185 replies to this topic

[Gallowglas]

GingerBang, on 12 July 2013 - 10:41 AM, said:

You do realize convergence means the weapons aim to a point, and without it they will just shoot straight forward right? There seems to be a huge issue here with people not having a 4th grade vocabulary. Weapons will not just shoot random directions.... They just shoot straight forward from where the weapon is pointing. If you fire two PPC's from a mech, and on the mech those PPC's are spaced 1.5M apart, they will land however far away at 1.5M apart.


I don't understand how people do not understand this concept. Or those that do somehow think you can't snipe, like the bullets are just going to zig-zag through space still. All it means is you can't alpha strike and expect to hit your target. You actually have to aim each weapon individually. Oh noes, pilot skills guys, watch out!

In your suggestion, what would the aiming reticle even represent? How would you ever line up a shot? You'd effectively have to have separate reticles for each mount, or else you'd have to guess based on the chassis. That doesn't make much sense to me.

[BlackIronTarkus]

GingerBang, on 12 July 2013 - 10:41 AM, said:

You do realize convergence means the weapons aim to a point, and without it they will just shoot straight forward right? There seems to be a huge issue here with people not having a 4th grade vocabulary. Weapons will not just shoot random directions.... They just shoot straight forward from where the weapon is pointing. If you fire two PPC's from a mech, and on the mech those PPC's are spaced 1.5M apart, they will land however far away at 1.5M apart.

I don't understand how people do not understand this concept. Or those that do somehow think you can't snipe, like the bullets are just going to zig-zag through space still. All it means is you can't alpha strike and expect to hit your target. You actually have to aim each weapon individually. Oh noes, pilot skills guys, watch out!

• Because weapons are NOT spaced 1.5 meters apart. Look at the cataphract, hell!
  
• Because firing straigh foward work with a rifle, not so much with multiples weapons in differents locations. Especialy at freaking 1300 meters. (you know some weapon are meant to be long range)
  
• Because mechs have completly illogical and random weapons locations. (MISSILES IN THE ARM, derp derp!)
  
• Because your idea is crap and would never work in the context of mechwarrior. (Its terribad)

[Maj Motoko Kusanagi]

Hotthedd, on 12 July 2013 - 10:50 AM, said:

Define fun. It is different things to different people. For me, personally, if something is not challenging and does not require skill and practice to master, it is not fun.

For the shorter attention span crowd, fun is beating a game and moving on.

For goons, fun is making their opponent rage quit.

If we were to only apply your definition of fun as a benchmark, it would NOT be fun for may others. And vice-versa. If that is the case, I say MW:O should concentrate on doing what they set out to do a year ago: Make a "thinking persons' 1PV sim/shooter." Not easy mode arcade.

Although I do not support the high alpha mechanic, I could say it requires a lot of thinking to avoid getting insta-killed while driving a small mech and avoiding a high alpha builds intent on killing you, while you try to cap and provide support for your team. In such a case COF would be "easy mode arcade".

[Hotthedd]

Kabenla Armah, on 12 July 2013 - 10:55 AM, said:

True, but we are talking less than a kilometer.
Do you know what the accuracy is for less than a kilometer?

We are also talking about one weapon instead of multiple weapons fired simultaneously.

That is a HUGE difference.

MaddMaxx, on 12 July 2013 - 10:57 AM, said:

If you introduce even the slightest chance of a Miss, even under Docs proposal, what would you do when a shot misses, that should have hit, based on your visual understanding of what you saw happen, as it happened? Then got your *** shot to death?

Simply say "oh well, bummer!" and carry on. Unlikely. Everyone that it happened to would scream blue murder and want the Dev's heads on Pikes.

I disagree. Warfare is full of shots that were aimed and missed. People should accept that these things happen. As long as it is not random, it should be perfectly acceptable. We are not talking about little kids playing "Cowboys and Indians" screaming "I shot you! You're dead!" and "No, you missed!"

[MaddMaxx]

Hotthedd, on 12 July 2013 - 10:50 AM, said:

Define fun. It is different things to different people. For me, personally, if something is not challenging and does not require skill and practice to master, it is not fun.

For the shorter attention span crowd, fun is beating a game and moving on.

For goons, fun is making their opponent rage quit.

If we were to only apply your definition of fun as a benchmark, it would NOT be fun for may others. And vice-versa. If that is the case, I say MW:O should concentrate on doing what they set out to do a year ago: Make a "thinking persons' 1PV sim/shooter." Not easy mode arcade.

Then MWO should be right up your ally, unless of course your a PPC Poptarter. If so, you should really try a Light or Medium build. I hear, from reliable sources, that they are a real challenge to play and Master. No easy button for them.

Calling out certain play styles that differ from your own, is not really conducive to the conversation anyways. But if not being civil is your thing, please, carry on.

Again, if they can elicit the behavior they want, then maybe it is not them that is the problem.

[Maj Motoko Kusanagi]

Hotthedd, on 12 July 2013 - 11:07 AM, said:

We are also talking about one weapon instead of multiple weapons fired simultaneously.

That is a HUGE difference.


I disagree. Warfare is full of shots that were aimed and missed. People should accept that these things happen. As long as it is not random, it should be perfectly acceptable. We are not talking about little kids playing "Cowboys and Indians" screaming "I shot you! You're dead!" and "No, you missed!"

Thats the thing...I don't think it is that different. You want to fire two guns to a point x meters from you. You know how far the the target is, and you know the distance from the gun pivot to the base of the range finder. A computer will do this very quickly (we are talking less than a 100th of a second). It it where as time consuming as you say, then firing any single weapon that pointed in the line of sight of the range finder (like a shoulder mounted gun, if the range finder laser is in the torso) would take forever, because the computer still has to do a convergence calculation to hit what the range finder is pointing at. With multiple weapons its just doing the calculation for each weapon. 5 weapons is less than 1 half a second.

Edited by Kabenla Armah, 12 July 2013 - 11:21 AM.

[Gallowglas]

Hotthedd, on 12 July 2013 - 10:50 AM, said:

Define fun. It is different things to different people. For me, personally, if something is not challenging and does not require skill and practice to master, it is not fun.

Having an unreliable reticle without any indication of where your shots are going to land seems LESS like skill to me, but maybe I'm just crazy. I mean, sure, if each weapon mount had its own reticle, I'd find it a little obtuse, but workable. Having no reliable indicator about where your shots are going to go is like giving a chainsaw to someone having an epileptic seizure. I certainly wouldn't want to be anywhere near a friendly mech that was firing at a target.

[Strum Wealh]

Kabenla Armah, on 12 July 2013 - 10:55 AM, said:

True, but we are talking less than a kilometer.
Do you know what the accuracy is for less than a kilometer?

With a citation, not off-hand.

With a bit of trig...

arctan (35/8000) = 0.004375 radians = 0.2506 degrees
CEP_500m = (sin(0.2506) * 500)/sin(90-0.2506) {that is, using the Law of Sines} = 2.1875 meters

So, the circle at a range of 500 meters might be about 4.375 meters (~14.35 feet) wide.

With the MWO atlas being ~18 meters tall and roughly half-that (that is, ~9 meters) wide, 4.375 meters represents a hit probability across up to three adjacent sections (e.g. any of the three torso sections if "aimed at" the CT, or the CT and the corresponding arm if aimed at either side-torso).
Against a MWO Commando or MWO Spider (each of which are about 9-10 meters tall), and maybe half-that (that is, ~4.5-5.0 meters) wide, even an Abrams with a modern targeting system stands a reasonable chance of completely missing (especially if the BattleMech's movements are erratic).

And recall, TT 'Mechs tend to be a bit smaller than their MWO counterparts; the TT Atlas is ~14 meters tall while the TT Spider and Commando are ~8 meters tall, making them smaller targets.

[Hotthedd]

MaddMaxx, on 12 July 2013 - 11:11 AM, said:

Then MWO should be right up your ally, unless of course your a PPC Poptarter. If so, you should really try a Light or Medium build. I hear, from reliable sources, that they are a real challenge to play and Master. No easy button for them.

Calling out certain play styles that differ from your own, is not really conducive to the conversation anyways. But if not being civil is your thing, please, carry on.

Again, if they can elicit the behavior they want, then maybe it is not them that is the problem.

I was not calling you or anyone else out. I was attempting to explain that "fun" can mean different things to different types of people.

What MW:O SAID they were going to be is/was right up my alley, but they have shown that they plan to go down the path of dumbing the game down, instead of providing tutorials and integrated comms to help new players.

BTW, in competitive leagues, I DO primarily pilot lights. Although I have mastered multiple chassis of every weight class, I have never been a pop-tarter.

Kabenla Armah, on 12 July 2013 - 11:19 AM, said:

Thats the thing...I don't think it is that different. You want to fire two guns to a point x meters from you. You know how far the the target is, and you know the distance from the gun pivot to the base of the range finder. A computer will do this very quickly (we are talking less than a 100th of a second). It it where as time consuming as you say, then firing any single weapon that pointed in the line of sight of the range finder (like a shoulder mounted gun, if the range finder laser is in the torso) would take forever, because the computer still has to do a convergence calculation to hit what the range finder is pointing at. With multiple weapons its just doing the calculation for each weapon. 5 weapons is less than 1 half a second.

Once again, we DO NOT HAVE targeting computers in the I.S. in 3050. They DO NOT EXIST yet. (except for clans...which I don't believe exist, either)

Gallowglas, on 12 July 2013 - 11:21 AM, said:

Having an unreliable reticle without any indication of where your shots are going to land seems LESS like skill to me, but maybe I'm just crazy. I mean, sure, if each weapon mount had its own reticle, I'd find it a little obtuse, but workable. Having no reliable indicator about where your shots are going to go is like giving a chainsaw to someone having an epileptic seizure. I certainly wouldn't want to be anywhere near a friendly mech that was firing at a target.

Who said anything about random?

It certainly was not me.

[Gallowglas]

Hotthedd, on 12 July 2013 - 11:54 AM, said:

Who said anything about random?

It certainly was not me.

I didn't say random either. I said unreliable. There's a nuanced difference. You don't have any direct control or even an informed set of decision-making tools to determine where your shot is going to go. Without multiple reticles or any indication as to where each weapon is pointing via the UI, it becomes less a matter of skill but, rather, an artificial mechanic intended to simply slow down the action and remove the control of the player in determining accuracy.

[Hotthedd]

Gallowglas, on 12 July 2013 - 12:10 PM, said:

I didn't say random either. I said unreliable. There's a nuanced difference. You don't have any direct control or even an informed set of decision-making tools to determine where your shot is going to go. Without multiple reticles or any indication as to where each weapon is pointing via the UI, it becomes less a matter of skill but, rather, an artificial mechanic intended to simply slow down the action and remove the control of the player in determining accuracy.

Sorry, but I took "wielding a chainsaw during an epileptic seizure" to mean random, I did not realize a person in that situation was merely "unreliable".

For the record, I never said "unreliable", either. I have generally advocated fixed (set in the mechlab) convergence for group fired weapons.

[tuffy963]

Why couldn't the recital have one or more Areas of Uncertainty (AOU) that expand and contract with movement, torso twisting, and jumping. Here is the basic layout you see in other games...

• The AOU has a minimum size for each weapon representing accuracy - long range weapons have better AOU's than short range
  
• The speed a which AOU's shrink is a function of agility - short range weapons have better agility so their AOU's shrink faster
  
• The growth factor of an AOU is a function of the weapon's stablity - Torso mounted weapon's have less AOU growth when moving than arm mounted weapons

This is pretty much how game's like Modern warfare handle the concept of weapon accuracy, MWO could use a similar system...

[Gallowglas]

tuffy963, on 12 July 2013 - 12:23 PM, said:

Why couldn't the recital have one or more Areas of Uncertainty (AOU) that expand and contract with movement, torso twisting, and jumping. Here is the basic layout you see in other games...

• The AOU has a minimum size for each weapon representing accuracy - long range weapons have better AOU's than short range
  
• The speed a which AOU's shrink is a function of agility - short range weapons have better agility so their AOU's shrink faster
  
• The growth factor of an AOU is a function of the weapon's stablity - Torso mounted weapon's have less AOU growth when moving than arm mounted weapons

This is pretty much how game's like Modern warfare handle the concept of weapon accuracy, MWO could use a similar system...

This, to me, is a much more concise, reasonable, and coherent solution. It's actually the solution I would vastly prefer.

[Mystere]

GingerBang, on 11 July 2013 - 03:48 PM, said:

have you been browsing the forums over the past two days? Just about every other post is ranting against convergence. The people who want to keep it and one shot people should go back to playing call of duty.

Many players will rant about things that killed them because they consider themselves Mechwarrior gods, and gods are not supposed to get killed.

[Gallowglas]

Hotthedd, on 12 July 2013 - 12:20 PM, said:

Sorry, but I took "wielding a chainsaw during an epileptic seizure" to mean random, I did not realize a person in that situation was merely "unreliable".

If you look at the subsequent statement, it was meant to draw an equivalent between standing near an epileptic using a chainsaw and standing near a mech making uninformed and wildly inaccurate shots with a heavy damage factor. Friendly fire suddenly becomes a clear and present danger in both cases.

Edited by Gallowglas, 12 July 2013 - 12:32 PM.

[Joseph Mallan]

MaddMaxx, on 12 July 2013 - 10:12 AM, said:

Can't allow a speed reduction to be a factor dude. Sorry. If a players run across and opening and his/her target is already standing still, you propose that he/she would have to slow down to get a good accurate shot?

Slowing down causes death for those who need speed as an ally. What do those BIG guys have to do, speed up?

may not like it but slowing down to get a better shot is called a trade off. Are you willing to take the chance? I might depending on the situation and also if the sacrifice is beneficial to the teams success.

Edited by Joseph Mallan, 12 July 2013 - 12:38 PM.

[3rdworld]

Joseph Mallan, on 12 July 2013 - 12:32 PM, said:

may not like it but slowing down to get a better shot is called a trade off. Are you willing to take the chance? I might depending on the situation and also if the sacrifice is beneficial to the teams success.

No its called a nerf to light mechs.

[Joseph Mallan]

3rdworld, on 12 July 2013 - 12:45 PM, said:

No its called a nerf to light mechs.

No its called fair. Go outside with an Air soft gun and stand still and fire, then shoot it as you run by a target, Now do the same while doing a drive by! See which is more accurate.

Edited by Joseph Mallan, 12 July 2013 - 01:08 PM.

[DocBach]

But Joe, the M1 Abrams..........

[Training Instructor]

You're all l33t pilots who patiently wait behind rocks until someone shows a torso for a split second, and then you send 40+ damage into it, multiplied by however many teammates you have on voicecoms who are also l33t pilots.

Do you understand this game will die if that's the only kind of mech driving that is encouraged?

I've already done 8 man practice with my unit, where we waited 11 minutes before the enemy team finally decided to do something.

Most people, including the casual players who will throw between $15-150 at this game, aren't interested in sitting behind a building for 2/3 of the match waiting for some action, but are afraid that if they are the first ones to make a move they'll eat massive pinpoint damage to the torso and get knocked out before they can actually have any fun. People who aren't having fun don't keep paying money into the game.