56 replies to this topic

[Abrahms]

PanchoTortilla, on 02 July 2013 - 05:45 PM, said:

What a load of crap.

Can your computer figure out how hard and which direction the wind is blowing 1000m away ? How? With the Force? Reading the wind is a skill that long range marksmen train for years or decades to master. What about variations in the powder charge loaded inside the cartridge? You do know military specifications allow for 4 minutes-of-angle deviation for the currently issued individual infantry rifle right? Because mass produced military ammo is not known for its consistency. Artillery sized ordnance is even less precise.

A tank or helicopter can easily calculate a trajectory to score a likely hit SOMEWHERE on another vehicle, but to try to shoot out the left side passenger window with 3 different guns at long range (which is what MWO does), BullS---.

And don't try to argue that BattleTech is actually set some place beyond Star Trek where every society has Q levels of technology. Because we all know the Inner Sphere has been bombing itself back towards the Stone Age for 3 centuries and can barely keep the few mechs, dropships and jumpships running. The TROs plainly state technology and engineering knowhow have degraded so much that very few people can repair the sophicated battle computers in mechs like the Phoenix Hawk and Stalker. In fact the Stalker and Marauder variants have dumbfired weapons aimed with iron sights due to everyone knowing how to reprogram the computers having died centuries ago.

do some research on the latest military tech, recently saw a report on a scope that cost 20 grand and could calculate a lot of factors, even the earth's rotation for longer shots

m1 tanks are well known for being precise shooters, primarily due to the on-board computers (no-auto aim! merely means that the mech can atleast shoot where you tell it to.. none of this random spread, lack of convergence, RNG crap - RNG is bad, as is weapons lagging to converge so that its effectively RNG)

nothing is ever perfect... even in MWO right now the long range gauss shots sometimes go off target and hit a few meters to either side.. whatever, but this "RNG spread" that people want is total BS for most weapons.

The amount of spread that can realistically be added is very minor... not enough to spread hits between components. Sure, after 1000 meters a gauss may veer left 5 meters, but 90% of the time, the CT hit will remain a CT hit... sometimes a RT hit as a result of going off target by a meter or two.

p.s. training marksman may become a thing of the past pretty quickly... today it still is the most common because its the cheapest, but things change fast

Edited by Abrahms, 02 July 2013 - 06:03 PM.

[One Medic Army]

Abrahms, on 02 July 2013 - 05:57 PM, said:

how do you come to such illogical conclusions?

not once was auto aim ever a topic - the computers allow you to hit WHERE you are aiming, NOT aim for you.

that way better pilots will hit more accurately, because they can aim better

a few games of watching other player's first person view will quickly reveal to you just how bad many players are... they can barely hit the broad side of a barn. Skill needs to remain relevant

You're the one who said:

Abrahms, on 02 July 2013 - 05:31 PM, said:

Yet today we have sniper scopes that can literally aim for you and wont let you fire unless the bullet is computed to hit the target. Likewise, a machine can calculate where to aim BOTH arms at once to hit the target.

[Abrahms]

One Medic Army, on 02 July 2013 - 06:06 PM, said:

You're the one who said:

The post's overall topic was that computers today can calculate where to put a shot, so certainly it can place a shot where you aim it.

It would make no sense for a robotic arm to have a computer system to aim at at a target 500 meters away, and then to miss the target that the retical is on.

[One Medic Army]

Abrahms, on 02 July 2013 - 06:13 PM, said:

The post's overall topic was that computers today can calculate where to put a shot, so certainly it can place a shot where you aim it.

It would make no sense for a robotic arm to have a computer system to aim at at a target 500 meters away, and then to miss the target that the retical is on.

And I say to shove your realism down your bore.
If I want accurate shooting I go take my .308 down to the range with my hand-loaded ammo and 12x scope.

This is a game.

[Lootee]

One Medic Army, on 02 July 2013 - 06:14 PM, said:

And I say to shove your realism down your bore.
If I want accurate shooting I go take my .308 down to the range with my hand-loaded ammo and 12x scope.

Hah, if you had 5 precision .308s with handloaded match ammo and had a robot aim them all at precisely the same point, they still wouldn't all go in the same hole.

Why? Because each barrel is machined very slightly differently due to engineering tolerances and every one might require a separate handload to wring out the best accuracy and precision. But don't expect all the COD kiddies that know 'Put the crosshair on the target and that's where your shot goes' to realize that isn't how things work in the real world when they pull out the old 'But we have computers that can do that now' canard.

[Pht]

All this rage and fuss about how capable battlemechs are supposed to be When we ALREADY KNOW how capable they are!

http://mwomercs.com/...different-idea/

... lest anyone think this is mere guessing or opinion on my part:

http://bg.battletech...ic,26178.0.html

and:

http://bg.battletech...ic,29328.0.html

[Abrahms]

One Medic Army, on 02 July 2013 - 06:14 PM, said:

And I say to shove your realism down your bore.
If I want accurate shooting I go take my .308 down to the range with my hand-loaded ammo and 12x scope.

This is a game.

Of course it is a game. RNG is bad for games, it lowers the benefit of skill. Also, as I noted earlier, it makes no sense. Games often try to replicate real life things that you cannot do in real life... sometimes even in awesome fictional universes.

A lot of games try to simulate some form of realism to make the games more fun. I guess you you want to play barbie dancing balloon playhouse, you can ignore physics, etc. Often, cartoons defy physics a lot because of the theme.

However, a battletech as a game has often aimed at replicating physics or some "lore reason" for what goes on. For example, gravity exists in the games. But its a game you say? so lets remove gravity...

I hope you get the point, but you seem really bad at rational, logical reasoning. True, it is a game. It is also more fun it the gameplay doesnt make you think "wtf, that is ******** and would never happen in in the fictional universe and it makes no sense."

It makes sense for 3025 computers are capable of putting ordinance where you put the cross-hair. It also makes the game more fun and skillful. Therefore, there is absolutely no reason to take this away. Perhaps, if it was realistic to have spread, but it was not fun, you could defy physics for the sake of a game (some franchises do that). However, because it is better from a gameplay perspective, and better from a believable, fictional universe, its better to have no RNG.

[Abrahms]

PanchoTortilla, on 02 July 2013 - 06:20 PM, said:

Hah, if you had 5 precision .308s with handloaded match ammo and had a robot aim them all at precisely the same point, they still wouldn't all go in the same hole.

Why? Because each barrel is machined very slightly differently due to engineering tolerances and every one might require a separate handload to wring out the best accuracy and precision. But don't expect all the COD kiddies that know 'Put the crosshair on the target and that's where your shot goes' to realize that isn't how things work in the real world when they pull out the old 'But we have computers that can do that now' canard.

the weapons in MWO already have some spread... try firing a gauss at 1000 meters, it will hit a couple meters off. However, it isnt enough to change a hit to a miss, or from one component to another, in most cases.

That is good. Im sure a 3025 gauss shot would land fairly close to its target at a mere 1000 meters...

Lasers and such are energy/light based, therefore, perfect accuracy is fine

missiles, already have a lot of spread

All ballistics in this game have some spread, but its negligible and the weapons converge. Its far more realistic than what anyone here suggests. Ive had a CT aim hit a LT for example.. might be lag... but visually it also hit there... its totally normal. But people are begging for massive spread and inaccuracy to make their lack of skill less of a problem for them. Sorry, shots go where the reticals are. There is no reason to change this.

Edited by Abrahms, 02 July 2013 - 06:29 PM.

[One Medic Army]

Abrahms, on 02 July 2013 - 06:24 PM, said:

Of course it is a game. RNG is bad for games, it lowers the benefit of skill. Also, as I noted earlier, it makes no sense. Games often try to replicate real life things that you cannot do in real life... sometimes even in awesome fictional universes.

A lot of games try to simulate some form of realism to make the games more fun. I guess you you want to play barbie dancing balloon playhouse, you can ignore physics, etc. Often, cartoons defy physics a lot because of the theme.

However, a battletech as a game has often aimed at replicating physics or some "lore reason" for what goes on. For example, gravity exists in the games. But its a game you say? so lets remove gravity...

I hope you get the point, but you seem really bad at rational, logical reasoning. True, it is a game. It is also more fun it the gameplay doesnt make you think "wtf, that is ******** and would never happen in in the fictional universe and it makes no sense."

It makes sense for 3025 computers are capable of putting ordinance where you put the cross-hair. It also makes the game more fun and skillful. Therefore, there is absolutely no reason to take this away. Perhaps, if it was realistic to have spread, but it was not fun, you could defy physics for the sake of a game (some franchises do that). However, because it is better from a gameplay perspective, and better from a believable, fictional universe, its better to have no RNG.

Gameplay comes first, gameplay always comes first.
Shooting accurately (clicking where on the enemy mech you want to hit, and the shot hitting it) is incredibly easy.
Most games, in fact nearly all games add random cones of fire just so that accurate hits require accurate weapons which have downsides (usually low ammo, slow firing). Some games also add things like bullet drop.
Most games don't have perfect pinpoint accuracy, because it makes the game too easy.

In MWO we're piloting military machines, if you need a "realism" reason for why we shouldn't be perfectly accurate (which would enhance the gameplay) then consider that military ammo is horribly inconsistent, and battlemechs use giant "muscles" that twitch when they're heated up in "lore".

Abrahms, on 02 July 2013 - 06:28 PM, said:

the weapons in MWO already have some spread... try firing a gauss at 1000 meters, it will hit a couple meters off. However, it isnt enough to change a hit to a miss, or from one component to another, in most cases.

That is good. Im sure a 3025 gauss shot would land fairly close to its target at a mere 1000 meters...

Lasers and such are energy/light based, therefore, perfect accuracy is fine

missiles, already have a lot of spread

All ballistics in this game have some spread, but its negligible and the weapons converge. Its far more realistic than what anyone here suggests. Ive had a CT aim hit a LT for example.. might be lag... but visually it also hit there... its totally normal. But people are begging for massive spread and inaccuracy to make their lack of skill less of a problem for them. Sorry, shots go where the reticals are. There is no reason to change this.

Bull, they're perfectly accurate, that's just the travel time, or you're bad at aiming.

Edited by One Medic Army, 02 July 2013 - 06:31 PM.

[Roland]

Quote

All ballistics in this game have some spread, but its negligible and the weapons converge.

There is no weapons spread in this game. Ballistics are perfectly precise, and perfectly accurate.

[Lootee]

Abrahms, on 02 July 2013 - 06:28 PM, said:

That is good. Im sure a 3025 gauss shot would land fairly close to its target at a mere 1000 meters...

Lasers and such are energy/light based, therefore, perfect accuracy is fine

1 well aimed gauss shot, maybe. 2 or 3 all at the same time, not a chance.

And lasers rely on lenses to focus the beam. The lenses may or may not be evenly ground. Add the fact that factories are churning those out as fast as they possibly can at the lowest possible cost to meet the Clan threat and you end up with a rational reason for less than 100% perfect beam convergence.

[Vodrin Thales]

Roland, on 02 July 2013 - 05:44 PM, said:

In practice, given the current system, the torso isn't effectively separate from the arms anyway since folks can just press a button and have both reticles instantly snap together.

But yes, I would introduce additional separation of different weapons, based on their locations on the mech. Perfectly predictable, and thus PRECISE, disparities in relation to the center of the aiming reticle. Thus, skilled shooters could still land shots exactly where they want. But doing so would require more skill.



Exactly. It leaves luck out of the equation completely. And yet, at the same time, it prevents people from duct taping many weapons together and having them all function as though they were a single weapon.

In many cases, such as the 4P, most of the weapons would end up hitting very close together anyway, as they are mounted so closely together. And I think this is likely ok, given that it is the centerpoint of the mech's design. But the overall impact on most mechs would be to increase spread when people just fired all of their weapons at once.

The only flaw I see in your system would be that certain mechs (HGN-732 comes to mind) would still be able to score 30 point single shot hits, while most other mechs would top out at 15-20 points for pinpoint shots. That said I think your idea is superior to any other suggested convergence fix I have seen.

[Panzerkampfwagen IV]

PanchoTortilla, on 02 July 2013 - 06:20 PM, said:

Hah, if you had 5 precision .308s with handloaded match ammo and had a robot aim them all at precisely the same point, they still wouldn't all go in the same hole.

Why? Because each barrel is machined very slightly differently due to engineering tolerances and every one might require a separate handload to wring out the best accuracy and precision. But don't expect all the COD kiddies that know 'Put the crosshair on the target and that's where your shot goes' to realize that isn't how things work in the real world when they pull out the old 'But we have computers that can do that now' canard.

Actually you are not entirely correct, the chamber will have the most drastic effect on accuracy variations. In general, barrels that have been chambered by the same reamer and made with the same type of blank will favor the same loads. This is why military .223 SWS are chambered to shoot mk262 consistently and .308s M118LR.

The barrels they manufacture will consistently perform well with the same load because that is what they are cut for.

[Pht]

Abrahms, on 02 July 2013 - 06:24 PM, said:

Of course it is a game. RNG is bad for games, it lowers the benefit of skill.

No.

It doesn't. There is NOTHING inherent in the concept of RNG that requires that any game using it lowers the skill involved.

That's like saying skill is useless in a casino.

Besides which, Did you not even see my post in this thread discussing skill?

Quote

It makes sense for 3025 computers are capable of putting ordinance where you put the cross-hair.

MW IS NOT ABOUT REALISM.

It is about a fictional setting.

A setting so cool that the idea of merely piloting a battlemech from that fictional setting spawned the entire MW video game genre.

If realism is so compelling as a video game goal, why not have your mother in law in the game to nag you...

Quote

It also makes the game more fun and skillful.

No, it does not.

Per the content of my earlier post, it makes the game more skillful - and gives more depth in gameplay without adding needless and nonsensical effects; IE, more fun.

RNG is not the boogeyman.

http://mwomercs.com/...different-idea/

Are you even willing to read the position of people who disagree with you?

Edited by Pht, 02 July 2013 - 06:47 PM.

[Lootee]

Duck Butter, on 02 July 2013 - 06:42 PM, said:

Actually you are not entirely correct, the chamber will have the most drastic effect on accuracy variations. In general, barrels that have been chambered by the same reamer and made with the same type of blank will favor the same loads. This is why military .223 SWS are chambered to shoot mk262 consistently and .308s M118LR.

The barrels they manufacture will consistently perform well with the same load because that is what they are cut for.

Right, but what are the chances your mech has 2 of the barrels from Batch X (out of the hundreds or thousands of units mass produced), before the reamer and cutting bits, forging mandrel or whatever get worn out and replaced?

Unless you submit a special order to the high quartermaster to hand select 2 AC/20s or gauss rifles with components from the same identical production lot (did Victor, Jaime, or Hohiro even have the privilege of doing that???), chances are you will get ones that are slightly different in some way. Sure they will perform within a certain spec, otherwise they would be rejected from military service, but they won't be perfectly pin point synchronized with each other either.

Edited by PanchoTortilla, 02 July 2013 - 06:51 PM.

[Panzerkampfwagen IV]

PanchoTortilla, on 02 July 2013 - 06:49 PM, said:

Right, but what are the chances your mech has 2 of the barrels from Batch X (out of the hundreds or thousands of units mass produced), before the reamer and cutting bits, forging mandrel or whatever get worn out and replaced?

Unless you submit a special order to the high quartermaster to hand select 2 AC/20s or gauss rifles with components from the same identical production lot (did Victor, Jaime, or Hohiro even have the privilege of doing that???), chances are you will get ones that are slightly different in some way. Sure they will perform within a certain spec, otherwise they would be rejected from military service, but they won't be perfectly pin point synchronized with each other either.

PanchoTortilla, on 02 July 2013 - 06:49 PM, said:

Right, but what are the chances your mech has 2 of the barrels from Batch X (out of the hundreds or thousands of units mass produced), before the reamer and cutting bits, forging mandrel or whatever get worn out and replaced?

Unless you submit a special order to the high quartermaster to hand select 2 AC/20s or gauss rifles with components from the same identical production lot (did Victor, Jaime, or Hohiro even have the privilege of doing that???), chances are you will get ones that are slightly different in some way. Sure they will perform within a certain spec, otherwise they would be rejected from military service, but they won't be perfectly pin point synchronized with each other either.

PanchoTortilla, on 02 July 2013 - 06:49 PM, said:

Right, but what are the chances your mech has 2 of the barrels from Batch X (out of the hundreds or thousands of units mass produced), before the reamer and cutting bits, forging mandrel or whatever get worn out and replaced?

Unless you submit a special order to the high quartermaster to hand select 2 AC/20s or gauss rifles with components from the same identical production lot (did Victor, Jaime, or Hohiro even have the privilege of doing that???), chances are you will get ones that are slightly different in some way. Sure they will perform within a certain spec, otherwise they would be rejected from military service, but they won't be perfectly pin point synchronized with each other either.

Yes but assuming the AC20 manufacturer is making their barrels in-house and sourcing the blanks from the same manufacturer they should still shoot at the same POI with the same load. Depending on the manufacturing process, the equipment could far outlast several production runs of barrels. Also bear in mind that the weapons manufacturer has the ability to air-gauge and reject barrels that fall out of their QA standards.

That is why it pays to buy AC20s from an ISO certified tier-one manufacturer, if you buy a cheap model they will probably just be sourcing their barrels from the cheapest supplier at the moment and assembling them without regards to quality or consistency.

[Lootee]

Duck Butter, on 02 July 2013 - 06:58 PM, said:

That is why it pays to buy AC20s from an ISO certified tier-one manufacturer, if you buy a cheap model they will probably just be sourcing their barrels from the cheapest supplier at the moment and assembling them without regards to quality or consistency.

Yeah no Walmart store brand AC/20s for me.

[Hotthedd]

Abrahms, on 02 July 2013 - 05:31 PM, said:

I also would like you to try and use your brain to compute a hundred thousand math equations in .05 seconds. Oh yeah, you cant do it.

A COMPUTER CAN.

Likewise, you probably can barely aim with one rifle muchless two. Yet today we have sniper scopes that can literally aim for you and wont let you fire unless the bullet is computed to hit the target. Likewise, a machine can calculate where to aim BOTH arms at once to hit the target.

Even today's car factories use high precision robotic. Your analogy to aiming two rifles was dumb and irrelevant. Battlemechs are robotic machines with computer systems more advanced than what we have today. (although, somewhat limited by what was imaginable in the 80s, along with a few other quarks).

So you are admitting your PC is aiming for you. Fair enough, just don't call it "skill".

The succession war era was a time of technological reversal, btw. A "Dark Ages", if you will. Comparing today's technology to the game's, and believing that magical instant pinpoint convergence at any range is commonplace is naïve.

Targeting computers are not available in 3050, and when they become available, they occupy 3 critical spaces and weigh a lot, depending on your weapons.

[MustrumRidcully]

Abrahms, on 02 July 2013 - 03:02 PM, said:

1)its pretty easy for even today's technology to pinpoint in a single location almost instantly: any issues with actual convergence at range would be due to issues like wind, atmosphere, etc, most of which a computer can resolve. Even hand held sniper scopes today are capable to taking all that into consideration...

2)It doesnt improve skill to remove convergence. Random spread is the epitome of NO SKILL unless there is a very malleable, defined way to reduce that spread when you want to. If I aim at your cockpit, and I miss because a random number generator says I miss, then that sucks. When you miss me, and instead hit me because RNG favors you, that isnt skill.

Id rather see players get spread because theyre shooting chain fire (which means its very hard for players to always put hit the same exact spot) instead of RNG. Because mechs move, turn, etc, as long as players are using some form of staggered fire, you will naturally see damage spread out. This is why things like the AC2 can have such high DPS but not kill substantially faster - it spreads out everywhere, even without programmed spread.

Now, some skill can be related to actions taken to improve accuracy, like timing, etc, and many modern games do that (prone = more aim, scope = more aim, slow = more aim, etc) however, that isnt really skill, its simply acknowledging that you cant run and gun accurately. That is a yes or no determination, and doesnt involve skill. Its merely a game mechanic to make a game more realistic and to encourage people to slow down when they shoot, but even then, and spread is still a luck factor.

Ive had plenty of CS games or other shooter games in the past where I lost a duel in a hallway because every bullet I fire misses the center of the crosshair. Likewise, Ive taken potshots and scored a headshot kill on a target that I would have clearly missed if my gun had 0 spread. LUCK is a bad attribute for a game to have, unless it is used in moderation and in logical ways. That is why most FPS have some weapon spread and its a good thing. It serves no purpose in a large battlemech game, however.

While I think the heat system is partially to blame for what we see now, and the bad adaptation of the TT heat system has created all kinds of balance problems, forcing peole to chain-fire can be done in one easy way:
=> Remove Group-Fire.

Just get rid of it. There is now a 0.25 to 0.5 second cooldown between every gun you fire, no matter how fast you can mash buttons.

The only reason we have group-fire is because it's damn convenient and makes it easy to shoot guns. Unfortunately, thanks to lead times and what not, it particularly makes shooting guns on boats easy. We don't want everyone to run around with boats because they are just superior. But we also want the canon boats to work.

Remove group fire, and boating stops giving you that alpha convergence benefit. You need skill hitting with multiple shots in a rapid succession. A Quad PPC turret turns into a 1.5 second PPC beam cannon.

My next step would probably be starting to standardize more weapon stats:
- Cycle Time
- Projectile Speed
- Beam Duration

So there are more synergetic combinations available and players can build their weapon loadout with well understood weapon rotations, and it's easier to work with different ballistic weapons.

On another note:

I am amazed you still have hope that any of this will happen.

Edited by MustrumRidcully, 02 July 2013 - 10:41 PM.

[MustrumRidcully]

Skunk Wolf, on 02 July 2013 - 06:01 PM, said:

I think people are mixing up the terms convergence and stabilization.

Convergence is the range that all your guns hit at the same spot (or thereabouts).

Convergence is there so that any gun you fire hits the spot your crosshair is pointing at.

Incidentally, when you fire multiple guns at once, they all hit that spot, but that is not necessarily the point of convergence. Convergence is to ensure that your crosshair is useful. Without it, you would need a crosshair for every individual weapon.

Convergence + Group Fire means easy mode boating.
Convergence - Group Fire means every shot needs to be aimed manually at the crosshair.
Group Fire - Convergence means means you need multiple crosshairs (or good spatial awareness?), one for each weapon. It would probably also require these crosshairs to not be fixed relative to the center of the screen, but shrink the distance to the center based on the distance of the target under your crosshair. Imagine putting two laser pointers in your hands, stretching out your arms, and how the position of the point would wander as you move towards or away from a wall.)

Because of the complexity of the whole cross-hair thing, I prefer the no-group-fire solution. It sounds a lot simpler to implement, and we can keep relying on convergence and only need the arm and torso crosshairs.

Edited by MustrumRidcully, 02 July 2013 - 10:52 PM.