86 replies to this topic

[Talrich]

Master Q, on 30 July 2013 - 08:53 AM, said:

Sequential CT hits, much less sequential hits to any other panel, are statistically unlikely to the point of absurdity.

Actually random number generators produce streaks quite often. It is not statistically unlikely at all.

[Karr285]

Erata, on 30 July 2013 - 01:20 PM, said:

Have you seen the 4X zoom module? Video camcorders are Lostech.

you are aware that gyro's like that are VERY fragile to impact? anyway who is to say that this Mechwarrior Universe is our Future and not one where they ever developed this, really should stop comparing our current tech to what they "should have" in this timeline it doesn't help. Plus they have been bombing themselves to near annihilation for Hundreds of years.

anyway, since people refuse to loose their Pinpoint alpha Crutch, maybe they should change the weapons to remove the ability, IE AC 20 now shoots 4 rounds for 5 damage each over 1 second
AC 10 now shoots 4 rounds for 2.5 damage each over 1 second
AC 5 now shoots 4 rounds for 1.25 damage each over 1 second
AC 2 now shoots 4 rounds for .5 damage each over 1 second

PPC now does 5 damage front load with a .5 seconds trail of .1 damage per .1 second = 10 total.

Leaving only Gauss for its 15 pinpoint damage, since there is no "canon" way of changing that.

[Dethyr]

Talrich, on 30 July 2013 - 01:33 PM, said:

Actually random number generators produce streaks quite often. It is not statistically unlikely at all.

People are struck by lightning every day too, doesn't mean it is likely to happen to me when I press the post button. The occurrence of a specific pattern in a RANDOM finite set is, by definition, statistically improbable.

I don't get why people are coming in here claiming things that are obviously wrong.

Edited by Dethyr, 30 July 2013 - 03:00 PM.

[FatBabyThompkins]

Dethyr, on 30 July 2013 - 02:58 PM, said:

People are struck by lightning every day too, doesn't mean it is likely to happen to me when I press the post button. The occurrence of a specific pattern in a RANDOM finite set is, by definition, statistically improbable.

I don't get why people are coming in here claiming things that are obviously wrong.

It's the same reason people gamble. The mean is always a loss (or a gain in the house's eyes), but improbable results occur. It is a fundamental understanding of statistical analysis that people have a hard time with, especially with the unregulated systems almost all statistics fall in where many factors can contribute to a success or a failure (assuming binomial distribution).

[MaddMaxx]

Master Q, on 30 July 2013 - 08:12 AM, said:

You're missing the point.

snip

That is the reality of the game, currently. Every adjustment made to weapons that could be adjusted, has been adjusted to increase the chance of damage spreading across multiple panels.

snip

It is very interesting to read that particular statement. If true, then one has to simply assume that Convergence is a deliberate mechanic that the Dev have not changed, on purpose.

If that is then true, then why do you think it was left as is? To **** of the Community? To make the game less enjoyable? What could possibly be a valid reason to leave convergence as it is?

Come on, one of our many, many, Arm Chair Developers must know the answer...

[MaddMaxx]

Master Q, on 30 July 2013 - 08:41 AM, said:

And the mathematical chance of two weapons hitting the spot is increasingly unlikely.

2d6 probabilities spread as follows:
2d6 Probabilities
2 X
3 X X
4 X X X
5 X X X X
6 X X X X X
7 X X X X X X
8 X X X X X
9 X X X X
10 X X X
11 X X
12 X

1 result each can possibly lead to a 2 or 12 (snake eyes / boxcars). 6 results can give you a 7, which is a CT hit (assuming front arc shot).

Now, the chance of two 7's. The chance of a 7 that FIRST time is 6 out of 36 possibilities (1 in 6, or 16.7%).
The chance of two 7's in a row is P(7)^2, 1/6 times 1/6, or 1 in 36 now: 2.8%
The chance of three 7's in a row is P(7)^3, or now 1 in 216: 0.5%
The chance of four 7's in a row is 1 in 1296, or 0.08%

See how rapidly that diminishes? "Can happen" does not mean "will be seen often." In fact, it means we SHOULD NOT see it unless they are chain-firing and individually aiming their shots.

Let's use that Maths as an example of why "random cones" would suck balls. I present to you the SSRM2.

Before the current fix, the CT was the target almost all the time. Now their are 7 locations that get randomly selected based on currently "alive" sections o the target Mech.

Word is, with the "random" effect in play, shooting "Bones" instead of panels, the SSRM2 is now a BS weapon that takes away the shooters ability to place those piddly 3 points of damage where they want it, or need it to finish the job.

Now extrapolate that out to all weapons in "any sized group" and imagine the joy on the faces of MechWarriors everywhere. NOT!

This is not TT. Please put away your Dices...

[MaddMaxx]

Master Q, on 30 July 2013 - 11:35 AM, said:

You are attempting something the equivalent of holding one paintball gun in each hand, sitting on the bed of a truck with work out shocks, bouncing along off-road in a field, taking potshots at 10-30 foot wide targets from a distance of between 100 and 1000+ meters.

Does that start to give you an idea of what the difficulty should be? You should feel lucky you HAVE sights, not demand that you can hit a pixel from half a mile away.

If that is what you want MWO to play like, perhaps MW Tactics would be a better place for you. What you describe has none of the supposed "Skill" requirement and leaves nothing but luck to hit your target, even moving at 1/3 throttle.

The game should be FUN and not frustrating. IF you find the current Meta un-fun, then, again, perhaps MWTactics is for you.

[MaddMaxx]

FatBabyThompkins, on 30 July 2013 - 01:17 PM, said:

You're not stupid, but being naive if you think any shot should land where your reticule is, much less multiple weapons firing to one point on a target hundreds of meters out. Personally, I am for 1:1 convergence if it takes time and risk to accomplish it. You shouldn't have 1:1 convergence if you're moving and shouldn't have it immediately after stopping your movement either. Stand out of cover for 2 seconds, take your shot. Or take a snap shot and hope 1 or 2 of your "bullets" hit.

I always LOL when I read this BS. You know what? Try it in game and see what you think. Every shot you take, stand out in the open for a 2 second count, fire and retreat. Or when moving, purposely Miss every other shot, as you hoped to get a 50% hit rate right? See how much fun you have when the enemy figures out what your doing.

If you can propose such a crazy idea, at least have the kahoonas to test it and bring us back the results. We await the resultant rant and QQ of doing just what you propose. Thanks.

Edited by MaddMaxx, 31 July 2013 - 05:50 AM.

[James The Fox Dixon]

MaddMaxx, on 31 July 2013 - 05:42 AM, said:

If that is what you want MWO to play like, perhaps MW Tactics would be a better place for you. What you describe has none of the supposed "Skill" requirement and leaves nothing but luck to hit your target, even moving at 1/3 throttle.

The game should be FUN and not frustrating. IF you find the current Meta un-fun, then, again, perhaps MWTactics is for you.

What we have is One Click Wonders. There is no skill to alphaing one spot on a mech.

[MaddMaxx]

James The Fox Dixon, on 31 July 2013 - 05:47 AM, said:

What we have is One Click Wonders. There is no skill to alphaing one spot on a mech.

What we have is BattleMechs, many with heavy firepower, just like they are described in the Lore and the Books. A single BattleMech could/can destroy a Major City solo. What many need is to learn how to avoid getting shot repeatedly by these monster, all the while putting your own heavy firepower accurately down range.

P.S. There is also no "Skill" when what I aim at does not get hit, due to some BS addition that comes from a Board Game and uses Die as the deciding factor either.

[James The Fox Dixon]

MaddMaxx, on 31 July 2013 - 05:54 AM, said:

What we have is BattleMechs, many with heavy firepower, just like they are described in the Lore and the Books. A single BattleMech could/can destroy a Major City solo. What many need is to learn how to avoid getting shot repeatedly by these monster, all the while putting your own heavy firepower accurately down range.

P.S. There is also no "Skill" when what I aim at does not get hit, due to some BS addition that comes from a Board Game and uses Die as the deciding factor either.

Prove that there is no skill involved when you remove pin point convergence while utilizing the system I proposed. Oh you can't since it does take more skill to land more shots on target.

[FatBabyThompkins]

MaddMaxx, on 31 July 2013 - 05:54 AM, said:

What many need is to learn how to avoid getting shot repeatedly by these monster

Repeatedly and one-shot are mutually exclusive. We have a game with one-shot kills or otherwise entirely crippling mechs. A mech game that must be won on repetitive shots, IMO is far superior. Your entire argument is L2P. It ignores the argument put forth by saying the person making the argument is a bad player and thus not worthy to put forth an argument, also known as a genetic fallacy. I do not know your reasons for wanting to continue the current meta game. Ask yourself why, then come here and objectively tell us why the current game is good to go and why a great many peoples arguments are invalid.

Edited by FatBabyThompkins, 31 July 2013 - 06:16 AM.

[FatBabyThompkins]

MaddMaxx, on 31 July 2013 - 05:47 AM, said:

I always LOL when I read this BS. You know what? Try it in game and see what you think. Every shot you take, stand out in the open for a 2 second count, fire and retreat. Or when moving, purposely Miss every other shot, as you hoped to get a 50% hit rate right? See how much fun you have when the enemy figures out what your doing.

If you can propose such a crazy idea, at least have the kahoonas to test it and bring us back the results. We await the resultant rant and QQ of doing just what you propose. Thanks.

That is entirely the point, but not only are you affected, but everyone is. If you come out to take a shot, you have to stand still and present yourself to receive fire. The other side must do the same. If you come out and they want to get a retaliatory shot before you get back into cover, then they must take a quick shot, with no guarantee of a success. If you walk out of cover into a gun line, you should expect to get shot.

The next rebuttal I'm sure to see is, "but that's not fun!". On it's own, it surely is not. If both sides do nothing but quick peeks with a shot that have little chance of hitting anything, no that is not fun for both sides. It encourages people to get closer and give a good brawl. But you don't want to brawl, you say. Great, stand back, let the brawlers brawl and take shots at opportune targets while a good chunk of the enemy is face to face with Mr. Atlas. Take out the opposing snipers if you want. Get in the brawl as well. PPC/Gauss is pretty damn effect in close range (an entirely different subject that has been broached before).

[3rdworld]

FatBabyThompkins, on 31 July 2013 - 06:25 AM, said:

That is entirely the point, but not only are you affected, but everyone is. If you come out to take a shot, you have to stand still and present yourself to receive fire. The other side must do the same. If you come out and they want to get a retaliatory shot before you get back into cover, then they must take a quick shot, with no guarantee of a success. If you walk out of cover into a gun line, you should expect to get shot.

The next rebuttal I'm sure to see is, "but that's not fun!". On it's own, it surely is not. If both sides do nothing but quick peeks with a shot that have little chance of hitting anything, no that is not fun for both sides. It encourages people to get closer and give a good brawl. But you don't want to brawl, you say. Great, stand back, let the brawlers brawl and take shots at opportune targets while a good chunk of the enemy is face to face with Mr. Atlas. Take out the opposing snipers if you want. Get in the brawl as well. PPC/Gauss is pretty damn effect in close range (an entirely different subject that has been broached before).

No, it encourages camping with snipers.

If you want brawling to be effective. Try buffing brawling weapons.

[Joseph Mallan]

James The Fox Dixon, on 30 July 2013 - 08:14 AM, said:

1. If they torso twist then they move the aim spot for the other weapons mounted on the mech. This is to be used in conjunction with proper heat penalties like killing your pilot if you hit a high enough heat threshold.

2. Then you shouldn't be playing this game since it is a Battletech base game. The developers have to follow the laws of the world that they have licensed. This means that no FEW weapons should hit the same location.

FTFY
Some weapons hit the same location in Canon, just not like they do in the MMO.

[FatBabyThompkins]

3rdworld, on 31 July 2013 - 06:30 AM, said:

No, it encourages camping with snipers.

If you want brawling to be effective. Try buffing brawling weapons.

Please tell me how it encourages camping. The brawlers want to get into close range (yes, there are brawlers out there). With less of a chance to hit on quick shots, the brawlers can get into range with less damage. Unless the sniper exposes himself to some fire to put shots on those incoming brawlers. Also leaving him open to counter sniper fire, but not before he can make a good shot on the incoming force. The brawlers engage, likely with other brawlers, leaving the snipers to support the melee. Either against each other, or to take out targets in the melee. Your skirmishers (yes, there are skirmishers out there), the light mechs, are either going after vulnerable brawlers or snipers. LRM boats (suprise, yet another non sniper build) are back with the snipers to put damage on brawlers, but more likely as counter sniper as the missiles may hurt friendly brawlers in the melee.

And holy crap we have class based warfare. I'm not saying it is perfect and will exactly go to this model with one change. Many changes need to be made.

[MaddMaxx]

James The Fox Dixon, on 31 July 2013 - 05:56 AM, said:

Prove that there is no skill involved when you remove pin point convergence while utilizing the system I proposed. Oh you can't since it does take more skill to land more shots on target.

I do not have to prove anything. It is your proposed system. You prove to everyone that it would be better? Oh you can't. Damn that straw-man hyperbole.

[MaddMaxx]

FatBabyThompkins, on 31 July 2013 - 06:15 AM, said:

Repeatedly and one-shot are mutually exclusive. We have a game with one-shot kills or otherwise entirely crippling mechs. A mech game that must be won on repetitive shots, IMO is far superior. Your entire argument is L2P. It ignores the argument put forth by saying the person making the argument is a bad player and thus not worthy to put forth an argument, also known as a genetic fallacy. I do not know your reasons for wanting to continue the current meta game. Ask yourself why, then come here and objectively tell us why the current game is good to go and why a great many peoples arguments are invalid.

I think I read it here somewhere. It seemed to make sense really.

"If your getting one-shotted, repeatedly, then your doing it WRONG!"

Your entitled to your opinion, as we all are. What I am not asking for is to make the game some BS form of another game. This is MWO, not whatever you want it to be.

Again! Why do so many people think that players should NOT have to L2P "any game" they wish to play? Learning how to play is the FUN bit ffs.

Many of the proposed changes made to "add" skill simply add random BS that does not serve the greater good. IMO of course.

[MaddMaxx]

FatBabyThompkins, on 31 July 2013 - 06:25 AM, said:

That is entirely the point, but not only are you affected, but everyone is. If you come out to take a shot, you have to stand still and present yourself to receive fire. The other side must do the same. If you come out and they want to get a retaliatory shot before you get back into cover, then they must take a quick shot, with no guarantee of a success. If you walk out of cover into a gun line, you should expect to get shot.

The next rebuttal I'm sure to see is, "but that's not fun!". On it's own, it surely is not. If both sides do nothing but quick peeks with a shot that have little chance of hitting anything, no that is not fun for both sides. It encourages people to get closer and give a good brawl. But you don't want to brawl, you say. Great, stand back, let the brawlers brawl and take shots at opportune targets while a good chunk of the enemy is face to face with Mr. Atlas. Take out the opposing snipers if you want. Get in the brawl as well. PPC/Gauss is pretty damn effect in close range (an entirely different subject that has been broached before).

So "don't change the Meta" just make everyone have to expose themselves for greater time frames in order to deliver their ordinance? Is that it? Genius... well

Except, not all weapons are created equal and your proposal would drive those who don't PPC/Gauss "every" Mech they drive to do just that. The issue at hand is not resolved sadly. Folks do not like to die, period. When they do, they blame the game or how the other players play it.

Solve that problem and genius would be among us.

[FatBabyThompkins]

MaddMaxx, on 31 July 2013 - 07:04 AM, said:

I do not have to prove anything. It is your proposed system. You prove to everyone that it would be better? Oh you can't. Damn that straw-man hyperbole.

The least you can do is get your fallacies correct. You're calling out the onus probandi AKA burden of proof.