459 replies to this topic

[ExtremeA79]

Joseph Mallan, on 14 June 2013 - 04:33 AM, said:

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.

Sorry to burst your bubble, oh all mighty quite-possibly-a-war-veteran sir, but this is a 31st century mech sim, not a 21st century infantry sim or whatever you call it. Mechs have all sorts of recoil stabilizers and crap that even if there WAS some remaining force (somehow) how would it move a mech, even its arms? Weapons Have no affect on the mech using them. As for moving, yes there are (in lore) not 100 % accurate shots, but they aren't 50% either. They are minor to moderate.

[Vassago Rain]

tenderloving, on 14 June 2013 - 04:39 AM, said:

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.

They are far more sophisticated than modern brown and bloom shooters. You have to manage resources in quake, or you lose due to map control, no matter how good your aim is.

You don't spawn with full ammo, all the grenades, and your character isn't magnetically bound to the ground. He can also do multiple things at a time.

It's not about clicking speed, but knowing what you're doing. It's like the popular idea that advanced fighting games are all about button mashing.

http://www.youtube.c...rcaaBev5A#t=20s

99% of you have never played CoD, or quake competitively. You don't play fighting games, and don't understand why some mechanics are outright bad for gaming.

[ExtremeA79]

tenderloving, on 14 June 2013 - 04:39 AM, said:

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.

Wow, just wow. This is lsn't real life *****, this is 1000 years IN THE FUTURE. Your 'rea life experiences' don't matter. No one cares about that. Bringing up the skill argument? I am not sure he even talked about that. Thing is, this isn't real life. Why try bringjng it to real life when again, ITS A THOUSAND YEARS IN THE FUTURE WITH ONE HUNDRED TON BATTLEMECHS!!
Some of this is not even canon...

[Valore]

Darren Tyler, on 14 June 2013 - 04:51 AM, said:

Sorry to burst your bubble, oh all mighty quite-possibly-a-war-veteran sir, but this is a 31st century mech sim, not a 21st century infantry sim or whatever you call it. Mechs have all sorts of recoil stabilizers and crap that even if there WAS some remaining force (somehow) how would it move a mech, even its arms? Weapons Have no affect on the mech using them. As for moving, yes there are (in lore) not 100 % accurate shots, but they aren't 50% either. They are minor to moderate.

Actually if we are going all the way, BT as it is was, pilots didn't even get to aim and shoot. They selected targets, and the targeting computer aimed and fired for them.

Targeting computers which were actually fairly rubbish.

A steady hand really counted for very little.

So there goes that argument

Edited by Valore, 14 June 2013 - 05:02 AM.

[CMDR Sunset Shimmer]

Levi Porphyrogenitus, on 13 June 2013 - 05:44 PM, said:

Cone of fire should be implemented only in a few special circumstances.

1 - When your JJs are burning (as it works now).

2 - When you are running hot (it should get bigger the hotter you run).

3 - Possibly when moving at more than 90% throttle (I don't like this, but it might mollify those who say that moving fast should nerf accuracy, despite the fact that it already does naturally, without arbitrary math).

4 - When your sensors get critically hit your accuracy should suffer (and your radar should be disabled).

The major change I advocate is accuracy penalty when running hot (number 2 above), as part of a suite of penalties including speed reductions, twist/turn rate penalties, etc.

And slightly based on walking [up to half speed] and running [beyond half speed]

But yes, CoF system NEEDS to be in there, or atleast return convergence time. Anything is better frankly than this "everything pinpoint damage ever" idea they currently have going.

[Joseph Mallan]

Darren Tyler, on 14 June 2013 - 04:51 AM, said:

Sorry to burst your bubble, oh all mighty quite-possibly-a-war-veteran sir, but this is a 31st century mech sim, not a 21st century infantry sim or whatever you call it. Mechs have all sorts of recoil stabilizers and crap that even if there WAS some remaining force (somehow) how would it move a mech, even its arms? Weapons Have no affect on the mech using them. As for moving, yes there are (in lore) not 100 % accurate shots, but they aren't 50% either. They are minor to moderate.

A 31st century War sim that has ranges in Meters not Kilometers! If they can't make a AC that can match the range of an Abrams or even A GAU-8, how do you expect it to match the accuracy of 21st century weapons?

GAU-8 Effective range 4,000' or 3,660 Meters or 122 Hex

120MM Gun on the Abrams Effective range 4,000M(133 hex) or 8,000 Meters(266 Hex) with the laser guided munitions

Naval Rail Guns (Gauss) have a range of...100 Miles in 6 Minutes!

Edited by Joseph Mallan, 14 June 2013 - 05:15 AM.

[Kaldor]

How about they fix the underlying cause of all this first which is the heat system. Right now the heat system allows players to shutdown alpha fire large high damage, high heat weapons with no penalty. By fixing the heat system by decreasing heat cap, increasing dissipation, and adding in damage around 110% heat, you switch the game from an alpha strike meta, to a sustained DPS meta. If you force players to take more shots, they will miss more often and or spread the damage out more.

Personally, I hate the idea of a CoF system. I also really dislike the current metagame. The only way I would consider this to be a viable fix is if there were mech skills and or pilot modules that would decrease the effect of the CoF. Also, whether you want to admit it or not, this is a direct nerf on player skill and some styles of play other than sniping. Good pilots will find a way to get around it. Bad pilots will probably get worse. For both pilots, they may have a game winning shot lined up and the "Trollmode: Engage" from CoF comes into play and they miss what should have been a clean kill and it comes back to bite them in the a_s later. Light and medium pilots are forced to play at full throttle all the time. Should they have to slow down to take every shot? Sure, if they want to die a horrible death.

Lastly, does PGI have the dev time and money on hand to actually do this? I would prefer they actually fix the heat system into something solid that will last the life of the game, then turn their devs on to finishing CW, more maps, more game modes, more mechs, etc.

[stjobe]

Darren Tyler, on 14 June 2013 - 04:51 AM, said:

Sorry to burst your bubble, oh all mighty quite-possibly-a-war-veteran sir, but this is a 31st century mech sim, not a 21st century infantry sim or whatever you call it. Mechs have all sorts of recoil stabilizers and crap that even if there WAS some remaining force (somehow) how would it move a mech, even its arms? Weapons Have no affect on the mech using them. As for moving, yes there are (in lore) not 100 % accurate shots, but they aren't 50% either. They are minor to moderate.

Who, apart from the "no" crowd, has said anything about 50% accuracy?

Also, when lambasting Joe you should probably be aware that while he's often stubborn and pigheaded, he's seldom wrong about BattleTech facts.

In this instance, yes, it's 31st century war machines - but if you know anything at all about the BT universe, you know it's been at war for about three centuries, and much technology has been lost. It isn't "take current tech and extrapolate 1000 years", it's "take current tech, extrapolate a couple of hundred years, and then cataclysm and 300 years of war, including nuking of whole planets".

In short, the designers had to come up with an in-game reasoning behind the short ranges the table-top nature of the game imposed. What they came up with was that the targeting computers of the 31st century, while advanced, wasn't good enough to cut through the visual and RF chaff on the battlefield to make precise shots at ranges longer than the ones they had (sub-1km for the most part). And with "precise" they meant "hitting a 'mech-sized target at all".

Edited by stjobe, 14 June 2013 - 05:07 AM.

[3rdworld]

tenderloving, on 14 June 2013 - 04:50 AM, said:

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.

Oh so you want to balance the system based on mech classes and per weapon. Which would also need the weapons balanced around comparitively slow rates of fire, and huge ranges in the amount of damage that can be taken / given. Also still removes the abilities for fast mechs to be able to effectively use "sniper" weapons.

Have you not noticed who is developing this game?

Most games that have CoF also have respawns. Do you think there may be some connection between a somewhat RNG based shooting and the effects of averages over the course of several lives?

Oh and there are many successful games (including every mechwarrior) that do not have CoF.

Edited by 3rdworld, 14 June 2013 - 05:09 AM.

[CMDR Sunset Shimmer]

3rdworld, on 14 June 2013 - 05:06 AM, said:

Oh so you want to balance the system based on mech classes and per weapon. Which would also need the weapons balanced around comparitively slow rates of fire, and huge ranges in the amount of damage that can be taken / given. Also still removes the abilities for fast mechs to be able to effectively use "sniper" weapons.

Have you not noticed who is developing this game?

Most games that have CoF also have respawns. Do you think there may be some connection between a somewhat RNG based shooting and the effects of averages over the course of several lives?

Oh and there are many successful games (including every mechwarrior) that do not have CoF.

Chromehounds.

Chromehounds didn't have a CoF mechanic exactly, but it did have a recoil mechanic which you had to manage properly if you were to do any good.

May I ad that CoF isn't inherently an RNG system, and that many skillful players can learn how the CoF works without a problem. Need proof? Look at all the 360 noscope headshot vids in some famous CoF based games. Counterstrike, one of the longest running competitive games has a CoF mechanic, CoD has it, Battlefield has it [and even takes it into account for tanks] ArmA has a similar mechanic.

CoF mechanics doesn't hurt competitive play, nor is it a full RNG like so many of you argue that it is. It's a learnable mechanic, that is in modern "Shooters" for a reason. Because it does help simulate a bit of "luck." So excuse me for finding your "But mah competitive shooter!" arguments invalid.

Edited by Jade Kitsune, 14 June 2013 - 05:14 AM.

[ExtremeA79]

Joseph Mallan, on 14 June 2013 - 05:03 AM, said:

A 31st century War sim that has ranges in Meters not Kilometers! If they can't make a AC that can match the range of an Abrams or even A GAU-8, how do you expect it to match the accuracy of 21st century weapons?

Do you have any idea how heavy the rounds are in battletech? Mayve thats why they are so short.
Really, they are short because battlemechs, (heavily armored machines of death) can take alot of damage and are usually optimize for close range. Kind of hard to get it but what I am saying is that in order to actually hurt a battlemech, you would need to sacrifice range for power (missiles and autocannobs at least) LRM's are long for mech engagement and compared to srms they sacrifice power for fuel. However they need some power still to damage a mech. A srm launcher for infantry is so heavy it reay needs to be treated as a turret. And thats one missile. What doss 1 srm do to a battlemech? NOTHING. Juat scratchs the paint. 21st century weapons would bounce off the armor of tanks, battlearmor, and mechs.

Thats why.

[Fooooo]

No to a CoF from me.


Most FPS's, note decent fps's, dont use a CoF at all.

Or at the least, its such a small thing that it plays almost no part whatsoever.

ET has a CoF, tho its quite small and barely effected by movement. Its more recoil based.
The ETPRO mod that is used in comp reduced it to almost nothing.....(like most other promods for other games)


In CS your first few shots are 100% accurate. (generally)

This converted to MWO would mean every PPC shot would act exactly like it does right now. As PPCS are not machine guns. They are more like Sniper Rifles..............

Same with basically every weapon in the game, bar AC/2's and machine guns......


You would shoot with 100% accuracy even with a CoF, the time to wait for the weapon to cooldown so you can fire again means your hitting with 100% accuracy again anyway. (bar movement effected CoF as I mention below.....)

Also what about lasers which have a duration, meaning if the CoF sends my laser way up and to the right of the target, I will just move my torso down so it hits the CT anyway.......... it doesn't work for lasers..........

Think of the lightning gun in quake/q3a with a CoF. As soon as you realise how far off your center point the random CoF made it fire, people would just move that point onto the target.......no effect bar not even half a second of adjustment after firing..



As for a CoF affected by movement. Damn, Please no.

I would prefer mechs moving and trying to gain position, rather than standing still like turrets in the best camping spots. As thats all movement effected CoF ends up doing.

It creates CAMP matches in every FPS that uses it like that. No tactics, just get to the best spot and wait for someone to be stupid enough to move into your sights. As someone trying to close the range on you means they would have crap accuracy vs your 100%. Making sniping even worse than now........

Edited by Fooooo, 14 June 2013 - 05:37 AM.

[3rdworld]

Jade Kitsune, on 14 June 2013 - 05:13 AM, said:

Chromehounds.

Chromehounds didn't have a CoF mechanic exactly, but it did have a recoil mechanic which you had to manage properly if you were to do any good.

May I ad that CoF isn't inherently an RNG system, and that many skillful players can learn how the CoF works without a problem. Need proof? Look at all the 360 noscope headshot vids in some famous CoF based games. Counterstrike, one of the longest running competitive games has a CoF mechanic, CoD has it, Battlefield has it [and even takes it into account for tanks] ArmA has a similar mechanic.

CoF mechanics doesn't hurt competitive play, nor is it a full RNG like so many of you argue that it is. It's a learnable mechanic, that is in modern "Shooters" for a reason. Because it does help simulate a bit of "luck." So excuse me for finding your "But mah competitive shooter!" arguments invalid.

Recoil isn't CoF. CoD only has CoF when shooting from the hip. When you are looking down the sights you do not have CoF but recoil. As we are always using sights, CoD CoF mechanic is irrelevant.

And all those modern shooters have respawn to reduce the effects of luck by averages during a match. And I actually made more of the argument that because it is in a modern shooter doesn't mean it applies here.

[ExtremeA79]

stjobe, on 14 June 2013 - 05:05 AM, said:

Who, apart from the "no" crowd, has said anything about 50% accuracy?

Also, when lambasting Joe you should probably be aware that while he's often stubborn and pigheaded, he's seldom wrong about BattleTech facts.

In this instance, yes, it's 31st century war machines - but if you know anything at all about the BT universe, you know it's been at war for about three centuries, and much technology has been lost. It isn't "take current tech and extrapolate 1000 years", it's "take current tech, extrapolate a couple of hundred years, and then cataclysm and 300 years of war, including nuking of whole planets".

In short, the designers had to come up with an in-game reasoning behind the short ranges the table-top nature of the game imposed. What they came up with was that the targeting computers of the 31st century, while advanced, wasn't good enough to cut through the visual and RF chaff on the battlefield to make precise shots at ranges longer than the ones they had (sub-1km for the most part). And with "precise" they meant "hitting a 'mech-sized target at all".

First off, I was just making my point. Second, it isn't like what you said. It is
"Take technology from 500-700 years in the future then cataclysm but keep half of 500 700 year tehnology and mix it with 21 st century technology (innersphere) Take 500 700 technology and keep it in a safe (comstar) and finally take 500 700 year technology and make it 100% better making it 1000 year technology. (Clans)


Interesting about ranges, interesting.

[stjobe]

3rdworld, on 14 June 2013 - 05:22 AM, said:

As we are always using sights

We're not.

We're simply target designators (or, at least that's what MechWarriors are if you look at the lore). The targeting computer, actuators, and weapons take care of the rest. We designate what target to shoot at, but we don't aim the weapons at all. We don't use sights, or shoot from the hip, or anything remotely connected to what a person holding a weapon does.

We just designate targets and pull triggers. The 'mech does the rest.

[CMDR Sunset Shimmer]

Fooooo, on 14 June 2013 - 05:19 AM, said:

It creates CAMP matches in every FPS that uses it like that. No tactics, just get to the best spot and wait for someone to be stupid enough to move into your sights.

"BUT MAH REALISIM!!!!"

You realize that, despite how annoying camping can be, that it is a valid tactic, that our service men out there in the field don't just run around like an *****, pulling side strafes and dropping to the ground infront of the enemy right?

People use the word "Tactics" and they don't realise what "tactics" entails. Using Cover, Concealment, moving smart, knowing when to STAY PUT[ie camping] Giving yourself an advantage in position over the enemy that allows you to suprise them. Using enflade and defelade. [hills and valleys] to your advantage to change your exposure profile. Making sure not to ridgeline yourself.

All of that is tactics, not "Hurr durr, move torwards enemy and dodge his shots!" That's just luck.

3rdworld, on 14 June 2013 - 05:22 AM, said:

Recoil isn't CoF. CoD only has CoF when shooting from the hip. When you are looking down the sights you do not have CoF but recoil. As we are always using sights, CoD CoF mechanic is irrelevant.

And all those modern shooters have respawn to reduce the effects of luck by averages during a match. And I actually made more of the argument that because it is in a modern shooter doesn't mean it applies here.

You've obviously never moved while aiming down sight in CoD, the CoF is still there, just reduced.

stjobe, on 14 June 2013 - 05:26 AM, said:

We're not.

We're simply target designators (or, at least that's what MechWarriors are if you look at the lore). The targeting computer, actuators, and weapons take care of the rest. We designate what target to shoot at, but we don't aim the weapons at all. We don't use sights, or shoot from the hip, or anything remotely connected to what a person holding a weapon does.

We just designate targets and pull triggers. The 'mech does the rest.

StJobe, they've basically retconted that several times in the novels and source material, stating that a mechwarrior's control on when to pull the trigger, and even movement on the control sticks has a greater bearing on target resolution than in the old days.

You're working on some super old info bro.

[ExtremeA79]

Jade Kitsune, on 14 June 2013 - 05:27 AM, said:

"BUT MAH REALISIM!!!!"

You realize that, despite how annoying camping can be, that it is a valid tactic, that our service men out there in the field don't just run around like an *****, pulling side strafes and dropping to the ground infront of the enemy right?

People use the word "Tactics" and they don't realise what "tactics" entails. Using Cover, Concealment, moving smart, knowing when to STAY PUT[ie camping] Giving yourself an advantage in position over the enemy that allows you to suprise them. Using enflade and defelade. [hills and valleys] to your advantage to change your exposure profile. Making sure not to ridgeline yourself.

All of that is tactics, not "Hurr durr, move torwards enemy and dodge his shots!" That's just luck.

I agree, camping is a valid tactic. However I think he means that it would be overused, like how boating is.

[Joseph Mallan]

Darren Tyler, on 14 June 2013 - 05:13 AM, said:

Do you have any idea how heavy the rounds are in battletech? Mayve thats why they are so short.
Really, they are short because battlemechs, (heavily armored machines of death) can take alot of damage and are usually optimize for close range. Kind of hard to get it but what I am saying is that in order to actually hurt a battlemech, you would need to sacrifice range for power (missiles and autocannobs at least) LRM's are long for mech engagement and compared to srms they sacrifice power for fuel. However they need some power still to damage a mech. A srm launcher for infantry is so heavy it reay needs to be treated as a turret. And thats one missile. What doss 1 srm do to a battlemech? NOTHING. Juat scratchs the paint. 21st century weapons would bounce off the armor of tanks, battlearmor, and mechs.

Thats why.

AC20 7 rounds per ton 143 LBS
Abrams ammo 53LBS a pieces.

3 times lighter 6 times the effective range (for Full damage)

[3rdworld]

Jade Kitsune, on 14 June 2013 - 05:27 AM, said:

"BUT MAH REALISIM!!!!"

You realize that, despite how annoying camping can be, that it is a valid tactic, that our service men out there in the field don't just run around like an *****, pulling side strafes and dropping to the ground infront of the enemy right?

People use the word "Tactics" and they don't realise what "tactics" entails. Using Cover, Concealment, moving smart, knowing when to STAY PUT[ie camping] Giving yourself an advantage in position over the enemy that allows you to suprise them. Using enflade and defelade. [hills and valleys] to your advantage to change your exposure profile. Making sure not to ridgeline yourself.

All of that is tactics, not "Hurr durr, move torwards enemy and dodge his shots!" That's just luck.

Last time I checked, people can't take 12 ppcs shots to the chest before they get a chance to eject.

And if they die they don't just relaunch.

Arguments for realism are stupid.

Joseph Mallan, on 14 June 2013 - 05:29 AM, said:

AC20 7 rounds per ton 143 LBS
Abrams ammo 53LBS a pieces.

3 times lighter 6 times the effective range (for Full damage)

your math is terrible.

[stjobe]

Jade Kitsune, on 14 June 2013 - 05:29 AM, said:

StJobe, they've basically retconted that several times in the novels and source material, stating that a mechwarrior's control on when to pull the trigger, and even movement on the control sticks has a greater bearing on target resolution than in the old days.

You're working on some super old info bro.

[citation needed]