378 replies to this topic

[Roland]

Just so folks know, this conversation has been covered previously, multiple times.

You have two groups of folks who are never going to see eye to eye on this subject. The horse is dead, Jim.

[Vassago Rain]

Fut, on 15 April 2013 - 07:33 AM, said:

Oh, so a real-world Sniper facing a sudden onset of crosswinds would overcome this situation with... luck?
They wouldn't use their skillset to identify the change of conditions and alter their sighting accordingly.... It'd be luck.

Thanks, I fully understand now.

Edit:

I had another thought on what you said.
If there's so much luck involved in real-world combat, as you claim - surely MWO could use some realism via a little bit of randomness and luck.

I said the exact opposite. Real world combat isn't luck based. Soldiers don't line up and spray 30 bullets into the air, and hope they'll kill badguys. Most modern armies don't even have full auto on their service rifles these days.

Bruce Lee didn't throw kicks in the general direction of his target. He aimed for weak spots, with practiced precision.

[Alienfreak]

Nightcrept, on 15 April 2013 - 07:30 AM, said:

lol...I worked for JSOC for years and years. Before that I was a Marine. After that I was and currently am a gov contracted intelligence asset. (I just got back from uae last week from a week long trip). I have spent more time with every valid weapon available to a operator then most special operation units operators all combined. So yes I have fired a rifle.

We use gyro stabilized weapons on some of our high tech weapons systems and transports now that can do exactly what your talking about. Combine that with a computer controlled system that can independently adjust each weapon by even small amounts over a long distance and bam. Pinpoint accuracy with a giant stompy robot.

And gyro stabilization would be necessary for a giant stompy robot to walk to begin with.

So your high tech weapons are 100% accurate? The L/44 variant of the M1A2 has 0 MoA? Rheinmetall wants to reduce the barrel weight so the gyro is better on bumpy roads because it cannot perfectly stabilize it on those. And every actuator can only react in its given actuation speed and not isntant as we have it in MWO. Try firing on a building 30m away and draw your aim up. You will instantly perfectly adjust your weapons on 2km range.
Not to mention that tank FCS also follow the target for a certain amount of time before they have the right lead etc. pp.

Real world weapons are pretty accurate (in some cases). But there is no such thing as perfectly accurate weapons, perfect convergence, instant convergence, no recoil.

Nightcrept, on 15 April 2013 - 07:36 AM, said:

The things you mention need to be added to the game. They would be there and should be. They are missing chains in a logical weapons tree.

As I have said over and over it is obvious that the people who made BT were nerds with no concept of real military thinking. It's cool to use them as a guide but we need to deviate to make a the real world application of mwo better.

Even if every part of the mechs we drive are salvaged the missing things like you mentioned shouldn't be missing.

The different UACs are currently clan only. They will be reverse engineered by the IS after the clan invasion.

UAC10 and UAC2 are 3057 IS tech.
So 2020 (real life time) you will be able to have one!

[Target Rich]

Same song...different church...

Battletech is about balance Point vs counterpoint. The current game is nothing more than Call of Duty using mechs...

Yes there are many of the POTENTIAL balancing weapons...but for one reason or another...they have not been modeled properly...or outright nerfed into irrelevancy.

Thus we have erppc/gaus/erll boat campers.... who eliminate the brawlers on many maps before they even get into range...

The current game balance is BORING!!! SAME OLD CAMPER FEST...NO COUNTERS...

And you want to make AIMING skill even more decisive...which means MORE Sniper camping...

Can you say "Brain Dead?"

[Nightcrept]

Alienfreak, on 15 April 2013 - 07:55 AM, said:

Real world weapons are pretty accurate (in some cases). But there is no such thing as perfectly accurate weapons, perfect convergence, instant convergence, no recoil.






UAC10 and UAC2 are 3057 IS tech.
So 2020 (real life time) you will be able to have one!

?

I think somehow your missing my point.
Currently now 2013 we have the technological abilities close to what the mechs in the game have over a thousand years later.

Recoil etc should all be handled by the internal mechanisms of the weapon and compensated for by the mechs computer during the reload time. Once the weapon is ready to fire the mechs computer should have it back on target.

This is very near to current technological levels.

In just the next hundred years the face of real life warfare is expected to transition to a tech level beyond the dreams of the game and the idea of recoil compensation your complaining about.

[Fut]

Vassago Rain, on 15 April 2013 - 07:54 AM, said:

I said the exact opposite. Real world combat isn't luck based.

What? This is what you said, Man:

Vassago Rain, on 15 April 2013 - 07:31 AM, said:

Real combat is about minimizing chance and luck. It doesn't take SKILL to overcome randomness, but LUCK. That's the whole point.
You don't overcome random with SKILL. If you overcome it with skill, it's not random anymore.

So with my example:

Fut, on 15 April 2013 - 07:33 AM, said:

Oh, so a real-world Sniper facing a sudden onset of crosswinds would overcome this situation with... luck?
They wouldn't use their skillset to identify the change of conditions and alter their sighting accordingly.... It'd be luck.

You'd agree that it'd take SKILL to overcome the randomness being thrown at the Soldier?

Nightcrept, on 15 April 2013 - 08:11 AM, said:

I think somehow your missing my point.
Currently now 2013 we have the technological abilities close to what the mechs in the game have over a thousand years later.

The only problem is that the technology in BT doesn't translate to the real world at all.

Take the AC20 for example.... It hits HARD, which means that it's either a really big projectile, or it moves really fast.. right?
The thing has a horrible range, and a ridiculously slow flight speed... Nothing about the AC20 makes sense.

Edited by Fut, 15 April 2013 - 08:21 AM.

[Nightcrept]

Fut, on 15 April 2013 - 08:16 AM, said:

[/size]



[/size]

The only problem is that the technology in BT doesn't translate to the real world at all.

Take the AC20 for example.... It hits HARD, which means that it's either a really big projectile, or it moves really fast.. right?
The thing has a horrible range, and a ridiculously slow flight speed... Nothing about the AC20 makes sense.

That's true...lol.

I often joke that it's like a giant beanbag gun.

Joking aside that is often the complaint I get from friends I try to get into this game. They have never even heard of BT much less the TT games and the mechs and tech seem old and unrealistic.

Throw in the bugs and balance issues and they quit on me in a few weeks at the most. Even the other people I used to game with go elsewhere. Which I find sad because I have always loved running around in giant stompy robots. I still go geek every so often and play though all the old mech warrior games. (They run on my issue laptop..shhhhh..I know it's illegal.)

Edited by Nightcrept, 15 April 2013 - 08:31 AM.

[Vassago Rain]

Fut, on 15 April 2013 - 08:16 AM, said:

Novel.

You don't know how to read, man. Even if you misunderstood, I explained it in another post. 2/10, made me reply.

[Fut]

Vassago Rain, on 15 April 2013 - 08:29 AM, said:

You don't know how to read, man. Even if you misunderstood, I explained it in another post. 2/10, made me reply.

Uhhh... I'm just going to assume that there's some sort of language barrier that's holding you back.
It's alright, don't be so hard on yourself. We won't try and figure out how you somehow meant the exact opposite of what you said here:

Vassago Rain, on 15 April 2013 - 07:31 AM, said:

Real combat is about minimizing chance and luck. It doesn't take SKILL to overcome randomness, but LUCK. That's the whole point.
You don't overcome random with SKILL. If you overcome it with skill, it's not random anymore.

[Alienfreak]

Nightcrept, on 15 April 2013 - 08:11 AM, said:

Recoil etc should all be handled by the internal mechanisms of the weapon and compensated for by the mechs computer during the reload time. Once the weapon is ready to fire the mechs computer should have it back on target.

So you still fire several weapons at the same time. The recoil of one will influence the other one being fired. Even if you fire two AC20 the recoil of the other one will throw it off balance.

[Vapor Trail]

Read this thread, saw a lot of vitrol over how "adding randomness detracts from skill."

I have just one question:

If having a random bullet spread detracts from skill required to be good (and therefore not having it, by direct inversion, should increase the skill needed to be good), why is it that most modern shooter E-Sports rules consider removing the random spread to be cheating?

[Sam Slade]

Nightcrept, on 15 April 2013 - 07:30 AM, said:

lol...I worked for JSOC for years and years. Before that I was a Marine. After that I was and currently am a gov contracted intelligence asset.

... and you talk about this stuff on the internet?

Nightcrept, on 15 April 2013 - 08:11 AM, said:

?

I think somehow your missing my point.
Currently now 2013 we have the technological abilities close to what the mechs in the game have over a thousand years later.

Recoil etc should all be handled by the internal mechanisms of the weapon and compensated for by the mechs computer during the reload time. Once the weapon is ready to fire the mechs computer should have it back on target.

This is very near to current technological levels.

Let's not forget that the people aiming these things are usually **** scared of getting shot(que thw ex-army mechanics who want to tell us how they where always cool under fire... worse then reformd smokers).

Perhaps the clue to all this is in the title; Mechwarior not just Mech. If we're going to have inaccuracy make it a product of the machine being shot, zapped and generally abused... I like the idea of a barrage of incoming fire making long range accuracy a true feat of skill... I don't like the idea of an expanding crosshair.

Heat is probably the best way to do this... one of the best kills I ever got was a 500m headshot on a Dragon while I had the 'no hud' bug... I lined it up and everything but didn't expect to BOOM Headshot(insert cheering). I suggest random HUD elements fade with heat and a significant 'crosshair jiggle' from jump jets

Edited by Sam Slade, 15 April 2013 - 09:00 AM.

[Nightcrept]

Alienfreak, on 15 April 2013 - 08:42 AM, said:

So you still fire several weapons at the same time. The recoil of one will influence the other one being fired. Even if you fire two AC20 the recoil of the other one will throw it off balance.

No.

That scenario would only be possible if the two were rigidly connected to the same frame of possibly a smaller mech.
Any addition of recoil suppression or computer controlled gyro stabilization would account for the recoil effects of multiple weapons as you fired them.

To put it really simply.
As you select a weapon and fire the computer automatically calculates the effect of the recoil etc and adjusts all mech systems to include basic walking stabilization and firing formulas.

Think battleships and seawiz.

[Lostdragon]

Vapor Trail, on 15 April 2013 - 08:51 AM, said:

Read this thread, saw a lot of vitrol over how "adding randomness detracts from skill."

I have just one question:

If having a random bullet spread detracts from skill required to be good (and therefore not having it, by direct inversion, should increase the skill needed to be good), why is it that most modern shooter E-Sports rules consider removing the random spread to be cheating?

People saying this don't understand how it impacts the balance of the game.

[Nightcrept]

Sam Slade, on 15 April 2013 - 08:58 AM, said:

... and you talk about this stuff on the internet?

I'm not a spy...lol.
The only people I have to fear who want to reach me have no tech and couldn't get to me anyway and the ones who can reach me and have the tech to find me don't care about me.

[0I0]

MentalPatient, on 14 April 2013 - 02:40 AM, said:

I kind of wish the game involved more skill also. What I don't want, is for people with incredibly good aim to own the battlefield, that to me is not the kind of skill I want to encourage in this game. I think the problem with this game right now is, we are all too used to the same maps, with the same drop points, so we all know where we have to go on each map, leading to stand offs and no exciting surprise encounters which would make the game much more interesting. We need more and varied maps, with different scenarios and objectives, to keep us on our toes and not so rehearsed. Right now playing this game feels like flogging a dead horse, as each match usually plays out in the same way, with the same routes being taken generally and not much ingenuity.

There must be other things which will add a bit of flavour and help move us away from trying to get that slightest edge by poptarding and other stupid current tactics.

EDIT: I think once we get voice comms in game, with lances, we will get more tactical play, as we can stay in touch and updated while not having to be physically close together. It won't be a pure battle of attrition but will be more of a focus on smarter play such as ambushing, setting traps, etc.

So, what is it that you want from from a specialty FPS? People with the fastest reaction times, or incredibly good aim (as you put it)will always dominate a games of point at targets and click.

I seem to see allot of people complaining about things such as boring games(which has nothing to do with your opponents, it has to do with a game being in BETA, and only having 2 game modes), and matches playing out the same. Which I find mildly humorous that the answer to making things better is to take the advantage away from the best, and make it better for those in the middle(is kind of what I got from the above post?).

Believe me I'd like to see better games, so I joined a clan. Baring that I'll just be patient and wait for more content. Not complain that theirs better players out there then myself.

Now that I think about it, even if a random element was added to aiming, wouldnt the best just adapt and still be better? So in theory you would only be making the game harder for yourself(and others), with the potential of eliminating all poptarts(so no more snipers of any relevance) driving out the light mech's and virtually killing the medium mech population(as if it isn't dead enough).

[FrostCollar]

Vapor Trail, on 15 April 2013 - 08:51 AM, said:

Read this thread, saw a lot of vitrol over how "adding randomness detracts from skill."

I have just one question:

If having a random bullet spread detracts from skill required to be good (and therefore not having it, by direct inversion, should increase the skill needed to be good), why is it that most modern shooter E-Sports rules consider removing the random spread to be cheating?

Because it's deviating from the rules? Sports rules aren't about making the best game, they're about making sure everyone's playing the same game. It's the same reason Olympic swimmers are required to use similar suits instead of the best suits.

[Fut]

Oloccorb, on 15 April 2013 - 09:14 AM, said:

Now that I think about it, even if a random element was added to aiming, wouldnt the best just adapt and still be better? So in theory you would only be making the game harder for yourself(and others), with the potential of eliminating all poptarts(so no more snipers of any relevance) driving out the light mech's and virtually killing the medium mech population(as if it isn't dead enough).

I think the point is that it'd take more than just a steady hand to be successful.
You'd have to be aware of everything going on - your movement, the terrain you're on, your current heat levels, whatever else people are suggesting here.

In the end, you'd still need that steady hand to make the shot land - but you'd also need to use your head a lot more than currently needed.

With something like this is play, people with good hands will be decent, people with good awareness/knowledge will be decent; but somebody with good knowledge/awareness and a steady hand - they'll be deadly..

[0I0]

Fut, on 15 April 2013 - 09:42 AM, said:

I think the point is that it'd take more than just a steady hand to be successful.
You'd have to be aware of everything going on - your movement, the terrain you're on, your current heat levels, whatever else people are suggesting here.

In the end, you'd still need that steady hand to make the shot land - but you'd also need to use your head a lot more than currently needed.

With something like this is play, people with good hands will be decent, people with good awareness/knowledge will be decent; but somebody with good knowledge/awareness and a steady hand - they'll be deadly..

Ah, I can see that. However it seems to me, that you need all of these things to be good as it stand already. If the argument is that the portion of the population that does not have these skills, is merely taking advantage of a very simple aiming system, that allows them to score kills/hits with little to no "skill", then alright I get that. My only counter is that these plays, suck lol. If you get close enough, or start paying attention to them. There fairly easy to core and get rid of, and move on to harder to deal with targets.

As a side note, any game that is entirely too difficult for newer players to master(or just get the hang of), will have a hard time gaining any kind of success(new content). Which ultimately is my only beef with making the game "more" skill based then it already is. Thats keeping in mind that the game is still Beta, once we start getting into CW, I would imagine that PGI will start looking into mechanics like this, as it will create a well rounded game thats fairly easy to get into(as all FPS's are), but require a certain level of skill to get good at(unlike most FPS's).

[Alienfreak]

Nightcrept, on 15 April 2013 - 09:06 AM, said:

No.

That scenario would only be possible if the two were rigidly connected to the same frame of possibly a smaller mech.
Any addition of recoil suppression or computer controlled gyro stabilization would account for the recoil effects of multiple weapons as you fired them.

To put it really simply.
As you select a weapon and fire the computer automatically calculates the effect of the recoil etc and adjusts all mech systems to include basic walking stabilization and firing formulas.

Think battleships and seawiz.

Both are actually connected to the same mech.

Have you seen the shake a 120mm gives a M1A1? http://youtu.be/ZhF6TjnIjFc?t=7m9s
It weights roughly the same as a Cata or Jager (both are 3.9 or so tons heavier). It is on tracks and not on legs.
And now tell me that your "gyro" is perfectly offsetting everything.


GYRO seems to be the favorite word of many people here...