22 replies to this topic

[Bishop Steiner]

Just been thinking about this game, and the hot topic of contentiousness that CoF has long been here.

On the one hand, you have those who rage at the thought of anything compromising "pure skill", which is sorta laughable, because one is simply holding a pixel and clicking. Mad skills.

Then you got the folks who point out how most other FPS use it. Thing is, most other FPS aren't in giant war machines with targeting computers to help compensate.

Both have points, and both overlook factors from the other's argument. That said, I do think that a limited usage of CoF would actually make a lot of sense in MW:O. Here are the scenarios, and why, IMO it would make sense, and actually enhance the skill needed.

1) When moving over 3/4 of you maximum throttle. A CoF that gets worse the faster you go make sense here. For one thing, there are limits to how fast a compensator from a targeting computer can adjust. Also, there is a reason that few combat vehicles IRL achieve high hit rates while going maximum speed. One could still move at reasonable speed without any "penalty" but this nonsense of full throttle head shots at 1000 meters because someone is using a big screen monitor and a low dps sensitivity mouse is handled in a fair manner.

2) Jumping. When jumping, you are using raw thrust to overcome lifting a 50-100 ton mech with the aerodynamic quality of a brick. One advantage is that introducing a mild cone of fire when jumping would eliminate the need for "cockpit shake" when jumping, and calm the complaints of those who "got sick watching it". IF that is the real reason for the complaint. (In some cases it was legit I am sure. But lets be honest, mostly it's people who don't like their favorite tactic being made more difficult)

3)When outside a weapons "Optimal Range".
MW:O has changed the range dynamic of Btech and MW. Weapons have ranges that are twice (energy) to thrice (ballistic) the range in TT. You do have damage drop off of course. But with the limitation of targeting systems being the oft quoted fluff reason for the maximum range being laughable, it makes sense that outside of this "Optimal" range, the Targeting System would have trouble compensating for variables, and thus, accuracy would suffer. Having an increasing CoF starting at the end of the "Optimal" range for a weapon still keeps skill the relevant factor, while in the weapons "actua;" range, but still make them usable at etreme range, as the likelihood of a missed shot would be small except at the furthest edge of the range bubble. Which is how it is IRL. An Abrams does not have a guaranteed hit rate at it's "Maximum effective range" as it does on a target parked 100 meters away. Deal with it.

4) When using UACs at full auto.
An idea that popped up when discussing if UACs were OP or not. The concept of the jam mechanic has long been that recoil and such of the heightened rate of fire along wit other factors, compromised reload reliability. In TT, this was made worse by the fact that once a UAC jammed, it was USELESS the rest of the game. Also, it could fire exactly 2 shots per cycle, not go full auto like our version. Instead of changing this or going to the ever popular "Ghost Heat" or such as a way to tone down the current meta-abuse with UACs (FotM^tm), introducing a CoF that got worse with each subsequent shot would allow the Mech to still go full-auto psycho, but by spreading the damage similar to the way the lowly MG does, would make it less likely to core out an Atlas in 5 seconds flat.

5) Allows for a simple sensible Mechanic for Clan Targeting Computers.
How? Simple It removes the CoF out to double range, and then at the triple range bracket for ballistics, introduces the smaller CoF that Mechs would usually experience at Double range (aka past "optimal range"). Add in "lead suggestions" like the MW3 version had and you have a fully viable Clan Targeting Computer mechanic.

Anyhow, just a few thoughts I have on ways CoF Could be intelligently applied to the game without wrecking the "skill" the game is based on, by by simply reigning in the more extreme areas where the game mechanics have been serial abused.

I am sure many will take exception to these ideas, and that is fine. Your arguments will carry much more weight if presented in concise, mature ways. But by all means, debate is good.

Edited by Bishop Steiner, 14 September 2013 - 01:48 PM.

[Utilyan]

Your post reminds me of Rainbow 6. Which was my first encounter in a FPS where there was consideration of where my shots would fall depending if I was moving or not or crouching.

The crosshairs would extend displaying the area of the cone of fire when I was moving. and they would get smaller when I wasn't moving.

There is a crowd of folks who do think random is less reflective of skill, but prob would be more accepting when understood as probabilities and the management of probabilities does indeed take skill.


I'm not familiar with the BT rules, did they have like modifiers to hit based on if you were moving? This might be a good way to express this in game.

[Bishop Steiner]

Utilyan, on 14 September 2013 - 01:56 PM, said:

Your post reminds me of Rainbow 6. Which was my first encounter in a FPS where there was consideration of where my shots would fall depending if I was moving or not or crouching.

The crosshairs would extend displaying the area of the cone of fire when I was moving. and they would get smaller when I wasn't moving.

There is a crowd of folks who do think random is less reflective of skill, but prob would be more accepting when understood as probabilities and the management of probabilities does indeed take skill.


I'm not familiar with the BT rules, did they have like modifiers to hit based on if you were moving? This might be a good way to express this in game.

They did indeed.

Depending on experience level, you had a base "to-hit" number from 2-12, on 2d6.
An immobile mech shooting at PBR had the best chance to hit.
Walking, you had a modifier to hit
Running a bigger one.
Jumping, even bigger.

Also, those modifiers were affected by whether the target was also moving.

Add into weapons like Pulse Lasers and thins like Targeting Computers gave positive multipliers.

Mind you this is a simplified rundown, but gives the basic gist.

the full list of modifiers are here
http://www.sarna.net/wiki/CBT_Tables

Mind you, I agree, we don't want' to translate the mechanics of a random die rolls into an FPS game. But the point usually missed is those "Random" die rols took into account the variables and difficulties. Most of these "skill" fanatics have never handled real weapons. And you can have the best sighted in sniper rifle in the world. And most people would still miss a 9" pie plate with it at 100 meters.

Because they don't understand drop, wind speed, stability of rest, breath control and a myriad of other issues that require REAL skill to overcome. And that is without adding in the unpredictability of a live target. There is a reason that IRL trained military snipers with far more "skills" than most people on these forums will ever understand, can still miss a shot. There is a reason that as you get further out in range, no matter how perfectly stable, rifles fire GROUPS, not a laser guided one pinpoint hole. And the further that distance, the wider that grouping becomes, because there are variables too minute in themselves to fully compensate for, but which in real world use, do affect accuracy.

There is a reason that a deadly accurate sniper rifle, which is usually in the 1/4 MOA range or less (1/4 MOA meaning it will consistently print 3 or better, 5 shot groups, within a 1/4" "cone of fire" at 100 meters. That same rifle, all things being equal SHOULD print about 1/2" groups at 200 meters, etc.

The thing is, the further out you go, the more loss of velocity, wind speed and other environmental factors, including the drag on the bullet, it's ballistic co-efficient, etc affect the bullet, and thus accuracy.

But then again, the people who learn to compensate for this in real life are apparently just rolling dice, and not learning to compensate for these realities with SKILL.

[DarkDevilDancer]

Mechs in battletech in this time period have terrible targeting computers far worse than modern machines, that's because after three hundred years of near constant war much advanced technology has been lost with no resources to do anything more than patch things together each time a mechs damaged.

If it was a true sim you'd have to lock on first and then fire not just with missiles but every weapon, that might work for bt fans but it would drive away alot of others.

[Jack Avery]

DarkDevilDancer, on 14 September 2013 - 04:21 PM, said:

Mechs in battletech in this time period have terrible targeting computers far worse than modern machines, that's because after three hundred years of near constant war much advanced technology has been lost with no resources to do anything more than patch things together each time a mechs damaged.

If it was a true sim you'd have to lock on first and then fire not just with missiles but every weapon, that might work for bt fans but it would drive away alot of others.

I'm not even sure most of the hardcore BT fans would enjoy that so much, but that isn't what Bishop is asking for. What he and others want is for there to be more to aiming than just point and click, or minor lead distance for the slower ballistics.

Simply put, we need some deviation in aim, but that deviation only occurs in certain circumstances that the pilot has complete control over. Want a steady shot? Don't go full throttle. That kind of thing. Random isn't skilless if your own actions contribute to the randomness or allow you to recover from same randomness. It doesn't have to be just dice rolls.

[Bishop Steiner]

Jack Avery, on 14 September 2013 - 04:48 PM, said:

I'm not even sure most of the hardcore BT fans would enjoy that so much, but that isn't what Bishop is asking for. What he and others want is for there to be more to aiming than just point and click, or minor lead distance for the slower ballistics.

Simply put, we need some deviation in aim, but that deviation only occurs in certain circumstances that the pilot has complete control over. Want a steady shot? Don't go full throttle. That kind of thing. Random isn't skilless if your own actions contribute to the randomness or allow you to recover from same randomness. It doesn't have to be just dice rolls.

give the man a cookie for not only understanding, but distilling the point to a perfect tl;dr essence.

[Kaarde]

I got into a discussion of this topic on both CB and OB. Both times it devolved down to Skill should land the shots not a dice roll.

Meaning that the people wanted nothing to do with the subject.

While I'm in favor of using COF I am of the opinion that arms and torso should have differing mechanics. Meaning that movement should have a larger effect on arm mounted weapons than torso because they are appendages and the actuators will provide some give to inertia.

That being said, mechs with no lower arm actuators should have a smaller cof than those that do.

This all could provide lots of opportunities to differentiate chassis and variants further and make decisions on what to use more meaningful. Not to mention modules, pilot skill trees, weapon types and possibility upgrade mech parts.

The big IF in all of this would be PGI`s ability to plan it through and implement it in a rational way.

Edited by Kaarde, 14 September 2013 - 07:03 PM.

[Alek Ituin]

Kaarde, on 14 September 2013 - 07:01 PM, said:

I got into a discussion of this topic on both CB and OB. Both times it devolved down to Skill should land the shots not a dice roll.

Meaning that the people wanted nothing to do with the subject.

While I'm in favor of using COF I am of the opinion that arms and torso should have differing mechanics. Meaning that movement should have a larger effect on arm mounted weapons than torso because they are appendages and the actuators will provide some give to inertia.

That being said, mechs with no lower arm actuators should have a smaller cof than those that do.

This all could provide lots of opportunities to differentiate chassis and variants further and make decisions on what to use more meaningful. Not to mention modules, pilot skill trees, weapon types and possibility upgrade mech parts.

The big IF in all of this would be PGI`s ability to plan it through and implement it in a rational way.

You think PGI can do anything "rationally" "properly", or even "well balanced". I doubt they understand those words.

[Corvus Antaka]

Bishop Steiner, on 14 September 2013 - 12:46 PM, said:

1) When moving over 3/4 of you maximum throttle. A CoF that gets worse the faster you go make sense here. For one thing, there are limits to how fast a compensator from a targeting computer can adjust. Also, there is a reason that few combat vehicles IRL achieve high hit rates while going maximum speed. One could still move at reasonable speed without any "penalty" but this nonsense of full throttle head shots at 1000 meters because someone is using a big screen monitor and a low dps sensitivity mouse is handled in a fair manner.

imho cone of fire growing as you move faster would only encourage the 12 man blob to blob even more, move even slower, and jumpsnipe even more.

[Bishop Steiner]

Colonel Pada Vinson, on 15 September 2013 - 01:17 AM, said:

imho cone of fire growing as you move faster would only encourage the 12 man blob to blob even more, move even slower, and jumpsnipe even more.

since the CoF also happens when Jumpingl that would seem to eliminate that.

And TBH< your aim IS better whn you move slow. Can't really change that. Rather have a slow blob then some SoB with a jumbotron and slow mouse nailing my cockpit at 1000 meters in a streaking PPC jenner.

[Rasc4l]

Very good post. These changes would make the game more enjoyable.

These CoFs are also suggested to function in modeling the clan targeting computers. I like this idea and it got me thinking that the CoF stuff could be added to pilot skill trees as well. This would make things a bit more incremental instead of just IS CoF doubles at 2x range and clan at 3x. I would also suggest that since the point here is in no way to dilute this effect, these skills would be quite expensive, like the module slot or more.

For example. Pay 10k XP and your IS mech's CoF begins to deteriorate only at 1.1-2.0x range instead of 1.0-2.0x range. Pay 20k XP and it's 1.2-2.0 and maybe final level 3 is 30k XP and 1.3-2.0.

[Ophidian]

Interesting ideas, but please do not increase spread for faster moving mechs. I don't think we need to give players any additional need to spam their heavies and assaults.

[Kaarde]

Ophidian, on 15 September 2013 - 03:18 AM, said:

Interesting ideas, but please do not increase spread for faster moving mechs. I don't think we need to give players any additional need to spam their heavies and assaults.

I would think that each weight class would have its own dynamic with this. Not to mention quirks coming into play here.

I rather think lights would have to be effected by the COF though. It would be difficult to explain away why a light moving 140kph plus over terrain can hit with all weapons a target moving half that speed at range.

This is where the pilot trees that they described to us would come into play, not to mention the currently useless Pinpoint efficiency in the mech trees.

Under this a less experienced player would have a larger come than a more experienced one that has xp invested in the mechanic.

[RavensScar]

Kaarde, on 15 September 2013 - 04:17 AM, said:

I would think that each weight class would have its own dynamic with this. Not to mention quirks coming into play here.

I think this is an excellent point. A Jenner running at 150kph and still firing with near pin-point accuracy really is a bit of a joke. But I don't think an Atlas moving at 50kph should have the same penalties. To be honest, it would make sense if penalties were minimal up to (say) 65kph. I understand in the fluff this is the standard design speed for many mediums, heavies and assaults. Therefore it would be logical that targeting computers have more difficulty compensating at speeds greater than this.

[Alek Ituin]

Ophidian, on 15 September 2013 - 03:18 AM, said:

Interesting ideas, but please do not increase spread for faster moving mechs. I don't think we need to give players any additional need to spam their heavies and assaults.

Assaults and Heavies should be the most effective gun platforms in the game.

Hell, the only reason you have the Assault weight class is because somebody wanted a mobile bunker with a metric f**k-ton of weapons stuffed into it. That's the entire purpose of Assaults, to boat weapons and be a massive pain in the a** for everybody on the enemy team.

Heavies should be your middle ground, half a metric f**k-ton of weapons in a more mobile semi-bunker. Bash on lighter weight classes, and be capable of moving at alarming speeds with your alarmingly powerful weaponry.

Both of them are still slow enough, and solidly built enough that arm bouncing or loose fitting gun mounts would be a non-issue. This of course is because your arm weighs about 5 tons in say... an Atlas, and you can use said arm to pick up a Commando and brandish it as a mace (most Assaults and some Heavies could probably do this too if they have hands). I think Assaults/Heavies have more than enough arm actuator power to handle some little guns or lazors and move about without losing accuracy.

Light 'Mechs however, do not have the appropriate amount of actuator power or a solid enough build to handle firing anything at 125+kph with any semblance of accuracy.

[Ophidian]

They already are the best gun platforms in the game. Currently, heavies and assaults basically amount to glorified turrets, with little to no reason to move at all, except in brawling.

If you apply greater inaccuracy towards faster moving mechs, you are effectively eliminating lights and mediums as moderate to long distance fighters, when they are already getting rarer, AND making their lives at short range harder than it already is.

While I agree that accuracy being affected by speed makes sense in real life and on most FPS platforms, it does not practically make sense from a game balance perspective for MWO.

[Nik Van Rhijn]

Great ideas here again. Unfortunately it doesn't seem to meet either PGIs "grand vision" or present target demographic..

[Alek Ituin]

Ophidian, on 15 September 2013 - 07:40 AM, said:

They already are the best gun platforms in the game. Currently, heavies and assaults basically amount to glorified turrets, with little to no reason to move at all, except in brawling.

If you apply greater inaccuracy towards faster moving mechs, you are effectively eliminating lights and mediums as moderate to long distance fighters, when they are already getting rarer, AND making their lives at short range harder than it already is.

While I agree that accuracy being affected by speed makes sense in real life and on most FPS platforms, it does not practically make sense from a game balance perspective for MWO.

Mediums shouldn't be hit nearly as hard as Lights. They're rather solidly built, and I'm sure their standard FCS systems are built for the 60-80kph range no problem. However, their use as long range gun platforms or rear line units should be very limited. Medium 'Mechs are the most populous weight class and have the most varied designs, and are the most widely used mid-range combat units in BT.

Light 'Mechs are subject to rather extreme forces and for the most part they're spindly little things. Lack of reinforcement and small, light construction don't really add to your stability while going 125+kph. And a Light 'Mech shouldn't be of any use at medium to long ranges anyway. They're scouts and recon units, not mid-range brawlers or rear line support units.


Case in point - Light 'Mechs should be forced to fight up close, and Medium 'Mechs should be primarily mid ranged units.

Edited by Alek Ituin, 15 September 2013 - 08:32 AM.

[Corvus Antaka]

Bishop Steiner, on 15 September 2013 - 02:11 AM, said:

And TBH< your aim IS better whn you move slow. Can't really change that. Rather have a slow blob then some SoB with a jumbotron and slow mouse nailing my cockpit at 1000 meters in a streaking PPC jenner.

so why add cone of fire to make things even slower? As you note, aim is already improved when slower.

[Ophidian]

Alek Ituin, on 15 September 2013 - 08:31 AM, said:

Medium 'Mechs are the most populous weight class and have the most varied designs, and are the most widely used mid-range combat units in BT.

Which is not at all the case in MWO.