198 replies to this topic

[Joseph Mallan]

No, to no aiming nerf.

[Taemien]

3rdworld, on 15 August 2013 - 10:13 AM, said:

In aggregate they don't all hit the same spot. Unless you are trying to say you are dying and the only damage you have taken is to your CT.

Usually when I die, it looks something like this:



Which I doubt is that disimilar to what a TT mech looked like when they died. (assuming they weren't insta killed off course).

Funny thing about TT, just played a game of it tonight. None of the mechs that went down went down like that. One got decapitated by a Heavy Gauss, another got legged, and another.. well yes, the Jenner did look like that now that I think about it.. after an Avatar slammed it with 2x MRM20s (12 and 16 missile salvo hit). Crazy *** stuff lol.

You can never be sure in TT how a mech will meet its demise. I've seen a Daishi go down in one shot from a Medium Pulse Laser from a first turn through armor critical CT hit.

[Theodor Kling]

Taemien, on 15 August 2013 - 09:20 AM, said:

FPS is like playing tag, MWO is like playing chess.

If I want to play a modern day shooter. I would play one. But I want to play MechWarrior instead.

Really? Chess? This game? Not even close.

But I agree on that other point: If I want to play a shooter, I do. But MWO should not be one.

[MrZakalwe]

Dimento Graven, on 15 August 2013 - 09:30 AM, said:

Right, but here's the thing, I'd rather be fighting YOU, not your better ping rate and not your uber PC with your 32inch monitor cranked up to max res.

How do you balance the equipment differences that will give one player advantage over another?

How do you add more of that 'TT' feel to the game that so many fans and potential players grew up with?

I'm not saying a full blown add LOTS and LOTS of missing to the aiming mechanism. Again, the system I envisioned was more of a 'conical tube of fire' than a 'cone of fire', and it mainly added some mitigation to the long range sniping that has become a mainstay of this game.

It by no means would eliminate it, but it would make it so that firing at a target at over a mile away would not ALWAYS result in EVERY weapon hitting the EXACT SAME SPOT.

It's not unreasonable to assume there's a bit of 'fudge' in play, atmospheric conditions, wind variances, et al, would naturally add a randomness. Why not try and incorporate it?

But again, I'm ambivalent, add it or don't, for me personally it makes no difference.

I'm just thinking what might be helpful, LONG TERM, for the entire community...

So you say you want to play against me and not my hard ware you want to introduce a system where we are both mangled and moving at the same speed, we both fire the same guns at the same point on each others mechs but one of us lives and one of us dies because Random Number Generator!

Adding the luck factor to every engagement in this game a better game will not make.

[MustrumRidcully]

Pht, on 15 August 2013 - 07:59 AM, said:

I suspect he was referring to the idea in most FPS/shooter games that there is virtually NO simulation of anything but direct control over ALL of the aiming equation.

MW, by definition, requires that the 'mech have a part in the overall aiming equation.

By your definition, but i don't think that is the universally shared one.

But be consoled - the mech has a part in the overall aiming equation. The equation is solved by the computer, of course, which instantly adjusts the aim of weapons so they converge on the object under your crosshair. If you lead, this can cause your weapon hits to not converge, and the error is dependent on your mech's physical weapon layout.

You might not agree with simulating it this way, but that doesn't mean it isn't.

[3rdworld]

Taemien, on 15 August 2013 - 09:02 PM, said:

Funny thing about TT, just played a game of it tonight. None of the mechs that went down went down like that. One got decapitated by a Heavy Gauss, another got legged, and another.. well yes, the Jenner did look like that now that I think about it.. after an Avatar slammed it with 2x MRM20s (12 and 16 missile salvo hit). Crazy *** stuff lol.

You can never be sure in TT how a mech will meet its demise. I've seen a Daishi go down in one shot from a Medium Pulse Laser from a first turn through armor critical CT hit.

Which is why I don't feel the removing convergence based on multiple shots hitting the same location in TT carries any weight.

[Fooooo]

3rdworld, on 15 August 2013 - 09:22 AM, said:

You understand you basically admitted removing convergence lowers the effects of skill? Which is pretty well the complete opposite of what a competitive game is trying to accomplish.

And bad PCs? Really? That is why it is bad for the game? The freaking game was built on the cryengine. One of the most computer intense engines ever developed. Convergence has absolutely nothing to do with people having poor pcs or connections. Besides that HSR was designed to alleviate these issues.

But you think it would be easier to explain to a new player, that this futuristic war machines weapons don't shoot at the crosshairs? You are grasping at straws man.



Placebo.

How did you get him stating no skill from removing convergance ?

I mean, I don't claim to speak for him, but nowhere in his post does he mention anything about skill.


To that point tho, what is easier...you tell me.


1 aimer that every weapon goes to. As in, when you fire, EVERY weapon you have will hit where that SINGLE (one) recticle is pointing.

OR

Aiming 5 seperate recticles on the same target and firing each section when its on the CT.


Which requires more skill ?....................................

[3rdworld]

Fooooo, on 16 August 2013 - 05:11 AM, said:

How did you get him stating no skill from removing convergance ?

I mean, I don't claim to speak for him, but nowhere in his post does he mention anything about skill.


To that point tho, what is easier...you tell me.


1 aimer that every weapon goes to. As in, when you fire, EVERY weapon you have will hit where that SINGLE (one) recticle is pointing.

OR

Aiming 5 seperate recticles on the same target and firing each section when its on the CT.


Which requires more skill ?....................................

Neither, As long as the shot goes where the reticle is, they both are the same. Using 5 is just tedious, which would lead to stacking weapons on arms or in the case of the highlander all on 1 torso location.

Dimento Graven, on 15 August 2013 - 09:13 AM, said:

With all that in mind it's no wonder that there's a significant number of 'under skilled' or 'under equipped' or 'under serviced' players who feel the need to mitigate 'unnatural' advantages.

Should clear it up.

Edited by 3rdworld, 16 August 2013 - 05:19 AM.

[Fooooo]

3rdworld, on 16 August 2013 - 05:19 AM, said:

Neither, As long as the shot goes where the reticle is, they both are the same. Using 5 is just tedious, which would lead to stacking weapons on arms or in the case of the highlander all on 1 torso location.




Should clear it up.

I understand that aiming in itself is the same (the principle of aiming...you move the mouse and press a button......) when using 1 recticle or many.....however, is it not easier to aim once, then press the mouse, rather than aim 5 times and press the mouse 5 times to get the same output ?

Do you think you would get 100% CT hits with all 5 mouse clicks compared to your 1 mouse click in the same amount of time ?

If you say yes then I have no idea what to tell you....other than you must be a computer and cheat to be able to increase your torso movement etc.

If your only problem is using mechs that stack in 1 section....the only 1 I can think of is the HBK........not many mechs have more than 2 (useful) slots on the arms. (3 ballistics like on a dragon dont count)

So the highlander with 2ppc in torso and 2pcc in the arm (or a gauss in the arm).......they have to aim twice instead of once.
Better than that same mech aiming once, and it doesnt really hurt any other mech at all. Infact the HBK would gain an advantage as its RT would converge....meaning 6 energy weapons will hit the same spot from its RT.

A mech that has to put its ppcs/gauss on more than 2 sections however............

EG

You take out the highlanders arm and he loses basically 50% of his firepower. (2pccs or a gauss)

You take out a cataphracts arm and he loses 1 ppc....or 1 energy weapon..... (for the 3d.)

Granted its usually better to just go for the CT, however, if everyone was stacking arm mounted mechs......and people just started taking out the arms (arms generally have less HP than a CT and no front or back like the torso sections.........) ......then those arm mechs are useless for most of the fight. (can be ignored)

Edited by Fooooo, 16 August 2013 - 05:36 AM.

[MrZakalwe]

Fooooo, on 16 August 2013 - 05:34 AM, said:

I understand that aiming in itself is the same (the principle of aiming...you move the mouse and press a button......) when using 1 recticle or many.....however, is it not easier to aim once, then press the mouse, rather than aim 5 times and press the mouse 5 times to get the same output ?

Do you think you would get 100% CT hits with all 5 mouse clicks compared to your 1 mouse click in the same amount of time ?

If you say yes then I have no idea what to tell you....other than you must be a computer and cheat to be able to increase your torso movement etc.

If your only problem is using mechs that stack in 1 section....the only 1 I can think of is the HBK........not many mechs have more than 2 (useful) slots on the arms. (3 ballistics like on a dragon dont count)

So the highlander with 2ppc in torso and 2pcc in the arm (or a gauss in the arm).......they have to aim twice instead of once.
Better than that same mech aiming once, and it doesnt really hurt any other mech at all. Infact the HBK would gain an advantage as its RT would converge....meaning 6 energy weapons will hit the same spot from its RT.

A mech that has to put its ppcs/gauss on more than 2 sections however............

EG

You take out the highlanders arm and he loses basically 50% of his firepower. (2pccs or a gauss)

You take out a cataphracts arm and he loses 1 ppc....or 1 energy weapon..... (for the 3d.)

Granted its usually better to just go for the CT, however, if everyone was stacking arm mounted mechs......and people just started taking out the arms (arms generally have less HP than a CT....) ......then those arm mechs are useless for most of the fight. (can be ignored)

This would dramatically punish builds that relied on multiple guns in different locations.

Doubly punish builds that have multiple guns with different projectiles.

Those things are already harder to use with the current system than the 2/3 gun problem children and you would make their lives even worse

Think of the Atlai...

P.S. my PPC Stalker has two PPCs in each arm.

Left mouse button fires the two in the left arm and right mouse button fires the two in the right arm.

This would change nothing for me.

Edited by MrZakalwe, 16 August 2013 - 05:40 AM.

[Tombstoner]

Its all been said before.... just some of the names have been changed.
its like listening to my grandparents argue..... again about WWII or Korea...

[MrZakalwe]

Tombstoner, on 16 August 2013 - 05:40 AM, said:

Its all been said before.... just some of the names have been changed.
its like listening to my grandparents argue..... again about WWII or Korea...

Previously they didn't have a ghost heat system in that has largely removed large alphas from the game

Ghost heat may have been an ugly and clunky solution but it does seem to have worked in all cases except 2xERPPC+1xGauss.

Big alphas where convergence is a problem have mostly left the game.

[3rdworld]

Fooooo, on 16 August 2013 - 05:34 AM, said:

I understand that aiming in itself is the same (the principle of aiming...you move the mouse and press a button......) when using 1 recticle or many.....however, is it not easier to aim once, then press the mouse, rather than aim 5 times and press the mouse 5 times to get the same output ?

Do you think you would get 100% CT hits with all 5 mouse clicks compared to your 1 mouse click in the same amount of time ?

If you say yes then I have no idea what to tell you....other than you must be a computer and cheat to be able to increase your torso movement etc.

If your only problem is using mechs that stack in 1 section....the only 1 I can think of is the HBK........not many mechs have more than 2 (useful) slots on the arms. (3 ballistics like on a dragon dont count)

So the highlander with 2ppc in torso and 2pcc in the arm (or a gauss in the arm).......they have to aim twice instead of once.
Better than that same mech aiming once, and it doesnt really hurt any other mech at all. Infact the HBK would gain an advantage as its RT would converge....meaning 6 energy weapons will hit the same spot from its RT.

A mech that has to put its ppcs/gauss on more than 2 sections however............

EG

You take out the highlanders arm and he loses basically 50% of his firepower. (2pccs or a gauss)

You take out a cataphracts arm and he loses 1 ppc....or 1 energy weapon..... (for the 3d.)

Granted its usually better to just go for the CT, however, if everyone was stacking arm mounted mechs......and people just started taking out the arms (arms generally have less HP than a CT and no front or back like the torso sections.........) ......then those arm mechs are useless for most of the fight. (can be ignored)

No one lands every shot to the CT now, why do people arguing for forced inaccuracy say that? Have you ever died from only CT damage and no other location was hurt? Ever?

All highlander, and all victors not the DS, have weapons in just 2 locations. Atlas has only 1 torso mounted weapon and the others are in the arms, which would make zero sense to not have convergence.(I am ignoring SRMs)

Why would I need 5 mouse clicks? The best mechs in the game use 3 weapons, and generally 2 of them are in the same location. 2 clicks at most, and even that wouldn't make sense on mechs using a ballistic arm which could just as easily lock onto the RT reticle as it could the convergence reticle.

So aside from trying to fix a non-existent insta kill problem, you are only making many mechs worse, and reinforcing others as being the best.

Edited by 3rdworld, 16 August 2013 - 05:59 AM.

[Dimento Graven]

MrZakalwe, on 15 August 2013 - 11:33 PM, said:

So you say you want to play against me and not my hard ware you want to introduce a system where we are both mangled and moving at the same speed, we both fire the same guns at the same point on each others mechs but one of us lives and one of us dies because Random Number Generator!

Adding the luck factor to every engagement in this game a better game will not make.

Not at all, keep this in mind when you read my posts: I am beginning to come to the conclusion that it is highly unreasonable that firing multiple weapons at a target over a mile away will result in all of those shots hitting the EXACT same spot. Even in a sci-fi based BattleMech simulation.

I believe that a 'conical tube of fire' is more REASONABLE, as it allows for some 'fudge' factor for recoil, atmospheric interference, windage, et al, that would cause some small bit of randomness that just can't be accounted for by human or computer.

The 'conical tube of fire' allows for a natural increase in 'pin point' accuracy the closer in you are, while maintaining some realistic ambiguity at extreme range.

I believe that it's at extreme range where the differences in PC equipment and your ISP will hit hardest. A person with a very large monitor and uber graphics card with the resolution turned up will be able to see a target hundreds of meters farther than someone with a 15" monitor and an average graphics card. That, plus the lag difference in ISP means it's possible for the opponent to see the lesser equipped person several seconds before its even possible for the other's equipment to put it on screen. All the lesser equipped person is going to see is a shot coming from nowhere with no obvious target to aim and fire back at.

It's possible the lesser equipped person has more skill and the person with better equipment and better ISP is the player with the LEAST skill, but now due to how this game currently works, the lesser skilled person gets an unnatural advantage over the skilled player.

AT LEAST AT EXTREME RANGE, there should be a bit of fudge.

The "conical tube of fire" provides that with as little affect as possible, practically none, to closer ranged fighting.

Edited by Dimento Graven, 16 August 2013 - 09:50 AM.

[Dimento Graven]

3rdworld, on 16 August 2013 - 05:58 AM, said:

...Why would I need 5 mouse clicks? The best mechs in the game use 3 weapons, and generally 2 of them are in the same location. 2 clicks at most, and even that wouldn't make sense on mechs using a ballistic arm which could just as easily lock onto the RT reticle as it could the convergence reticle.
...

With the 'conical tube of fire' system you don't need 5 clicks. Take a look at MWO's current targeting reticule, there's one pixel in the center that is the ONE 'pin point' that ALL your weapons use. I'm saying each weapon equipped on a 'mech should have its own 'pin point', 5 weapons - 5 pin points, 10 weapons - 10 pin points.

Next, all the pin points should be invisible, and the reticule should just be a circle of about .5cm diameter. Inside that circle all the pin points would moving randomly.

At extreme range that means not all shots will hit the same spot.

At close range, it has little affect as the closer the target the less surface area the .5 cm circle covers and the more the weapons will converge on the same location (just not the exact same spot on the location).

When you fire, you click once for all grouped weapons under that button, and the computer just uses the appropriate pin points for that weapon group, but all weapons fire simultaneously.

5 pin points, one click.

Edited by Dimento Graven, 16 August 2013 - 09:58 AM.

[Taemien]

3rdworld, on 16 August 2013 - 04:50 AM, said:

Which is why I don't feel the removing convergence based on multiple shots hitting the same location in TT carries any weight.

I don't think how things work in TT should have any bearing on how convergence works here. I had a better idea for this stuff in another thread:

Taemien, on 15 August 2013 - 09:09 PM, said:

I suggested this a couple of months ago. It made better sense than convergence changes and easier to code.

Jumps around slightly when walking, a bit more when running (66%+ throttle) and a lot more when jumping (like now). The distance the reticle moves increases with heat level.

Totally doable without any reengineering, no crazy convergence shtuff, and shots still go where the reticle is so we have complete control over where the shots are, just gets challenging to get the reticle where we want it. Simulates the lore by having us fight with the reticle.

I believe shots should go where we point our reticle. But if its a challenge to get the reticle where we want it, then I'm alright with that. But I don't believe a shot should go where the reticle isn't pointing. If I point the reticle at someone and fire a laser and it doesn't hit, even though the reticle is right over them, thats not a challenge, thats just frustration.

[DamnCatte]

My favorite idea is still what I'm calling the Chromehounds method: That torso mounted barrel probably isn't going to be able to pinpoint most things easily. With exception of arms which can move about (some only vertically) I think weapons should fire straight out of their barrels/lenses/tubes. There's no randomness to it, the gun fires straight, it just doesn't converge. If you have properly reticulated arms, then those operating in convergence does make sense, but a PPC in LT and RT shouldn't be able to strike perfectly the same location at 50m as at 500m. You lose the full force pintpoint alpha, but you dont lose the full force alpha as long as you keep in mind where your weapons are. Especially now that we have the testing grounds, I cant imagine it would take too long to figure out where your guns are going.

Or we could just start basing all of our rules on the new "Alpha Strike" system that just came out... ;]

[Jestun]

If the only 2 options were instant pin-point convergence or completely random cone of fire this thread might have been useful.

But it's not.

[Pht]

MustrumRidcully, on 16 August 2013 - 12:02 AM, said:

By your definition, but i don't think that is the universally shared one.

Of fps/shooter?

Of of mechwarrior (the video game genre) - ?

The former, I can see having differing definitions of, as long as they don't contradict the mere content of "first person shooter" or "shooter."


The latter - no, it's not just "my" definition. It's a part of THE definition - the MW genre is not a wax nose. It does have boundaries - if it doesn't, this game could legitiamtely be made into checkers and still be called an MW video game.

Quote

But be consoled - the mech has a part in the overall aiming equation. The equation is solved by the computer, of course, which instantly adjusts the aim of weapons so they converge on the object under your crosshair.

I've been discussing how it happens in the lore (and thus, how it should happen in the game) - and in MWO, no, the mech, besides JJ shake and dual reticules does NOT take part in the aiming equation.

"Instant adjustment" is not a simulation of the lore, which does not have "instant adjustment" - not even in the hands of morgan kell, kai allard liao, natasha kerensky, or the bounty hunter - not even those characters would be able of this if they were piloting prometheus, with their brain literally jacked into the 'mech.

Quote

If you lead, this can cause your weapon hits to not converge, and the error is dependent on your mech's physical weapon layout.

You might not agree with simulating it this way, but that doesn't mean it isn't.

You either do simulate (imitate) a thing or you don't - there is nothing in between. It's a yes-no, did you or didn't you.

Edited by Pht, 18 August 2013 - 10:08 AM.