203 replies to this topic

[Cyke]

I actually read every post in the last eight pages, which appears to have devolved to the point where several individuals began calling each other trolls.
At the risk of becoming the target of all your combined wroth, let me say this: you're ALL trolling each other

Let me just say that if we calm down and logically present our point of view with priority placed on clarity, it will be easier to see where the other person is coming from. Likewise, carefully read the other person's point of view to see where they're coming from.
Over-simplifying the other person's opinion in a manner intended to degrade its validity isn't going to help us here.


As for me, my personal opinion on this is that while increased complexity that raises the difficulty of accurately targeting specific components is a good thing, I believe randomized inaccuracy (resulting in a cone of randomized probable shot trajectories) is not the way to go.

I'm not sure if there's some sort of stigma against quoting oneself, but here's something I once stated on a previous thread:

Cyke, on 12 March 2013 - 08:18 AM, said:

While an RNG-based mechanic can affect the flow of decisions made by players of what actions to take, the actual execution of the action is devalued by uncontrolled randomness of the RNG.

No matter how you try to compensate for an RNG, it can betray a player.. or benefit his enemy. In a worst-case scenario, it can do both of those things in the same engagement, turning the outcome of the engagement from a win to a loss.
Recall that in a game with non-regenerating durability (armor points), any such luck-based outcome will further cascade and can decide the outcome of an entire game. With community warfare, that could further cascade into even further-reaching effects.

I'm getting ahead of myself here, though.
The point is, even if we want to make pinpoint accuracy more difficult (or rather, concentrated pinpoint accuracy with multiple weapons fired simultaneously), it's best if we use a mechanic that raises difficulty, but has a consistent, predictable outcome, and therefore one that can be compensated for.

The consistent, predictable increase in aim difficulty (raising the skill bar, one might say) can be accomplished through several means, all of which carefully avoid involving any randomness whatsoever.

Here are a few:
- Altering the behavior of convergence, itself having a few possibilities:
- Remove convergence from torso weapons, so they consistently fire straight ahead. Probably keep convergence for arm weapons.
- Require a player to manually set his convergence on-the-fly. This likely requires -too much- player effort. I'm not for it.
- Go back to slow converging weapons. However, weapons converge based on R-locked target range, not reticle range.

- Increasing the difficulty of a shot based on a 'Mech's throttle.
Reticle bobs up and down when a 'Mech goes above 60% throttle. In BattleTech, going over 60% throttle is "running" as opposed to walking. The reticle should bob slightly, but in a rhythmic manner that allows a player to either time his fire, or pull the reticle back on target.
Note that the walking/running distinction coincides with the movement heat generation in MWO ('Mech generates 0.1 heat/sec when walking from below 60%, 0.2 heat/sec when running).

- Reticle "wavers" around when 'Mech goes above ~50% or ~75% heat.
The reticle starts drifting around when the 'Mech gets hot, but the important thing is that the shots still all fire with proper relation to the reticle. It drifts more when you get very hot. Therefore, the player is able to simply put the reticle back on target before firing, if he can.

- Introduce mechanics that encourage (or mandate) chain-firing.
This reduces the overbearing effectiveness of massive Alphas of large weapons that many players have pointed out. Using multiple large weapons (e.g. PPCs and Gauss Rifles) to hit home tremendous damage into a single component is the way to go, which actually requires the least amount of player coordination and effort.
I'm not sure what specific mechanic could accomplish this without detracting from the feel of the game, though.


In conclusion, I feel that randomized shot deviation ("RNG") fudges the importance of player input making player "skill" less relevant. However, these ideas increase the requirement of attentiveness and focus on the player. They'll tax the player's hand-eye coordination, and familiarity with his 'Mech chassis and build.
Basically instead of decreasing the gap between good, average and poor players, these ideas increase the gap in shooting quality, consistency,and accuracy between players.


Btw, I'm glad to see no one has dared suggest that removing auto-convergence equates to randomness. That's the epitome of a complete lack of understanding of the game we ourselves play.

Edited by Cyke, 28 May 2013 - 08:05 AM.

[I am]

Are there any popular FPS's which use a RNG during PvP match-ups?

[One Medic Army]

I am, on 28 May 2013 - 08:13 AM, said:

Are there any popular FPS's which use a RNG during PvP match-ups?

I find it harder to think of any FPS games which don't have Cone of Fire and sniper-rifle sway, PvP or not.

[cyberFluke]

Accursed Richards, on 28 May 2013 - 06:29 AM, said:

Think it through. If you're standing still, you're also easier to hit. Knowing when to slow down for accuracy, when to be evasive, or when to spray fire on the move sounds pretty tactical to me. And shots don't have to miss on the move--just scatter a little so they don't hollow out the CT quite so reliably.

It's also quite easy to balance this for light mechs, by having the scatter based on your percentage of maximum speed, rather than current KPH.

Thank you sir. I'd gone to bed, but this is exactly what I'd have returned with. Well, maybe a bit more venom, my tolerance to idiots is clearly far lower than your own

I did in fact specify percentage of top speed , for exactly that reason. Lights weigh less so conceivably would bounce around less at speed, so can achieve a higher accuracy then as assault could at the same velocity.

To get something straight. I'd rather not have ANY RNG Cone of Fire, but have actual swaying and bobbing when moving, shake when flying, directional twitches when you collide with something, etc. Unfortunately the described system is a lot harder to put together and thus less likely to be implemented. Something needs to be done about pinpoint accuracy and there not being any skill to speak of involved in aiming, I'd rather not have an RNG CoF, but it's better than no change.

One Medic Army, on 28 May 2013 - 08:53 AM, said:

I find it harder to think of any FPS games which don't have Cone of Fire and sniper-rifle sway, PvP or not.

Because they've realised how low it sets the skill ceiling.

[Dude42]

One Medic Army, on 28 May 2013 - 08:53 AM, said:

I find it harder to think of any FPS games which don't have Cone of Fire and sniper-rifle sway, PvP or not.

The really old ones don't have fire distribution, or bullet drop, or any of the fancy stuff to make aiming more difficult than placing the cursor on a pixel and clicking.

If we want any of those fancy newfangled ideas in our mech game tho, then we're the devil.

[Ralgas]

One Medic Army, on 28 May 2013 - 08:53 AM, said:

I find it harder to think of any FPS games which don't have Cone of Fire and sniper-rifle sway, PvP or not.

How many of those have the location system and target size differences of a MW title though?

[One Medic Army]

Ralgas, on 28 May 2013 - 12:54 PM, said:

How many of those have the location system and target size differences of a MW title though?

Pretty much every shooter has some variation on hitboxes, at least as far as head shots go.
Most shooters with a "class" system (TF2, MNC) have differences in the relative sizes of characters as well.

Here's my big thing, is there needs to be some mechanic which keeps 4 PPCs all fired at the same time from hitting the same spot. Sway doesn't do this, shake doesn't do this. It's somewhat irrelevant if your massive pinpoint alpha hits the CT or a side torso, wherever that pile of damage hits is going to be hurting. This is the main advantage of having massive damage all at the same place. This is the problem, concentrated damage without much in the way of aiming skill required. It leads to stale boring gameplay, and it largely invalidates other tactics unless you can get a team with coordinated builds.

[Ralgas]

One Medic Army, on 28 May 2013 - 01:04 PM, said:

Pretty much every shooter has some variation on hitboxes, at least as far as head shots go.
Most shooters with a "class" system (TF2, MNC) have differences in the relative sizes of characters as well.

Here's my big thing, is there needs to be some mechanic which keeps 4 PPCs all fired at the same time from hitting the same spot. Sway doesn't do this, shake doesn't do this. It's somewhat irrelevant if your massive pinpoint alpha hits the CT or a side torso, wherever that pile of damage hits is going to be hurting. This is the main advantage of having massive damage all at the same place. This is the problem, concentrated damage without much in the way of aiming skill required. It leads to stale boring gameplay, and it largely invalidates other tactics unless you can get a team with coordinated builds.

haven't played mnc but the tf models still come nowhere near the difference between a raven and a assault, and although head shots matter in other fps's there's nothing along the lines of the penalties we have here ( i believe one of the painkillers allowed you to leg someone)

I agree with your second paragraph, but cone isn't the way to do it for reasons mentioned in my above post a page or two back that seemed to get lost in the flame war.

Edited by Ralgas, 28 May 2013 - 01:15 PM.

[IceSerpent]

Dude42, on 28 May 2013 - 10:51 AM, said:

The really old ones don't have fire distribution, or bullet drop, or any of the fancy stuff to make aiming more difficult than placing the cursor on a pixel and clicking.

If we want any of those fancy newfangled ideas in our mech game tho, then we're the devil.

Well, I guess PGI could make a separate version just like the original Doom (complete with IDDQD and IDKFA codes) for the "skillful" crowd...come to think of it, it might not be such a bad idea...

[Vodrin Thales]

One Medic Army, on 28 May 2013 - 01:04 PM, said:

Here's my big thing, is there needs to be some mechanic which keeps 4 PPCs all fired at the same time from hitting the same spot.

I don't think this is true at all. There just needs to be enough of a heat penalty to firing those PPC's that doing it with any regularity is prohibitive.

[One Medic Army]

Vodrin Thales, on 28 May 2013 - 01:28 PM, said:

I don't think this is true at all. There just needs to be enough of a heat penalty to firing those PPC's that doing it with any regularity is prohibitive.

Won't help much, it'll just reduce the frequency at which snipers pop.
Might help by reducing the amount of armor needed to close a given distance with said sniper, but the first shot has no wait, and the first shot is typically enough to scare most people off.

Here's a thought, which both causes damage to spread and allows pinpoint targeting: apply a small RNG amount to the projectile velocity, say 0.9 to 1.1, this would be enough to spread damage on a moving target out.

[Tombstoner]

One Medic Army, on 28 May 2013 - 01:34 PM, said:

Won't help much, it'll just reduce the frequency at which snipers pop.
Might help by reducing the amount of armor needed to close a given distance with said sniper, but the first shot has no wait, and the first shot is typically enough to scare most people off.

Here's a thought, which both causes damage to spread and allows pinpoint targeting: apply a small RNG amount to the projectile velocity, say 0.9 to 1.1, this would be enough to spread damage on a moving target out.

A reasonable alternative. I think the lore would support that, but people would once again jump on the RNG aspect of interfering with "player skill". Why should a shot that i aimed correctly miss because of a bad dice roll.

Because its an additional degree of freedom for game balance....
Because the weapon stats we're taken from a TT system that has a RNG hit location - need to change weapon stats as a result.
Because the mechs are decades if not hundreds of years old.
Because the mechs have been in combat multiple times.....
Because of something called lost tech....

Seriously, i do understand both sides of the argument. sadly the game needs a RNG for max range combat.
Alpha striking boated single weapon designs become the optimum way to build a mech for maximizing a broken convergence system.

PGI tried for a pure skill system and it looked Fubared. no substitute was ever attempted. the game moved forward and we have the current build. The game badly needs a small but controllable by the player cone of fire.

[Dude42]

Let's send every player a set of big pink fuzzy dice. They will be required to play the game. Whenever someone fires a weapon, the server pauses the game for everyone, so that the player firing may roll their big pink fuzzy dice. Each dice will be wifi linked, and come with a USB reciever(to prevent cheating). The result of the roll will have nothing to do with the shot, but will instead be added to e-peen growth(in millimeters), should the shot hit. If the shot misses, then the result of the roll will determine the appropriate number of times to jump up and down and blame your team. This avoid a RNG, as we use a pair of actual physical dice.

[cyberFluke]

Destined, on 28 May 2013 - 02:46 PM, said:

Hello everyone.

Please remember to stay on-topic and not get personal. Keep the vendettas in the battlefield.

Cheers!

Give me the ability to "call someone out" ie. Issue a battlefield challenge from the forums. Man, I'd love to ruin the day of some of these "people"...

[Dude42]

cyberFluke, on 28 May 2013 - 03:03 PM, said:

Give me the ability to "call someone out" ie. Issue a battlefield challenge from the forums. Man, I'd love to ruin the day of some of these "people"...

Dude I totally wish you could 1v1 people. I'd want to both watch, and play in that.

[bobthebomb]

You peoples need new concept in this disscussion

try skill ceiling : http://tynansylveste.../skill-ceiling/ (it's an ok description i think).



ps : Perfect accuracy is only fun when playing quake with a rail gun (Super fast instant kill shot) or tribe 1 using disc launcher (very slow velocity).

Edited by bobthebomb, 28 May 2013 - 05:19 PM.

[Ralgas]

Neverfar, on 28 May 2013 - 05:24 PM, said:

Incorrect.

To giggling "elite" gamers with infinite patience and capacity for repetitive tasks that they have mastered, they want nothing to interfere with the one trick their proverbial pony can do. They want infinite praise and respect for that mouse click. Because "skill™".

Just as many see the failings of an "rng or spread" system and realise while the current meta would fall problems just as serious would arise........ Both sides are just as hard headed, because internetz

Edited by Ralgas, 28 May 2013 - 05:40 PM.

[wolf74]

I still think Switching to a Manual Controlled Convergence point is the way to go. Yes it is Harder for Newer players but when you hit it is Truly your Skill or Dumb Luck that got the shot. I have been a video gamer & Battletech fan a long time (Commando 64 anyone?)

Back on Page 2 http://mwomercs.com/...ost__p__2388378 (link for you the lazy ones)

I talked about Manual Controlled Convergence (Now repeated here and upgraded)
Con’s:

• Harder for New Player (unless they have played a GOOD WW2 Tank sim than it will be a cake walk for them).

Pro’s:

• Gives Pin point damage for those who wait for the right range for the shot or can make the Correction on the fly.
  
• High odds of spreading the damage around the targets.
  
• Gives Classic Battletech Targeting Computer* a reason to be in the game
  
• Give Pulse Lasers a Reason to be used over normal Lasers

Things I would give the players if Manual Convergence is put in:

• +-5m auto Correction. (AKA if you target is within 5m of you Convergence point it will hit pin point).
  
• CBT Target Computers* upgrades the +-5m auto-correction to +-15m.
  
• Pulse Laser (Does not stack with Targeting Computers) get a +-25m auto-Correction
  
• Add a Column to the score page:
  
  • If using the current targeting system list the player as a Rookie Pilot
    
  • If using the Manual Controlled Targeting list the player as a Mechwarrior
• Add a boost to the Damage C-Bills (Only the Damage C-Bills) if the player is playing using the Manual Controlled system (Can only be changed in the MechLab)

*The I.S. Targeting Computer are normally not in game until 3058 but for game play reasons & New Player support I think most CBT player will over look the Date to help the Game along.

Edited after the Two post below this one to add the line about Column to the score board & C-Bill boost for damage done.

Edited by wolf74, 28 May 2013 - 10:30 PM.

[Ralgas]

Neverfar, on 28 May 2013 - 05:40 PM, said:

I think you tripped on a false equivalency.

These days I don't directly support any particular "RNG" mechanic apart from a convergence change (which is actually just letting the torso weapons fire forward, not technically RNG related). I am open to suggestions and the possiblity of some shot-group widening modifiers like firing when running too fast, jumping, or the like. No particular one of these things I am totally on board for yet, but I'd welcome discussion.

I do heckle and mock the "ABSOLUTELY NO RNG EVAR MY SKILL!!!!1" types that want to play Quake2 with 4-6 railguns at a time.

Your "false equivalency". methinks it doesn't mean what you think it means. I realise you were too busy with a flame war back on page 6 but i spelt it out there. Noones bothered to counter point it yet.

[Ralgas]

Neverfar, on 28 May 2013 - 06:30 PM, said:

No. It is a false equivalency.

You're all too happy to declare with certainty that it will be equally as bad the other way with no further evidence than your gut.

Except my argument is based in logic extending from current game mecanics and previous meta shifts. Tbh push for your torso change, cant wait to see what "heavy metal is p2w" and "ac/40 sucks" fanbois make out of that when you weaken their competition.

Now there's false equivalancy, and it's yours..........