how acceleration can help or harm a chassis.

cyberFluke, on 14 April 2013 - 12:35 PM, said:

As other people have pointed out, in words far more eloquent than mine could ever be, you're assuming a lot. Why are you so afraid of a little challenge?

I'm afraid of a fundamental change of MWO that will distort everything else in a way that I see as ultimately deleterious to the game. When I explain what MWO's about to other people mobile combat and a fluid battlefield and fundamental parts of that explanation. No matter how it is implemented, any inaccuracy added to weapons when mechs are moving will harm that. You're making aiming at specific parts of enemies, the core gameplay mechanic in the game, harder.

It's a well outlined idea and you're being very reasonable about this, but I'm against the idea in general. Taking away accurate shooting on the move takes away something unique about Mechwarrior games and I don't think that's worth it.

[Royalewithcheese]

cyberFluke, on 14 April 2013 - 12:46 PM, said:

But it did massively increase the skill required to regularly place headshots...

The best way to get headshots in Modern Warfare 2 was to quickscope (i.e., bypass the spread mechanic). You didn't just crouch and hipfire in the direction of someone's head. The best way to get kills in Modern Warfare 2 (other than killstreak stacking, of course) was either to be good at bodyshotting or to use weapons where spread didn't significantly (or at all) impact your TTK. It wasn't exactly the most strategic or skill-intensive FPS I've played

[TruePoindexter]

First off - why is having good aim not considered skillful? It's easy to land shots on slow or still targets in this game. Hitting a reasonably fast moving target (64.8kph+) at 800m with PPCs/Gauss takes practice in understanding the weapon's projectile velocity, the direction of travel of the target, the velocity of the target, anticipating any maneuvers the target will make, compensating for your own movement, and finally compensating for the parallax error due to your weapons not firing from your camera. To me that is the very definition of skill with regards to shooting. Why is this considered a bad thing?

Moving on there are other techniques that skilled players employ and novice players do not past just shooting.

• A skilled player understands the layout of the map. They know where the typical enemy movements will be and how to counter them. They know where the choke points are and where the good vantage points are. This lets them stay in the optimal positions and avoid vulnerable ones.
  
• Skilled players understand the games damage model and exploit it by distributing damage across their mechs. They survive under tremendous levels of firepower where novices fold under the fire of just a single mech.
  
• Skilled players coordinate with their team understanding how focused fire and attacks from multiple vectors are tremendously powerful in combat. They use this to overwhelm even the strongest opponents quickly with little to no reprisal.
  
• Skilled players understand the advantages and disadvantages of their own mech and work to play towards their strengths while taking every possible measure to avoid their own weaknesses.

Monkeying with the shooting aspects of the game does nothing to address these other parts still leaving a skilled player with a tremendous advantage over the novice. All you would do is making long range precision fire more difficult which if you just had an understanding of those other aspects of play would not be an issue.

[TOGSolid]

Royalewithcheese, on 14 April 2013 - 12:27 PM, said:

Or like mechs do in Hawken. Different sort of game, different sort of mechanics. I don't think one is necessarily worse than the other, but it's important to realize that games where aiming for some or all weapons is deterministic usually do that for a reason. Take Tribes - would that game work if you had a variable cone of fire on your spinfusor?

Generally twitch games have no degradation due to their high speed nature while slower, more tactical games that emphasize positioning tend to include degradation in order to force players to think harder about their action.

Quote

You're making aiming at specific parts of enemies, the core gameplay mechanic in the game, harder.

Funny, I thought the emphasis in a game like this was on proper tactics and positioning. You almost make it sound like more of a twitch game.

Quote

All you would do is making long range precision fire more difficult which if you just had an understanding of those other aspects of play would not be an issue.

Incorrect, it'd also make attempting to brawl in something like an ER PPC Stalker a much more dangerous affair.

Edited by TOGSolid, 14 April 2013 - 12:56 PM.

[cyberFluke]

Hey my Sig gives you my stance on that guy, he got what was coming to him.

Royalewithcheese, on 14 April 2013 - 12:52 PM, said:

The best way to get headshots in Modern Warfare 2 was to quickscope (i.e., bypass the spread mechanic). You didn't just crouch and hipfire in the direction of someone's head. The best way to get kills in Modern Warfare 2 (other than killstreak stacking, of course) was either to be good at bodyshotting or to use weapons where spread didn't significantly (or at all) impact your TTK. It wasn't exactly the most strategic or skill-intensive FPS I've played

You know what I'm getting at, play devils advocate all you want

[Targetloc]

FrostCollar, on 14 April 2013 - 12:47 PM, said:

You're making aiming at specific parts of enemies, the core gameplay mechanic in the game, harder.

Maybe it should be harder. Seems kind of trivial right now.

Might also add that the core of the original game was positioning. Aiming at specific parts was only available with targeting computers.