28 replies to this topic

[Oderint dum Metuant]

MisterFiveSeven, on 13 July 2013 - 09:39 PM, said:

No one disagrees. Carte blanche CoF is the last thing anyone wants (from what I can tell).

It just can't be dismissed because of boogeyman randomness, that's all.

Yes, yes it can.
CoF with any movement based metric tied to it, will promote static camping gameplay.

And lights...well...goodbye.

There are plenty of other ideas on these forums, that serve the same purpose and are far better than a CoF

Edited by DV McKenna, 13 July 2013 - 11:47 PM.

[MisterFiveSeven]

DV McKenna, on 13 July 2013 - 11:46 PM, said:

Yes, yes it can.
CoF with any movement based metric tied to it, will promote static camping gameplay.

And lights...well...goodbye.

There are plenty of other ideas on these forums, that serve the same purpose and are far better than a CoF

So make its effect change by weight class? Like it doesn't do anything to lights, barely changes mediums, but becomes apparent with heavies and assaults... like... BALANCING WIEGHT CLASSES!?

randomness boogeyman. it could be a good mechanic if implemented right, like lots of other suggestions.

Edited by MisterFiveSeven, 14 July 2013 - 06:23 AM.

[DarkJaguar]

Okay, here's a graphic I made in response to a PM asking how adding a CoF would sharpen the curve, and make "skilled" players more remarkable.



If we look at this, and notice the "non-COF" impacts. They all hit the CT, even if the "moderately" skilled players is all over the place. Now when you look at the possible impact zones (meaning the shot could land anywhere within that area) you will see that the highly skilled player is still hitting the CT the MAJORITY of the time, with some spread to the L/R torso and maybe even to the arms and legs in extreme cases. Meanwhile, the moderate skill side shows that those shots that would have ALL hit the CT before are pretty evenly spread across the three torso sections, with a good number of them hitting the arms and legs (maybe even a few misses).

This is what I mean by sharpening the curve. This is why in real-life marksmanship, you always aim for the same point in the center of the black, rather than any point in the black. The difference between an expert shot and a good shot, is how consistently they place their sights on the exact same point on the target.

[El Bandito]

CoF is in my suggestion as well. Cause it is canon.

http://mwomercs.com/...t-fire-weapons/

[Orzorn]

As an added benefit, having a CoF would allow heat penalties to be added a bit easier. Higher heat = less accuracy = larger CoF.

The benefit of CoF is also that pinpoint weapons are still pinpoint damage (all damage to one location), but you have a little less control over that location. It also means that spread weapons (SRM, LBX) can guarantee that a location will be hit by at least some missiles/pellets, whereas, unless you are close enough to have the cone small enough, you can't guarantee your AC/20 or PPC shot will hit where you want it to. You can have a degree of certainty by closing distance (if a PPC CoF was as large as a Hunchback's torso at 800 meters, at 400 meters it'll be about the size of its center torso, meaning you're guaranteed to hit it).

I don't believe CoF variance should come from movement at all. Variance should only be caused by actuator destruction (currently not in the game), and heat penalties (also not in the game).

[DarkJaguar]

Orzorn, on 14 July 2013 - 11:41 AM, said:

As an added benefit, having a CoF would allow heat penalties to be added a bit easier. Higher heat = less accuracy = larger CoF.

The benefit of CoF is also that pinpoint weapons are still pinpoint damage (all damage to one location), but you have a little less control over that location. It also means that spread weapons (SRM, LBX) can guarantee that a location will be hit by at least some missiles/pellets, whereas, unless you are close enough to have the cone small enough, you can't guarantee your AC/20 or PPC shot will hit where you want it to. You can have a degree of certainty by closing distance (if a PPC CoF was as large as a Hunchback's torso at 800 meters, at 400 meters it'll be about the size of its center torso, meaning you're guaranteed to hit it).

I don't believe CoF variance should come from movement at all. Variance should only be caused by actuator destruction (currently not in the game), and heat penalties (also not in the game).

Great post! And I agree, movement should not agitate your CoF, though it would be nice to have the cockpit/reticle bouncing up and down as you moved instead of everything just sort of gliding as it does now. The diameter of the CoF should only be affected by heat/actuator damage (maybe even weapon damage, since weapons in MWO have more than 1HP?)

[3rdworld]

When I get headshot, I want to know that guy made a good shot, not just some lucky RNG.

CoF makes sense in games with respawn, as the effects of luck are reduced over the course of several lives. Here a lucky RNG may change the match.

Additionally, random shot on a game that depends on localized damage is counter-intuitive.

[RetroActive]

DarkJaguar, on 14 July 2013 - 08:53 AM, said:

Okay, here's a graphic I made in response to a PM asking how adding a CoF would sharpen the curve, and make "skilled" players more remarkable.



If we look at this, and notice the "non-COF" impacts. They all hit the CT, even if the "moderately" skilled players is all over the place. Now when you look at the possible impact zones (meaning the shot could land anywhere within that area) you will see that the highly skilled player is still hitting the CT the MAJORITY of the time, with some spread to the L/R torso and maybe even to the arms and legs in extreme cases. Meanwhile, the moderate skill side shows that those shots that would have ALL hit the CT before are pretty evenly spread across the three torso sections, with a good number of them hitting the arms and legs (maybe even a few misses).

This is what I mean by sharpening the curve. This is why in real-life marksmanship, you always aim for the same point in the center of the black, rather than any point in the black. The difference between an expert shot and a good shot, is how consistently they place their sights on the exact same point on the target.

You're logic is flawed here due to the fact that randomness is introduced into the equation. The skilled player whose reticle is always roughly center of mass has the chance of theoretically missing all of his shots. The moderately skilled player whose reticle is on the fringe of the CT has the chance of always hitting the CT.

It's the luck factor that kills the cone of fire concept for me. This system does not promote skill as the shot that was aimed dead center of mass by the super skilled player will not necessarily hit the center torso at all. Meanwhile, the medium skilled player who misses and holds his reticle over a left torso instead of the CT still has a good chance to hit the CT. How is that fair to the super skilled player?

The CoF mechanic works for CoD because of the high rate of fire of most guns, and the fact that there are no separate hit boxes. Add in much slower rates of fire and the multiple hit boxes in MWO and I believe CoF simply does not translate.

Edited by RetroActive, 15 July 2013 - 07:18 PM.

[OnLashoc]

Cone of Fire...

Leave it alone, learn how to aim.

Edited by OnLashoc, 15 July 2013 - 06:50 PM.