Pht, on 09 July 2013 - 10:02 PM, said:
"Random" is only evil when it's used to mean "nonsense results," especially "uncontrollable nonsense results."
Using a hit percentage based upon how well a mech can handle whatever and make the shot isn't anything like this evil sort of "random."
The results are intutive (your mech can't make the shot because you decided to pull the trigger, when, say, your mech was massively overheated, for example)... and thus the results are predictable ... and controllable.
Anyone who thinks the TT combat mechanic, minus the pilot skill simulating parts, is this sort of evil random ... is misinformed.
Or, as happens around here, their mind vacates their bodies whenver they see the words "random," "rng," or "dice."
There's something that simply must be gotten straight here; in every facet of the lore (novels, story fluff in the source books, tt rules, the cartoons, etc, etc, etc...), 'mechs from the BT fictional setting are not capable of getting their shots to concentrate under the reticule very tightly. Which is just fine, because the 'mechs from this setting have armor and structure values balanced around this fact.
In plain language, the 'mech's performance levels are paramaount. The mechs always matter in combat, and the way you can spot a skilled mechwarrior is by seeing how well the can account for this factor.
See, but it's a different kind of skill you're talking about. You're talking about simulation skills - managing levels, knowing percentages, and making decisions on a strategic scale. And that's not the game most people want to play.
Most people want a Battletech-skinned FPS. They want twitch shooting. They want their aiming skill to be rewarded and not at the will of any random variable. Random isn't necessarily evil, but it's definitely something I don't want affecting my shooting if at all possible.
I won't disagree with how tabletop is balance, but taking those numbers and mechanics on face value don't make for an FPS many people want to play. You may want to, but overwhelmingly, the community and PGI are against strict adherence to TT (myself included).
I won't stick around if my shots have a random chance to hit, whether or not I'm in control of how good or bad that chance is. My system induces an accuracy penalty out of necessity. I picked a place that pinpoint damage crosses the threshold into game-breaking, and I disallowed it. I think it's paramount to keep the option to twitch shoot accurately - I just don't think it can be allowed for super-high damage.
DEMAX51, on 09 July 2013 - 10:54 PM, said:
Bill, your solution is phenomenal. Nothing else I've read even comes close to offering as much upside and as little downside as what you've proposed.
I think the system would be fairly self explanatory for newbies in that they wouldn't really have to deeply understand how it works (the math) so long as they see the effects (the inaccuracy of aiming), but veterans could really study the intricacies of the system to build the most viable 'Mechs possible.
The difference between what you're proposing and a simple introduction of CoF is subtle, yet profound: An always-on CoF is an outright nerf to skill, while your implementation will allow skillful players to excel. Skillful play should be rewarded, not curbed at all times by a random number generator.
Your system is FAR better than limiting weapons to chain fire, because the retention of alpha-striking is clutch: alpha-striking has always been a part of MechWarrior, and it is a viable, strategic option under the right circumstances. Being able to alpha-strike with 6 PPCs at 800m with pinpoint damage is bad, but alpha-striking out of desperation at the Atlas who's 100m in front of your face - and knowing that your shots are all likely to land, but over the entire surface of the 'Mech instead of one pinpoint location - is effing sweet! It'll be a high-risk, high-reward maneuver and that's exactly the type of thing this game needs.
The fact that targeting-values can be changed quickly and on the fly to address future balancing issues is also a huge benefit of your system.
All-in-all, thank you for the thought you've put into your proposal and the effort you've put into defending it. I sincerely hope PGI listens to this advice!
That's one hell of an endorsement. I'm glad you're a fan =D
I did worry about the reaction to cone of fire, but it seems most people pick up on the key distinction: it's not always there; it's only there when you do something bad.
Troutmonkey, on 10 July 2013 - 01:32 AM, said:
Tabletop Values for Everything
Just shut the **** up.
Verdict: Seriously.
^ I like this guy. Agree with the post
I'm glad someone liked it =P
Flapdrol, on 10 July 2013 - 01:47 AM, said:
why not something simpler
nerf convergance outright.
never all at one point, basically when shooting at long range the weapons would fire almost straight ahead, so left and right arm weapons will not hit the same point. At shorter range it should converge a bit more, but never 2 arms on one point.
it's much simpler, and you can easily compensate for the lack of convergance by simply aiming slightly in front or behind where you normally shoot, gonna have to fire each arm separately of course.
Read the stuff about convergence in Rebuttals II.
In summary, it's a host of reasons: it's irritating to the player to not have weapons go where they want, and convergence-over-time will have a dramatic effect on gameplay. How does that affect torso twisting? Does that nerf strikers like mediums that rely on the quick pop out and duck back in cover? How do you deal with chassis that load all their weapons into a single location? What do you do about torso weapon convergence?
Although the concept and implementation may be easier, the overall effect on the player won't be. My system will drive the player into a rhythmic firing pattern and nothing more.
All the other "simpler" solutions will impact the player in far more significant ways in addition to not solving all the problems.
Peter2000, on 10 July 2013 - 08:07 AM, said:
The most important one (and from which all others - including confusing newbies, destroying the crosshair, everyone re-learning aim, buffing either arm-boats or tight torso mounts, etc.), this system doesn't force you to deal with lack of convergence. If you want, it is easy to stay under Targeting Computer load. On the other hand, if you want to risk erratic behavior, or know how to control it, you can still alpha strike. However, in either case, one of the primary results is that high damage pinpoint alphas should not all hit one panel any more.
This. My system rocks because if you aren't a spammy player, you won't have to change a damn thing. It gives player the choice between accuracy and extreme damage. And unlike punishment, it's not a game of high-stakes gambling. It's not about, "I could die if I shoot, but one more alpha will probably kill him," so much as, "Do I care more about accuracy or damage right now?"
Jragonsoul, on 10 July 2013 - 10:32 AM, said:
I have been informing people in my group (HHoD) of this and it seems like more like the idea than dislike it. Of course we get SOME "people saying 4-6 PPC/ERPPC stalker is balanced and they have their own draw backs!" but the majority do actually see it as a problem.
I appreciate you spreading the word. I don't know how anyone doesn't think the 4xPPC Stalker or the Cheese King 732 are problems.
Pht, on 10 July 2013 - 10:51 AM, said:
Actually, this is a very childish and poor way to argue against something. If this is the best he can muster, he must not care about this particular thing very much.
It was a joke. But so is pretending that strict adherence to tabletop will make a fun realtime game. Not many people want to play an FPS with such a massive amount of random involved. You can argue about player skill and controllable random all you want - 10-second recycle times, forced chain-fire, and weighted-random hit locations are not what people want in this game.
My solution strikes the perfect balance between letting the realtime shooter aspect run its course and forcing damage to be spread around. If a player can pin a target consistently using staggered fire, they should be rewarded for that. As soon as a player gets spammy, however, penalties are applied to create a tabletop-like effect - one that spreads damage across the chassis.
Clearly, I care about this proposal, and I'd say I've done a damn fine job of defending it. I didn't bother with a full-throated rebuttal to tabletop values because out of all 27 pages here, no one bothered arguing that. The strict-tabletop-adherence crowd is a very small one, and it's one whose ideas the rest of the community vehemently opposes.
0
