203 replies to this topic

[mike29tw]

MustrumRidcully, on 26 May 2013 - 10:52 PM, said:

It is possible for a mech to hit different panels - the pilot must decide to do so (or screw up).

We can add randomziation and all that. or we can just give the pilot reasons to strike different panels. Or at least not have all pilots against all mechs decide between two primary targets:
- Center Torso
- Side Torso if XL Engined.

This could be achieved by altering armour values so that the current prime targets are better protected and there ar emore reasons to shoot off limbs.

Just a hunch, what if losing a side torso doesn't destroy your arm as well? Maybe then the reward for shooting side torso will be reduced, especially when they're not using XLs.

[sarkun]

Hoaggie, on 26 May 2013 - 05:42 PM, said:

Nothing is magical about it, statements like that make me want to insult you, but I won’t. Instead I am just going to point out that our (American) modern combat vehicles that were designed 20-30 years ago can keep their high caliber weapons on target while on the move. In the case of the M1A1 Abrams, it can hit a targets accuratly from miles away while driving over rough terrain at 50+kph. It is hard to believe that a thousand years in the future it will take “magic” to weapons that are 100% accurate.

Mech are not people, does a tank need to go prone to get a kill shot on an enemy tank? No. You still have to choose the best way to engage every target, MWO is really not point and click. If you don’t want easy mode then go do some 8 v 8 premade and test your skills against some serious pilots.

Real life tank operations are of no consequence for a video game about 31st century giant robot combat. I'm not saying there is no skill in mwo - there is skill in maneuvering, positioning etc. But shooting? I literally can't think of a game were hitting targets was this easy. This does not provide the skill gap between top and bottom players. If you can point and click, you have demonstrated as much skill in mwo-shooting as the top guy.

[Demuder]

I only started playing the game 3 weeks ago and I can't say I know a whole lot about the Battletech Universe. I am a mediocre player at best, with a 160 ping. However, I do like to study stuff. Given that my level of skill stays the same, and out of the dozens of builds I have tried on my mechs - CTF-1X, CTF-3D, Ilya Muromets and STK-3F, STK-5S and Misery (and yes, I have tried several builts on each of them, with and without the mech XP perks and heavy use of the smurfy site for number crunching before actually fielding them) the ones that clearly give me better results are the high alpha ones.

Provided that my skill leveled off in around a week (come on, it's not like the learning curve on this thing is steep), it's apparent to me that brawling works much worse than alpha striking in terms of end dmg output and kills. Sure, I can dance around a stalker or a highlander all day with my brawler CTF-3D, but in the end of the match I will get 400dmg and one kill (since the dmg is spread all over one mech), while in my poptart 3D, I will get 600dmg at least and several kills (since my dmg will simply have pinpoint cored 3-4 mechs). The pilot is the same and the skill is the same. So, referring to all advocates of "don't take skill out of the game" what you are actually saying, is simply "leave alpha strike untouched in the game".It has nothing to do with skill, it only has to do with using a certain playstyle.

It's not that I don't enjoy immensely the game as it is, but I think all playstyles should be viable. Brawling, sniping, high pin-point alphas and yes, even LRM boating. Right now, if one wants consistent results, only option they have is high pinpoint alphas. I believe that this should be remedied sooner or later - be it with inherent inaccuracy on weapons or some other, more imaginative way. I think this is the important subject we should focus on and not compliance to the original tabletop rules (which are there for a reason btw, don't dismiss that).

If shots are not pinpoint under your mouse reticule, they will not be for your opponent either. The differentiating winning factor will, once again, be your "skill". Even more so, since you will need to take in account several factors like angle of approach, range of engagement, etc, etc instead of just "click when the target is dead center". In fact, having weapons not be pinpoint accurate, will make it harder to deliver damage and thus, highly skilled players will have an ever higher chance to show off their skill, by making their inaccurate weapons more accurate than the unskilled players' by gaining a better firing position, getting on their blind side thus firing more shots from safety, closing in on them, etc etc. I mean, that does take skill, right ?

[Felbombling]

dimstog, on 27 May 2013 - 03:16 AM, said:

[snip]

Great post, dimstog. +1 for you.

I'd give you another +1 for sticking with the game through the last three weeks, if I could. I couldn't play more than ten games this weekend before I gave up on the point and click snipe-fest. I have found the exact same thing you did, although it came about via a different route. I took a Mech that was viable months ago and found myself badly outmatched on the weekend. I switched my Cataphract 3D over to a Gauss/PPC configuration, and voila! Instantly competitive again with all the other alpha builds out there. I cannot say for certain, but I think I logged off due to a combination of shame and/or boredom.

[Zyllos]

I think there is one of three paths ahead at this point:

• Add some type of RNG that makes sense
  
• Remove convergence
  
• Introduce some mechanic that makes "alpha strikes" not all fired at the same time

I am personally in favor of doing a hybrid between 1 and 2 based on the weapon itself. You can look up some of my old posts to determine what hybrid I am talking about.


Number 3 seems like an interesting mechanic idea. Let's say we make all weapons that are alpha'd together would actually fire 0.1s apart. That means if you fired 4 weapon systems together, you would have to continue aiming for 0.3s to hit the same spot. There is some issues with the mechanic on face value.

First off, the order in which the weapons are fired is based on the order in your weapon group window. There would have to be some way to swap that order so that certain weapons would fire first before others.

Second, this system could be circumvented by having all the weapons in their individual weapon groups and then macro'ed to fire them all at the same time. So there would have to be some system to prevent all other weapon groups from being fired while the first weapon group is still firing. Having a global cooldown on all weapon groups while another weapon group is currently being fired and 0.1s after the weapon group has finished would do the trick. This would even mean having a global cooldown of 0.1s if just a single weapon is fired, so that players can't place multiple weapons in a weapon group on chain fire then macro it to fire as fast as possible (less than 0.1s, which is only 100ms).

Beam weapons, or weapons that continuously fire, would be ignored for determining if a weapon group is currently firing. That means Machine Guns would never place weapons on a global cooldown and beam weapons would only place weapons on a 0.1s global cooldown, even after they are continuing to fire.

What this basically does is that chain fire lets players control how fast they want to fire weapons, but only up to the same speed as a group fire weapon group. So, if you want a weapon group to fire as fast as possible, just set it to group fire. If you want to control each individual shot in the weapon group, then set it to chain fire. Each time a single weapon is fired, all weapons go onto a 0.1s global cooldown, regardless if the weapon was part of a chain fire or group fire weapon group.

This enforces players to have to continue aiming to get their weapons to hit the same location. My only problem with this system is that players with only 2 weapons (AC/20 Jagermech is a good example) would be minimally impacted because they would only have to aim for 0.1s for both shots and I am not sure if that is long enough to make a difference, but I could be wrong, maybe 0.1s is all that is needed.

If a mech was moving at 52kph (14.4m/s), that means in 0.1s, it would move only 1.4m. For a mech moving 152kph (42.2m/s), it would have traversed 4.2m in 0.1s. The interesting dynamic here is that large mechs, which are easier to hit specific locations, would have less deviation between each shot while smaller mechs, which are harder to hit specific locations, would have greater deviation between each shot. That is going to mean small fast mechs are going to be extremely difficult to hit. Of course, that means the small mech is going to have to also contend with moving fast and maintain their aim, which seems fine.

Of course, this is all assuming the firing player is not moving and aiming. If that player is moving and aiming, that time difference could make the deviation much larger, or if the player is extremely good, make the deviation smaller.

Seems quite interesting on the surface.

Edited by Zyllos, 27 May 2013 - 08:50 AM.

[Zyllos]

Interestingly, this indirectly nerfs poptarters because they couldn't just pop up for just a split second and have all weapons fire to hit a target. They would have to be in the air, visible for at least 0.1s times the number of weapons minus one to get all the weapons to fire without hitting the terrain in front of them.

[LT Kinslayer]

Just dropping in to say the following:

I just can't believe rng is actually defended by some. Sad days for this game

I loose some, I win some, but I always know it's because my team played better or worse.
Rng will take that away. That's sad.

[Demuder]

StaggerCheck, on 27 May 2013 - 07:51 AM, said:

Great post, dimstog. +1 for you.

I'd give you another +1 for sticking with the game through the last three weeks, if I could. I couldn't play more than ten games this weekend before I gave up on the point and click snipe-fest. I have found the exact same thing you did, although it came about via a different route. I took a Mech that was viable months ago and found myself badly outmatched on the weekend. I switched my Cataphract 3D over to a Gauss/PPC configuration, and voila! Instantly competitive again with all the other alpha builds out there. I cannot say for certain, but I think I logged off due to a combination of shame and/or boredom.

Thank you for the kind words. The 3D is also my favorite mech of all mentioned in my post. And honestly, I play it as a brawler for the sheer fun of it. I am all for min/maxing, but man, you just can't beat a brawler with JJs when it comes to having fun.

Zyllos, on 27 May 2013 - 08:44 AM, said:

I think there is one of three paths ahead at this point:

• Add some type of RNG that makes sense
  
• Remove convergence
  
• Introduce some mechanic that makes "alpha strikes" not all fired at the same time

I am personally in favor of doing a hybrid between 1 and 2 based on the weapon itself. You can look up some of my old posts to determine what hybrid I am talking about.

I don't like the idea of cooldowns tbh. It opens up new mechanics and frankly, I think it will affect many more things. Plus, I like the idea of alpha strike and admittedly it's a rush to alpha strike something and see a component destroyed or whole section.

Removing convergence would also be detrimental to the game I believe. Not from a lore or realism point of view but from a player frustration one. It is very frustrating to aim at something then see your shots go left and right from it without hitting (anyone that has played a Cataphract knows what I am talking about until you get the pinpoint perk). Plus, it can be argued that the mech would have systems to compensate for that. In fact I would think it's the reason they have arms instead of massive torsos. I am all for realism but I also want to play a game instead of making ballistic calculations.

I would suggest something simple, like replacing the targeting reticule with a a circle. When you are cool, stationary and aim at a fixed point, aka, have the perfect shot lined-up, you have pinpoint accuracy. When you start moving, heat is building up and start trailing your target that is moving in the opposite direction, the circle increases in radius respectively. Meaning the targeting computer tells you "hey buddy, I can make sure that each weapon you fire lands inside that circle, it's just that there's only so much I can do". Pretty straightforward, you can still land at a least one good alpha if your opponent is stupid enough to sit idle smelling the lilies in a mech-infested battlefield or you simply sneak up on him and it's easy to understand why it's happening. I also am not talking about a huge targeting circle, just one that at maximum divergence would cover half the enemy mech at max range (well, while 3x zoomed). I don't know if I described this adequately but it's a well know technique in many fps shooters - which invariably require "skill" ;-)

The only drawback to this I can think of, is that it would need a whole lot of code to implement, provided that the engine is even capable of doing that.

[Zyllos]

dimstog, on 27 May 2013 - 09:50 AM, said:

Thank you for the kind words. The 3D is also my favorite mech of all mentioned in my post. And honestly, I play it as a brawler for the sheer fun of it. I am all for min/maxing, but man, you just can't beat a brawler with JJs when it comes to having fun.



I don't like the idea of cooldowns tbh. It opens up new mechanics and frankly, I think it will affect many more things. Plus, I like the idea of alpha strike and admittedly it's a rush to alpha strike something and see a component destroyed or whole section.

Removing convergence would also be detrimental to the game I believe. Not from a lore or realism point of view but from a player frustration one. It is very frustrating to aim at something then see your shots go left and right from it without hitting (anyone that has played a Cataphract knows what I am talking about until you get the pinpoint perk). Plus, it can be argued that the mech would have systems to compensate for that. In fact I would think it's the reason they have arms instead of massive torsos. I am all for realism but I also want to play a game instead of making ballistic calculations.

I would suggest something simple, like replacing the targeting reticule with a a circle. When you are cool, stationary and aim at a fixed point, aka, have the perfect shot lined-up, you have pinpoint accuracy. When you start moving, heat is building up and start trailing your target that is moving in the opposite direction, the circle increases in radius respectively. Meaning the targeting computer tells you "hey buddy, I can make sure that each weapon you fire lands inside that circle, it's just that there's only so much I can do". Pretty straightforward, you can still land at a least one good alpha if your opponent is stupid enough to sit idle smelling the lilies in a mech-infested battlefield or you simply sneak up on him and it's easy to understand why it's happening. I also am not talking about a huge targeting circle, just one that at maximum divergence would cover half the enemy mech at max range (well, while 3x zoomed). I don't know if I described this adequately but it's a well know technique in many fps shooters - which invariably require "skill" ;-)

The only drawback to this I can think of, is that it would need a whole lot of code to implement, provided that the engine is even capable of doing that.

But the problem is not in the fact that we need a way to make people want to control how they shoot their shots, but in the fact that we need to keep weapons from all hitting the same location when fired at the same time (weapons becoming duck taped together) without hurting the overall game.

Look, I am fine with some type of RNG based on throttle, jumping, heat, ect. I am just not convinced the rest of the community will go for it.

That is why I wanted to preserve the aiming system while enforcing spread with many weapons by making weapons having to be fired sequentially, thus aiming has to be preserved through out the alpha strike.

But I honestly think having a hybrid system is the best way to go.

Remove convergence from all individual weapons so they shoot straight forward. This is to make all weapons act the same in the torso, laser, ballistic, or missile in nature.

Arms will still converge because the arms will physically point at the arm crosshair, it's just the weapon systems will still fire straight ahead. Think of the HBK-4P's arms with two Medium Lasers. One laser will land just below the arm crosshair while the other will land just to the left/right of the arm crosshair.

Then, ballistic style weapons, due to placing all their damage into a single hit, will have a small cone of fire introduced into the weapon as a function of throttle, jumping (either by falling or using jump jets), and heat.

I think this is the best way to truly get all the weapon systems balanced into the system.

No longer can any particular weapon be better than another due to either having to aim for a beam duration, having a cone of fire, or a spray.

You can no longer fire all weapons on a mech and have them land on the same location because they all physically point at a different location. They are all centered around their respective crosshair, and will land around their respective crosshair, but not all onto the same point in time.

Either way...

[sarkun]

dimstog, on 27 May 2013 - 09:50 AM, said:

I would suggest something simple, like replacing the targeting reticule with a a circle. When you are cool, stationary and aim at a fixed point, aka, have the perfect shot lined-up, you have pinpoint accuracy. When you start moving, heat is building up and start trailing your target that is moving in the opposite direction, the circle increases in radius respectively. Meaning the targeting computer tells you "hey buddy, I can make sure that each weapon you fire lands inside that circle, it's just that there's only so much I can do". Pretty straightforward, you can still land at a least one good alpha if your opponent is stupid enough to sit idle smelling the lilies in a mech-infested battlefield or you simply sneak up on him and it's easy to understand why it's happening. I also am not talking about a huge targeting circle, just one that at maximum divergence would cover half the enemy mech at max range (well, while 3x zoomed). I don't know if I described this adequately but it's a well know technique in many fps shooters - which invariably require "skill" ;-)

This is exactly what I would want. This is exactly what exists in virtually all other shooters out there, and they are
a) doing fine
require skill

dimstog, on 27 May 2013 - 09:50 AM, said:

The only drawback to this I can think of, is that it would need a whole lot of code to implement, provided that the engine is even capable of doing that.

That is actually not so much coding, seeing that variable convergence is already in place (although its so small it almost might not be there) and the engine is cryengine 3 - so if crysis 3 has cone of fire... than this game can have it too.

[Demuder]

Anyway, whatever the solution, I hope the devs take care of this at some point. It takes so much out of the gameplay and matches full of those 6 PPC stalkers and Gauss Jags and ERPPC Catapults, just end up a waste of code, map geography and game design.

What's worse, they are a semi viable solution for new players or less skilled ones, giving no incentive on actually learning to control the mech and getting better. Then again all fps shooters are usually plagued with l33t snipers I guess.

.

Edited by dimstog, 27 May 2013 - 03:23 PM.

[Caleb Brightmore]

On RNG.

There is a time and place for RNG. The time is never, I will let you figure out the place.

(RNG?) Critical hit % "working as intended"

On poptarts... Hiding behind a building and got snipered by a poptart?

Guess why?...He saw you move to cover most likely or a scout did and you stayed there when he passed you thinking he was no longer a threat.

In other words you weren't paying attention and lag-a$$ed behind a building hiding from lrms that werent even fired yet and you got popped or you stayed in the SAME spot for 2 mins firing away and they moved to hit you, or you were in the open and it sucks that their alpha is that high as you had no chance you were engaged by another enemy. <-----that's his job BTW.

It isn't their fault we make such good targets...think about that next time you chase that jenner into the open that maybe there is a reason he is heading that way and maybe you need to back off as this isn't COD and people can think when in combat here.

Note: I have never used a poptart build nor do I even own the Mechs capable of making one.

I am just saying that I have been killed maybe three times (that I know of) to poptarting and everytime it was a bad tactical mistake on my part that gave them a shot they wisely took.

There is one thing most people never bring up and that is this...

The average pilot in this game cannot cross the gap and even make it alive to the poptarts and when they do, I watch it all the time, it's toe to toe as if his alpha lowers while on the ground.

I get so mad sometimes I do it but it isn't the poptarters problem it's mine, so I use an SDR and I hunt them down and call for support and ping them with erppc to move them if LRM's can't get a clean shot or I use a heavy Mech and I am very very careful and sometimes I get it other times the round is over fast.

It isn't easy and against 4 of them in voice chat it's damn near impossible (1%) if you are pugging lol but it isn't impossible it's just not easy.

I am not defending them or their style yet a part of me knows deep down inside that if I want the right to field the Mech of my choice I must defend theirs as well regardless of my personal opinions on their build or playstyle.

In other words I like that they make me think of new tactics and I have a knee-jerked reaction before in a post I am sure but at the end of the day the fact that this game is difficult and requires thinking is one reason I like it so much.

KEEP CALM AND ECM ON

Edited by Caleb Brightmore, 27 May 2013 - 05:51 PM.

[Caleb Brightmore]

Neverfar, on 27 May 2013 - 05:54 PM, said:

All that posturing and all those smilies yet you tripped yourself up.

"I don't want a computer telling me when I hit." You already do. The convergence in the game right now just about instantaneously and magically puts all the weapons on the arms in the same spot as the hardpoints supposedly fixed in place on the torso. A computer IS telling you when you hit. It's carrying you, Captain Elite. Could you do the same if the torso weapons didn't converge?

This is the fatal flaw of these Church of Skill™ types. They whine about computers getting in the way but expect a computer to carry them. "I am such an elite sniper I want these additional sniper rifles on my chest to also follow my crosshair. Because real life weapons. Because the future. Because me me me me me me me me me".

I said it many times before and I'll say it again: it is NOT that hard to alpha snipe things in this game. Doing so super-consistently and doing it first may be a deciding factor in some current matches, but it in no way makes it such a super Skillful™ thing to do. If these guys had their way we'd be YET. ANOTHER. DAMN. SNIPER. HEAVY. SHOOTER. Which we already are.

Wrong yet again lol

The computer tells me IF I hit but it is dictated by weapon distance LOS etc not RNG.

The future isn't me I just choose to think before crying and if I can't beat it then I try to learn how to not sit here all day and troll me like you seem to want to do.

Aim at a moving target with ANY ballistic and tell me if the crosshairs line up so well you don't even need to lead your shot.

That's not a computer hitting you that's me.

The computer is just letting you know to duck

It's not click and shoot like you think.

Game is too hard? Need RNG combat?

It's called Mafia Wars

And I removed that which you commented on because as you see I knew a troll would take it OUT of context.

Edited by Caleb Brightmore, 27 May 2013 - 06:02 PM.

[Caleb Brightmore]

Dude42, on 27 May 2013 - 06:15 PM, said:

I've rarely seen so much fail in a single post.

Why don't you go on the CS:S forums and start a "Please let me duct tape 6 AWPs together and fly" thread.

Why you think you can come on these forums and make the same demand is beyond me.

Excuse me I use an SDR-5D AND A DRG-5N© mostly and none of them are boats.

I am not demanding a thing I am saying suck it up buttercup this isn't COD and if you cannot aim life is hard.

If you want to boat life can be easy unless they are smarter then it's hard.

In the end I took responsibility for losing to the poptarts when I did, something that NONE of you have done so far you just argue convergence vs rng vs whatever.

I am not saying the mechanic is perfect but I don't trust RNG as far as I can throw it.

Where does it say that in my post?

Edited by Caleb Brightmore, 27 May 2013 - 06:27 PM.

[cyberFluke]

Caleb Brightmore, on 27 May 2013 - 06:26 PM, said:

Excuse me I use an SDR-5D AND A DRG-5N© mostly and none of them are boats.

I am not demanding a thing I am saying suck it up buttercup this isn't COD and if you cannot aim life is hard.

If you want to boat life can be easy unless they are smarter then it's hard.

In the end I took responsibility for losing to the poptarts when I did, something that NONE of you have done so far you just argue convergence vs rng vs whatever.

I am not saying the mechanic is perfect but I don't trust RNG as far as I can throw it.

Where does it say that in my post?

I can aim. Quite well at that. I'm complaining that it's ****TOO EASY**** as it is.

[Caustic Canid]

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.

[Lykaon]

jay35, on 26 May 2013 - 08:22 AM, said:

Just a quick reminder that if you have issues with players always being able to hit what they properly aim at, which is normal in a first-person simulator/shooter like MWO, you might be better served by MechWarrior:Tactics, where the gameplay is much closer to tabletop, including pRNG (pseudo random number generation, i.e., representation of dice rolls) for whether your weapons fire hits its intended target. That removes player skill from the equation and leaves it up to "chance", which might be more to your liking.

However, to come here and demand this game be changed to inhibit player skill as the primary factor in whether someone hits their target, is to undermine the very nature of this game. The devs have themselves stated in the past that they want player skill to be the primary factor, and requesting the introduction of things like "weapons don't always hit where you aim" would be the beginning of wrecking this game, and turn off not only the core playerbase but also most of the potential audience that would come from other FPS games. Right now the biggest fanbase is here for one of two reasons: fans of previous MW games, which did not have any sort of randomized nonsense in whether you hit your target, or competitive players, which also demands player skill be the primary determinant of success and that begins with the game designating a hit on what you correctly targeted.

It's quite annoying that the hit detection is currently broken on ballistics until the other half of ballistic HSR is brought online, so nearly half of on-target AC and PPC shots are failing to register. But that's also a good example for everyone of how obnoxious it would be if some sort of RNG was introduced to determine whether your shots hit what you aimed at. Please keep that in mind the next time you are tempted to start a thread that is in effect a request to remove player skill from the game.

First off I want to be clear I agree that a players abilities should be reflected in their gaming performance.This game should never become so "balanced" that the only shot that matters is who can shoot first or the most often because RNG will do the rest.I am simply putting forth an alternate viewpoint that to be honest I am still in the process of contemplating.

However,Let's not discount several other factors that contribute to a skilled player defeating a less skilled player.
It's not all about who has the better twitch accuracy with the biggest alpha strike supported by the better hardware/connection.

Previous versions of mechwarrior did not have to contend with many of the factors we have today.Improvements in coding and internet speeds coupled with more efficent CPUs and video card rendering capacities and larger flat screen monitors.

Back when I player MW3 we didn't have core i7 CPUs,no home computer had 16 gig of RAM and video cards certainly didn't have the power we have now.If you wanted a 30 inch monitor you better also have a desk the size of an aircraft carrier because those things were HUGE! (and still lacked the resolution available today) And a 30ms ping? not likely!

Today all of that stuff is fairly standard fare for gaming rigs.

However the basics of MWo are the same as MW2,3 and 4. Shoot the giant robot in a body location and deplete it's armor until it can be destroyed.The core functionality of the games are the same except this one has a bunch of new tech aiding player "skill".

Maybe it's worth a second thought to consider how technology has impacted the basic functionality and viability of the "Mechwarrior" combat experience.

Edited by Lykaon, 27 May 2013 - 10:25 PM.

[Lykaon]

Caustic Canid, on 27 May 2013 - 08:13 PM, said:

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.

This illistrates my point.

The capacity for modern gamers to be pinpoint accurate may antiquate older game mechanics from previous renditions of Mechwarrior.

In the past being pin point accurate was an exception today it's the rule.With average hardware and some motor skill anyone can hit the broadside of a mech with slightly better hardware and skill hitting a specific location every time is cake.

Do we need the hit location mechanics from table top especially without the balancing mechanics from the same source materiel?

[MustrumRidcully]

Caleb Brightmore, on 27 May 2013 - 06:01 PM, said:

*snip*

I guess my only question is - what do you think requires more skill?

Shooting 6 guns together at once and have them all hit the same spot you're pointing at that moment.
Shooting 6 guns seperately over 1-2 second time frame and have them all hit the same spot you (repeatedly) pointed at each time.

Edited by MustrumRidcully, 27 May 2013 - 10:56 PM.

[Caleb Brightmore]

MustrumRidcully, on 27 May 2013 - 10:55 PM, said:

I guess my only question is - what do you think requires more skill?

Shooting 6 guns together at once and have them all hit the same spot you're pointing at that moment.
Shooting 6 guns seperately over 1-2 second time frame and have them all hit the same spot you (repeatedly) pointed at each time.

If you read my posts I don't boat I build builds that suit my playstyle which isn't to boat.

I do not like being one dimensional in my loadouts.

Yes I own an AC/20 Jag it's my heavy poptart popper and it's pure fun not a Main Mech.

Example number two because I had to re-aim everytime BUT most of the issue is that the Alpha kills that's why people are mad they get hit and they are dead and if they survive they aren't quick enough to get out of the way or the poptart isn't even poptarting he is standing right behind them as they happily click away standing still at the target they see in the distance clueless that a Highlander actually can and will flank you.

When I mention skill I mean hitting moving targets that are trying to avoid your hit with ballistics or ppcs.

Hitting a stationary target in any setting is easy no matter the game.

I have jumpjetted over the ridge and hit an Atlas with a ERPPC from a Spider.

I hardly think that is the acme of skill it was more of a OH SHIZZZ i am way out of place quick shoot then ruuuuuuunnnnnnnnn!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Skill involves making tricky calculated shots over and over during the normal course of combat consistantly.

It involves moving into a position to attack that does cause a friendly fire crossfire when that light makes you cross the T on purpose.

It involves a lot of tactical shooting for instance yes I can 1xERPPC that Atlas and let him know I see him but DO I REALLY WANT TO DO THAT?

ANY hit gives away the shooters direction so other than surviving the occasional alpha I'm not worried too much about 1 hitting me or 6 my goal is to try and not be hit and if one is aimed at me they all are, but that works both ways because so is whatever I am using when I see you.

I cannot tell you if poptarting is a skill because quite honestly I have never owned a Mech that would do it nor do I personally find it a viable tactic, but others do and use it to great effect.

All bullseyes have two parts:

Part A: The target made itself available
Part B: The shooter took the shot.

You can't have B without A

If I get snipered now with all this forum chatter then my head was not on a swivel enough or I got unlucky while engaging another target in which case he had to make that shot while I was moving or I was standing there because I aim slower trying to hit the perfect shot oblivious that he had me in his sights from afar and was faster at distance than I was engaged close..

Either is a direct result of my combat decisions followed by the shooter executing his shot.

The point is without me helping that shot never happens 6 ppcs or 1.

There is an issue but I am completely against RNG for shooting.

Other things perhaps if they won't ruin the skill factor...ie:practice and you can make awesome shots with hard work then I am cool with it.

But dice rolling on what are not always easy shots isn't cool with me if I am standing there or not fast enough then I deserve to get shot not "lucky" because the dice said random misfire his buddy 5 meters over just got critted by that random AC/20 round because the target was moving and the round went awry or whatever.

Edited by Caleb Brightmore, 28 May 2013 - 12:05 AM.