Hoaggie, on 26 May 2013 - 05:42 PM, said:
Setting aside that mechs are robots, not effected by fatigue or random muscle movement, have you ever fired a real weapon? Modern rifles will hit the target 100% of the time if the target is inside their maximum effective range. They are precise machines, capable of preforming the same action identically thousands of times. Sure, they break down, but a complex highly accurate rifle like the M16A4 can fire over 3,000 before any major malfunction would occur, and even then with proper preventive maintenance can prevent many of those
Yes I have. And no, they won't always hit the same spot. I wasn't talking about "Hitting the target" I was talking about Pinpoint accuracy and getting the exact same result every time. Wind will effect the bullets travel, the round may have an imperfection. Many of them may go to almost the exact same location, and land almost precisely in the footprint of the previous round, but some,
many, won't. The more variables you introduce, the harder it is to replicate a result, to the point of being impossible.
No amount of weapon upkeep can account for faulty ammo, or things that happen during combat. Your gun could get packed full of dirt from a dust storm, and you may be forced to fire it before you have a chance to clean it. It could have a weak component that works
just fine for years, and shows no signs of fatigue, but fails at a critical moment during a fight.
My point is that combat isn't taking place under ideal conditions in a wind free shooting range.
Also, the line about them being mechs/robots. They weigh up to 100 tons. Meaning each limb could weigh between 10-20 tons. Mechs move around, and do so in a clunky, almost uncoordinated way. Even if they have computers that can account for the movements of the mech while aiming, and assuming the actuators in the arms and shoulders can keep 10-20 tons perfectly stable, metal still flexes. 0.5 degrees of deflection would make a big difference at 1800 meters. Not to mention that the mech is still being piloted by a human who is bouncing around in the cockpit.
Anyway, the point of my original post wasn't meant to build an argument for RNG or COF. It was to point out the hypocrisy of people who are willing to cherry pick certain components of source material, but then argue strongly against something from the same source material that balances the first component.
CBT wasn't perfect, but it at least attempted to have checks and balances built in. It used a damage location table to add depth to the game (allowing individual components to be destroyed), but balanced it by making players randomly assign damage. Hit percentages were also much lower. At long range, you usually had less than a 25% chance of hitting with a single weapon (god help you if you jumped), let alone with everything you were carrying.
In this game, players at almost max range, routinely hit with far greater accuracy than 25%. Plus all of that damage goes to the same place. Because of this the Hit location system basically falls apart. You have single players coring heavies and assaults in two or three volleys, because they can circumvent the CBT game mechanic of rolling dice, and replace it with skill.
Thus the game mechanic of hit locations has been transferred over from CBT, but the game mechanic of rolling dice to determine hit and hit location has not.
RNG, COF or convergience are simply ways to put this game mechanic back into MWO.
Personally, I wouldn't even be bothered by pinpoint accuracy if the hit location system wasn't in the game. If mechs just had Front Armor, Back Armor, and Internal Structure health bars, I wouldn't care if people could shoot the wings off a fly. Of course, this would never be accepted by the community.
Edited by Caustic Canid, 27 May 2013 - 09:17 PM.