459 replies to this topic

[Joseph Mallan]

Tahribator, on 14 June 2013 - 03:37 AM, said:

This would essentially kill MWO for me. Taking skill away from aiming and making it random completely kills the enjoyment you get from the game by "getting good at it".

I hate PPC boats with passion as well, but there are other solutions to boating and pinpoint damage rather than taking out the competitive side from MWO. Paul has already a framework in place for heat penalties and it will only get better from there.

More like improving skill. Pointing at one location and letting the computer do the math is not skill. Learning to point better to maximize your damage on one location would seem to need more skill.

Edited by Joseph Mallan, 14 June 2013 - 03:42 AM.

[Levi Porphyrogenitus]

It's amazing how many people don't really read before making panic posts.

Once more, the idea isn't to impose random number generation wholesale. The idea is to make a pilot have to choose between precision and mobility, precision and firepower, etc.. You would not need large amounts of inaccuracy to see real in-game effects of a cone of fire mechanic, since MWO has TT-style location-specific damage (unlike most shooters, that tend to have a single hitbox with bonus damage around the head area).

It running hot prevents a PPC boat from putting all 40-60 damage on the same single location, then suddenly that PPC carrier has choices to make. Any time a pilot has to make a choice an element of skill has been injected. Currently the only choice in a situation like that is "do I kill him or let him live a moment longer," and that's no choice at all for most people.

[Accursed Richards]

Tahribator, on 14 June 2013 - 03:37 AM, said:

This would essentially kill MWO for me. Taking skill away from aiming and making it random completely kills the enjoyment you get from the game by "getting good at it".

No, it just moves the skill into tilting the odds in your favour. And right now, it's clearly too easy to "get good at it" and scoop out CT's on most mechs. Next time you play, keep an eye on how many destroyed mechs (especially heavies and assaults, and designs notorious for big CT's like the Awesome) die with a missing CT and every other location intact.

[Tahribator]

Joseph Mallan, on 14 June 2013 - 03:42 AM, said:

More like improving skill. Pointing at one location and letting the computer do the math is not skill. Learning to point better to maximize your damage on one location would seem to need more skill.

Yes, that's why all competitive games like Quake and Unreal have cone of fire, am I right? Because borking your aim because you didn't keep your aim on a target for 10 seconds is skill right?

Fast convergence also keeps this game mobile. If cone of fire was implemented everybody would get a sniper weapon and just keep still, because you get punished for moving around.

There's another side to this argument. This is supposed to be a simulation, these are advanced mechs from 3050. This is not supposed to be an old man simulator.

This is overall a very bad idea that only lowers the skill ceiling.

[Tahribator]

Accursed Richards, on 14 June 2013 - 03:47 AM, said:

No, it just moves the skill into tilting the odds in your favour. And right now, it's clearly too easy to "get good at it" and scoop out CT's on most mechs. Next time you play, keep an eye on how many destroyed mechs (especially heavies and assaults, and designs notorious for big CT's like the Awesome) die with a missing CT and every other location intact.

That's a problem with boating and mech hitboxes. I don't see cone of fire helping it as you still have a random chance of your cheesy 6PPCs all hitting the CT.

Boating can be fixed by heat penalties that is being currently discussed or having hardpoint size restrictions. Mech hitboxes are purely developer and balance stuff. Devs give the support mechs huge CT's to punish them in brawls.

[Ph30nix]

cone of fire in a game like mechwarrior is beyond idiotic. The game ISNT about that, the game is about your team and working together it shouldnt be about anything else but that(working together also implies people playing differnt roles with differnt equipment of course)

The problem right now is EVERYONE USING THE SAME DAMN THINGS!!!! not because they are OP but because there is NO RESTRICTIONS TO TONNAGE. We should not be seeing 6+ assault mechs each match. That was one of the real problems wit poptarts, highlanders came out and the number of people popptarting almost trippled in one day. before that you didnt hear too many people whinning about it.

Too much of ANYTHING in this game is bad and ruins gameplay they can nerf and buff everything 1000x over majority of players will keep gravitating towards the same things. If they had some real tonnage/mech restrictions for each mach (which they kind of cant do currently) you would see a HUGELY differnt game even if everything was in a pre nerf state.

[Theodor Kling]

Tahribator, on 14 June 2013 - 03:48 AM, said:

Yes, that's why all competitive games like Quake and Unreal have cone of fire, am I right? Because borking your aim because you didn't keep your aim on a target for 10 seconds is skill right?

Fast convergence also keeps this game mobile. If cone of fire was implemented everybody would get a sniper weapon and just keep still, because you get punished for moving around.

There's another side to this argument. This is supposed to be a simulation, these are advanced mechs from 3050. This is not supposed to be an old man simulator.

This is overall a very bad idea that only lowers the skill ceiling.

Comparing Quake and Unreal to any game with mechs is just.. off.
I don think it would trun it into sniperwarrior, although that risk is of course there.
And as for the advacned mechs from 3050 .. BT.. this is supposed to be set in the BT universe, where hitting anything at all beyond 500m means you are very, VERY good.

[Accursed Richards]

Tahribator, on 14 June 2013 - 03:52 AM, said:

Boating can be fixed by heat penalties that is being currently discussed or having hardpoint size restrictions. Mech hitboxes are purely developer and balance stuff. Devs give the support mechs huge CT's to punish them in brawls.

The Jenner and Cicada are support mechs?

[Tahribator]

Accursed Richards, on 14 June 2013 - 04:01 AM, said:

The Jenner and Cicada are support mechs?

They're not brawlers neither. Can you imagine the OP'ness if they gave the Jenner or Cicada the side torsos of a Raven or a Stalker?

Theodor Kling, on 14 June 2013 - 03:54 AM, said:

Comparing Quake and Unreal to any game with mechs is just.. off.
I don think it would trun it into sniperwarrior, although that risk is of course there.
And as for the advacned mechs from 3050 .. BT.. this is supposed to be set in the BT universe, where hitting anything at all beyond 500m means you are very, VERY good.

It's just an example to show that you shouldn't put random stuff between the inputs of a player and the expected results. The OP used a Counter-Strike and World of Tanks analogy, so why not if it gets the point across?

As for the BT; it's hard to translate from books to a game. I don't know what BT writers were drinking at that time, but 500 meters isn't much when we're at mech scales.

[ExtremeA79]

In lore, Innersphere always aimed CT because of lack of targeting computers. Putting that out.
Now, also in lore, if you were running, convergence had trouble as you were moving a giant mech with a trget at shifting range and stuff.
Taking heavy fire would definatly affect convergence as your systems have to deal with not toppling over and managing weapons, then those weapons get knocked again by ac20 fire and it has to manage again. So yes, it is canon.
Since no one has targeting computers, I doubt heat would affect convergence, but theb again theres got to be a computer there making calculations so it is plausible.

Convergence would affect ALL WEAPONS, that means there is no need for 6 reticules.
What needs to be done is sliw convergence, and create a CoF when going 60,70,80 % speed, but it would be small.
Heat reqching 80 90 % would create a CoF that is bigger than moving, but not significant. Convergence will start slowing. Now, if you go 100 % or over and override, you will see a CoF as well, bigger than the 2nd one. Obviously the computer is running hot and I know About computers and that they slow when hot. Convergence would also slow.
Lastly, taking heavy fire from high powered weapons such as gauss rifles, ppc's, (not lasers as they are light, not bullets annd have no kinetic energy) ac 10 and 20 (possibly other weapons if one is being HEAVILY rained by it) and a barrage of missiles ( that means alot like a lrm10 15 or 20 volley or a srm 6 or just alot of missiles. Not 1 or 2 missiles.)
This is a example at the end of the mw4 vengeance intro when that dumb vulture takes heavy fire and ppc's mess up the weapons. (ppc have kinetic energy)

[Disapirro]

All for it as long as the streak gets fixed as well. It just ruins light on light fighting, though it is better than in the past with the damage currently reduced.

[Joseph Mallan]

Tahribator, on 14 June 2013 - 03:48 AM, said:

Yes, that's why all competitive games like Quake and Unreal have cone of fire, am I right? Because borking your aim because you didn't keep your aim on a target for 10 seconds is skill right?

Fast convergence also keeps this game mobile. If cone of fire was implemented everybody would get a sniper weapon and just keep still, because you get punished for moving around.

There's another side to this argument. This is supposed to be a simulation, these are advanced mechs from 3050. This is not supposed to be an old man simulator.

This is overall a very bad idea that only lowers the skill ceiling.

I fired enough round to know what real accuracy looks like. MWO isn't real accuracy. I get "punished" for moving around in real life too, So if you want a sim, A truer to life sim, the faster you move the harder it is to hit what you are pointing at. Of keep your head in the sand pretending you are a skilled shot.

[Mechteric]

I'm only against cone of fire because it would then just make snipers that stand still unable to be reciprocated against by a mech moving at speed. For instance I love running my 3 PPC Awesome 9M because it can scoot along at 85kph and shoot at enemies by moving laterally to help avoid some incoming damage. A cone of fire during movement would pretty much nullify this tactic.

Additionally a cone of fire based on subsequent shots (a.k.a. recoil) would pretty much encourage alpha striking because that first volley will always be the most accurate until the cone shrinks again.

[Valore]

Tahribator, on 14 June 2013 - 04:11 AM, said:

They're not brawlers neither.

Actually Jenners are meant to be brawlers.

Tahribator, on 14 June 2013 - 03:52 AM, said:

That's a problem with boating and mech hitboxes. I don't see cone of fire helping it as you still have a random chance of your cheesy 6PPCs all hitting the CT.

No, the problem isn't boating. Many mechs in BT are boats. Awesomes boat PPCs, and the swayback boats lasers.

The problem is things aren't supposed to ALL HIT THE SAME SPOT.

A widening cone of fire means that you have to actively choose between running around like a maniac torso twisting and mitigating damage to yourself, and being a dedicated sniper.

A positive side effect is that people who boat PPCs are also more susceptible to brawlers getting close. Two boats with one stone.

Edited by Valore, 14 June 2013 - 04:38 AM.

[Joseph Mallan]

I'll disagree with that Capper. A sniper standing still with arm lock on should be more accurate than you or I when running at 50+ KpH.

[tenderloving]

Tahribator, on 14 June 2013 - 03:48 AM, said:

Yes, that's why all competitive games like Quake and Unreal have cone of fire, am I right? Because borking your aim because you didn't keep your aim on a target for 10 seconds is skill right?

Fast convergence also keeps this game mobile. If cone of fire was implemented everybody would get a sniper weapon and just keep still, because you get punished for moving around.

There's another side to this argument. This is supposed to be a simulation, these are advanced mechs from 3050. This is not supposed to be an old man simulator.

This is overall a very bad idea that only lowers the skill ceiling.

Quake and Unreal are two of the oldest, least sophisticated online multiplayer games in existence. This is like comparing the original Warcraft to Warcraft III. I find it hilarious that you bring them up and then complain about "old man simulators." The irony must be lost on you.

Over time, games evolve. One evolution has been the general understanding (see: every modern shooter) that it is far too easy to point a mouse, and that some variance is needed to bring the games closer to a real-life experience.

Stop kidding yourself about "skill." You could train a small child or a monkey to quickly move a mouse and click at any desired point on a computer screen. Hell, they trained birds in WWII to guide missiles by pecking at pictures of ships. If that is the level of "skill" you want to attain then good for you.

Edited by tenderloving, 14 June 2013 - 04:40 AM.

[3rdworld]

No I would not be okay with it.

It is an inherently unbalanced system, which would require developers that cannot balance a checkbook to balance in order for it to provide any benefit at all. And its inherent issues when using location based damage will never be able to be accounted for.

No to RNG.

Joseph Mallan, on 14 June 2013 - 04:38 AM, said:

I'll disagree with that Capper. A sniper standing still with arm lock on should be more accurate than you or I when running at 50+ KpH.

And yet you don't understand how that inherently unbalances any mech which rely on speed?

[Vassago Rain]

Tahribator, on 14 June 2013 - 03:48 AM, said:

Yes, that's why all competitive games like Quake and Unreal have cone of fire, am I right? Because borking your aim because you didn't keep your aim on a target for 10 seconds is skill right?

Fast convergence also keeps this game mobile. If cone of fire was implemented everybody would get a sniper weapon and just keep still, because you get punished for moving around.

There's another side to this argument. This is supposed to be a simulation, these are advanced mechs from 3050. This is not supposed to be an old man simulator.

This is overall a very bad idea that only lowers the skill ceiling.

B-b-b-b-but muh big casual market!

[Joseph Mallan]

3rdworld, on 14 June 2013 - 04:41 AM, said:

No I would not be okay with it.

It is an inherently unbalanced system, which would require developers that cannot balance a checkbook to balance in order for it to provide any benefit at all. And its inherent issues when using location based damage will never be able to be accounted for.

No to RNG.



And yet you don't understand how that inherently unbalances any mech which rely on speed?

If you run you have less accuracy. It isn't the faster you run you are less accurate. Everybody gets the same expansion for moving and moving faster. It would actually be balanced that your Mech running 140pH has no more trouble hitting than a Mech running 49KpH. I understand how it works, if you are running you will be 18% less accurate whether you are running 60 or 124 KpH.

Edited by Joseph Mallan, 14 June 2013 - 04:48 AM.

[tenderloving]

3rdworld, on 14 June 2013 - 04:41 AM, said:

No I would not be okay with it.

It is an inherently unbalanced system, which would require developers that cannot balance a checkbook to balance in order for it to provide any benefit at all. And its inherent issues when using location based damage will never be able to be accounted for.

No to RNG.



And yet you don't understand how that inherently unbalances any mech which rely on speed?

Other games have snipers and classes that rely on mobility. I don't see the world crashing down on every other modern shooter.

The mech that relies on speed is moving, right? So he gets close to the sniper, and his brawling weapons, which have much smaller cones of fire than the sniper's weapons while moving, make short work of him at close range.

This isn't that hard. People act like it would be breaking new ground. It's a very common system that is part of many successful games.