203 replies to this topic

[Skinflowers]

No. The only comparison i'm drawing from WoT is no weapon is 100% accurate yet that game is not lacking in fun nor lacking in income. The fun element applies to us, the player. the income argument applies to PGI.

[RG Notch]

Skinflowers, on 31 May 2013 - 01:43 PM, said:

You're comparing two completely seperate arguments. Applying a funding argument to an accuracy argument has literally zero relevance.

I was responding to the argument that WoT was thriving despite RNG, so I simply stated that why not follow the WoT model entirely and go P2W? People say that P2W kills games and yet apparently WoT is do well. So if one can say inaccuracy won't kill the game why would P2W kill it?
I know logic has zero relevance once a good echo chamber has been set up so don't let me spoil the acoustics.

[Skinflowers]

If you're going to create a strawman at least try and tuck in the straw and make it less obvious?

This is about accuracy. 100% accuracy is not required to make a game fun or viable. Can we get back to that argument please?

Edited by Skinflowers, 31 May 2013 - 01:58 PM.

[ElLocoMarko]

I disagree because I want walking tanks to be more like tanks and less like people.

With dual AC20, I accidentally headshotted a perfectly healthy Cataphract at like 400m. He was on the move and I got lucky. If convergence wasn't so magical, only one of those rounds would have hit the head. I felt sorry for the fellow whose game ended at 2:30 after lots of super-exciting walking. And now his favorite mech is locked up in a match which ran 4 more minutes.

Sniper kills are fine in games like TF2 where there is respawn and you can jump right back into the action. In MWO, I want mechs to live a long and punished life... at least 20 seconds.

Let's look at real world as well. Mount a rifle to a bench on a perfectly calm day and fire it at a target 100m away. Is it going to drill a single hole in the paper and then stack bullets on top of bullets?

As skinflower stated above. Weapons do not need to be 100% accurate to make a game fun.

Edited by ElLocoMarko, 31 May 2013 - 02:18 PM.

[RG Notch]

Skinflowers, on 31 May 2013 - 01:58 PM, said:

If you're going to create a strawman at least try and tuck in the straw and make it less obvious?

This is about accuracy. 100% accuracy is not required to make a game fun or viable. Can we get back to that argument please?

Then P2W also doesn't interfere with the fun and viability either? There are certainly as many people claiming P2W kills games and yet WoT lives.

[Skinflowers]

RG Notch, on 31 May 2013 - 02:18 PM, said:

Then P2W also doesn't interfere with the fun and viability either? There are certainly as many people claiming P2W kills games and yet WoT lives.

P2W and accuracy.

Seperate issues. Please create another thread if you want to argue the pros and cons of P2W. I'm here to discuss accuracy. I used WoT's *ACCURACY* model as an example. WoT's F2P, (P2W if you prefer) is not a factor in my argument.

[RG Notch]

Skinflowers, on 31 May 2013 - 02:25 PM, said:

P2W and accuracy.

Seperate issues. Please create another thread if you want to argue the pros and cons of P2W. I'm here to discuss accuracy. I used WoT's *ACCURACY* model as an example. WoT's F2P, (P2W if you prefer) is not a factor in my argument.

Yes and I followed up on other factors involved in WoT's fun and viability. When you get mod privileges you can tell me where I and what I can or can't post. While you may not consider it relevant, I do. One can't simply take things piecemeal from other games without context.
You don't want to discuss it, don't reply to me. Otherwise absent CoC violations I will post what I want.

[Dude42]

Skinflowers, on 31 May 2013 - 02:25 PM, said:

P2W and accuracy.

Seperate issues. Please create another thread if you want to argue the pros and cons of P2W. I'm here to discuss accuracy. I used WoT's *ACCURACY* model as an example. WoT's F2P, (P2W if you prefer) is not a factor in my argument.

Like the guy said, just ignore the him. Obvious troll is obvious. Why feed?

[RG Notch]

Dude42, on 31 May 2013 - 02:54 PM, said:

Like the guy said, just ignore the him. Obvious troll is obvious. Why feed?

Exactly, we can't have dissent in the echo chamber people. Get back to your regularly scheduled program of back slapping and high fives. Oh hows that RNG implementation going? Next patch?
Here's something else with RNG that's popular, PowerBall! Keeps things fun and viable.

[Skinflowers]

RG Notch, on 31 May 2013 - 03:05 PM, said:

Exactly, we can't have dissent in the echo chamber people. Get back to your regularly scheduled program of back slapping and high fives. Oh hows that RNG implementation going? Next patch?
Here's something else with RNG that's popular, PowerBall! Keeps things fun and viable.

Dissent is offering a cogent argument to the topic at hand. P2W != a discussion about accuracy. "Echo Chamber" is just some buzz phrase to try an elevate your argument to relevance. I'm not buying it. Other might. Not I.

Dude42, on 31 May 2013 - 02:54 PM, said:

Like the guy said, just ignore the him. Obvious troll is obvious. Why feed?

Point taken.

Done with this RG Notch unless he can offer a decent argument.

[cyberFluke]

RG Notch, on 31 May 2013 - 03:05 PM, said:

Exactly, we can't have dissent in the echo chamber people. Get back to your regularly scheduled program of back slapping and high fives. Oh hows that RNG implementation going? Next patch?
Here's something else with RNG that's popular, PowerBall! Keeps things fun and viable.

Old Time MW3/4/LL Player by any chance?

[cyberFluke]

Skinflowers, on 31 May 2013 - 04:04 PM, said:

I agree entirely by the way. The whole pinpoint accuracy thing is a very low skill ceiling, massively simplistic, dull and *easy* way to present something which is supposed to be a challenge in MechWarrior.

Something has to change or PGIGP will be chasing their own tails for ever trying to balance out the weapons. Inherent weapon inaccuracy is a critical balancing factor, even, for those who insist on bullsh!t Real World comparisons to modern weapons in a videogame about a fantasy scifi universe, in the aforementioned Real World. Weapon accuracy is as important as it's weight, size and ammo requirements, hence the difference between a sniper rifle and an SMG. Different environments present different problems, an engineering compromise is reached for each and you have different weapons for different scenarios.

Edited by cyberFluke, 31 May 2013 - 04:37 PM.

[A banana in the tailpipe]

I wish I could dislike Jay's original post. Where he mentions "That removes player skill from the equation" I decided to stop reading. Even people with incredible latency are completely missing shots that land on their screen. The game is borked regardless of skill.

[Thomas Hogarth]

RG Notch, on 31 May 2013 - 01:37 PM, said:

It's also P2W so lets go that route as well no?

Like everyone else said: Two separate arguments.

Shakespeare, on 31 May 2013 - 01:44 PM, said:

I'm NOT actually sure what point he's making (sarcastically pointing out that WoT is quite successful? suggesting that WoT's combat model is unfun? Claiming that lack of precision is killing that game slowly?).
But yeah, if WoT is suffering long term, it's because it pumps the player base for every dime it can as the worst example of free-to-play BS in existence.
Whether it's fun or not, it's the wrong model for this game. There's a reason 'Gold Ammo' is infamous even to those who have never played.

Two separate arguments. Furthermore, I know more people that find WoT fun, despite the P2W shenanigans, than find MWO fun. And that's just out of the pool of people I know that have played both.

ElLocoMarko, on 31 May 2013 - 02:15 PM, said:

I disagree because I want walking tanks to be more like tanks and less like people.

With dual AC20, I accidentally headshotted a perfectly healthy Cataphract at like 400m. He was on the move and I got lucky. If convergence wasn't so magical, only one of those rounds would have hit the head. I felt sorry for the fellow whose game ended at 2:30 after lots of super-exciting walking. And now his favorite mech is locked up in a match which ran 4 more minutes.

Sniper kills are fine in games like TF2 where there is respawn and you can jump right back into the action. In MWO, I want mechs to live a long and punished life... at least 20 seconds.

Let's look at real world as well. Mount a rifle to a bench on a perfectly calm day and fire it at a target 100m away. Is it going to drill a single hole in the paper and then stack bullets on top of bullets?

As skinflower stated above. Weapons do not need to be 100% accurate to make a game fun.

A thousand times this.

RG Notch, on 31 May 2013 - 02:18 PM, said:

Then P2W also doesn't interfere with the fun and viability either? There are certainly as many people claiming P2W kills games and yet WoT lives.

P2W certainly does interfere with fun and viability. So does absolute accuracy with HTAL armor layout. WoT lives despite being arguably P2W BECAUSE there's a higher skill ceiling. MWO seems to be struggling compared to WoT despite scoring very low on the P2W index.

So, thank you for bringing P2W into the conversation. It perfectly illuminated the scope of the absolute accuracy issue.

lockwoodx, on 31 May 2013 - 05:22 PM, said:

I wish I could dislike Jay's original post. Where he mentions "That removes player skill from the equation" I decided to stop reading. Even people with incredible latency are completely missing shots that land on their screen. The game is borked regardless of skill.

Netcode and absolute accuracy are two different things. If they fixed netcode perfectly tomorrow, the absolute accuracy would be even worse.

Think about it this way: We tried absolute accuracy in MW3, it sucked. We tried absolute accuracy in MW4, it sucked. We tried absolute accuracy in MWO up until now, and it still sucks. We're in Beta, which means things can be tried for the benefit of balance. We've tried all manner of weapon tweaks, heat tweaks, match tweaks and the like. If you really believe that anything other than absolute accuracy will result in a terrible game experience, petition PGI to try it for a week. If it sucks as bad as you think it will, you'll be able to win any accuracy argument by saying "we tried it, it sucked. move on."

[A banana in the tailpipe]

Thomas Hogarth, on 31 May 2013 - 07:58 PM, said:

Netcode and absolute accuracy are two different things. If they fixed netcode perfectly tomorrow, the absolute accuracy would be even worse.

Think about it this way: We tried absolute accuracy in MW3, it sucked. We tried absolute accuracy in MW4, it sucked. We tried absolute accuracy in MWO up until now, and it still sucks. We're in Beta, which means things can be tried for the benefit of balance. We've tried all manner of weapon tweaks, heat tweaks, match tweaks and the like. If you really believe that anything other than absolute accuracy will result in a terrible game experience, petition PGI to try it for a week. If it sucks as bad as you think it will, you'll be able to win any accuracy argument by saying "we tried it, it sucked. move on."

Poor Netcode has been the demise of great games such as CnC:Renegade, Aliens Vs Predator 2 (the monolith one), ect... MWO on the other hand is exclusively online multiplayer so PGI have no excused not to get their **** together. They had one job, and because I can't trust the accuracy of my shots, I won't be able to trust PGI with my money.

Edited by lockwoodx, 31 May 2013 - 10:07 PM.

[Tarl Cabot]

I had a long reply to this thread and its going on, but it rest on human nature, we will be the death of ourselves due to both lack of sacrifice and selfishness.

It is up to the PGi and such. Maybe they can be the few exceptions.

Enough said.

Edited by Tarl Cabot, 31 May 2013 - 11:16 PM.

[RG Notch]

Skinflowers, on 31 May 2013 - 04:04 PM, said:

Done with this RG Notch unless he can offer a decent argument.

Oh a decent argument you can counter you mean? Must be easy to win arguments when you just ignore people who don't agree or present easy to dismiss issues. That's what an echo chamber is. Where one only hears those "arguments" that you wish.
Honestly, feel free to pick and choose things to discuss without proper context, it makes for "good" discussion. Well at least it prevents one from having to "argue" with anyone who might have a counter point.
Well, back to high fiving and back slapping. You show how your half argument wins!!!!

[Pht]

One Medic Army, on 30 May 2013 - 04:12 PM, said:

Well, that and because in TT they were weapons which hit multiple areas of the target with each shot.

Kind of like how in TT if you shot someone with 2 PPCs they hit different locations.

Um ... there's no rule on the hit-location table that means that you'd always hit two locations with two ppcs.

You can, theoretically, have every weapon hit a single armor panel... it's just that the percentages make that sort of thing very, VERY rare.

It does happen, from time to time, and it's jaw-dropping.

With me, it's usually any mech toting two gauss rifles putting both rounds of gauss right through the cockpit and blowing it cleanly off of the mech.

Karl Streiger, on 30 May 2013 - 11:09 PM, said:

Every time i read dice roll...is luck... do you know that you hardly any better as Dice Rolls...
So there is allready some "randomness" in the game... the randomness how bad or good you are while shooting.

I don't think that most of your average accuracy in your stats is any better as using TT pilots.
Here the result when shots were given at 5 out of 10 at short range 3 out of 10 at medium range and 2 out of 10 at long range

gunnery: 2 avg 56.019607843137265%
gunnery: 3 avg 44.941176470588246%
gunnery: 4 avg 34.1078431372549%
gunnery: 5 avg 24.294117647058822%

Ok the more clever one will recognize that in MWO shooting at long range is hardly more as difficult as shooting at point blank.
They also recognize that if your weapons in MWO hit they hit the spot you want them to hit.

So the question is not to hit or not to hit but to determine where your shots will hit the target

Someone might think you would have to port over the pilot's gunnery skill roll from the TT ... no, that's not necessary to do.

We can do everything a MechWarrior does with his cockpit aiming controls (joystick controlling a reticule on the hud) with ... um .... our joysticks (or mice) controlling a reticule on a hud.

The percentages don't represent mechwarrior skill - they represent the ability of the 'Mech to use its weapons (and the basic "bench mounted" accuracy of each individual weapon).

[Pht]

Ansel, on 31 May 2013 - 12:24 AM, said:

Removal of the outdated BT Paperdoll is what is really needed.

Why?

Details?

Something beyond prejudice against any systems older than two years of age?

[Pht]

Voidcrafter, on 31 May 2013 - 05:11 AM, said:

And another thing, if the computer does all the aiming, how can't he(or it - the computer) make some simple algorythm, that I can write on hand, with gravity and distance multiplier/reducer values, that makes your shot precise, like the warfare technology 1k years away from the current time should be logically able to do?

The BT fictional setting is not about "reality in the future based off of a progression above what we can do in reality now."

It's a fictional setting buit for escapsim.