1080 replies to this topic

[Craig Steele]

The hills have tounges and eyes now??

[Cimarb]

Varent, on 12 January 2014 - 07:24 PM, said:

I disagree, I've been testing it with friends and it works quite well.

If so, that testing is biased enough where you still aren't seeing what I am talking about, which again proves my point: You want a certain result, so nothing I say will change those results, regardless of how irrefutable it is.

[Mcgral18]

Well, one way to get decent data would be to try both builds. Run either in 12 man sync duels, or just a 4 man group and use the various builds and gauge performance.

I would say the 12 man syncs could get better data, since you know both pilots would be competent, and you can arrange different settings for the builds to be tested.

[Joseph Mallan]

Tombstoner, on 10 January 2014 - 12:26 PM, said:

O you where seriously looking to see a comparison with real world tech? sigh.

Everything about BT evolved from the stand point that precision guided munitions stop development at the 1980's level, other wise mech design would have been drastically different.
It's why TT used a 2d6 for determining hit location.

With MWO level of accuracy and precision you would never build mechs with such a variate of shapes. arm mounted weapons would be capable of being lifted strait up and shoot over buildings and hills. the only thing that gets exposed would be the weapons.... so a very different sort of game.

You sir are the one who gave me the ammo I needed. You said we can hit a target with GPS tracking within a few Meters (quite an achievement honestly). This is partly the reason why TT used Random hit locations. Cause a couple meters in any direction could be an arm or a leg, instead of a Center Torso or Head. The Advanced Targeting Computer that allows Called shots (the kind of shooting we have now) cost 1 ton and one crit for every 4-5 tons of weapons on a 'Mech. That is +5 Tons a Warhawk does not need as shooting goes right now!

[Varent]

Cimarb, on 13 January 2014 - 06:26 AM, said:

If so, that testing is biased enough where you still aren't seeing what I am talking about, which again proves my point: You want a certain result, so nothing I say will change those results, regardless of how irrefutable it is.

I can say the same. And they do not seem irrefutable at all and your refusing to play test is questionable. I dont want to argue with you. I honestly feel we should come together to try to test some things to come to an understanding. Im sorta feeling you dont want to playtest or work towards this because you feel I may be right though. However since you refuse to come to playtesting we will never know. GL either way and ill continue to argue my point I suppose.

Mcgral18, on 13 January 2014 - 06:39 AM, said:

Well, one way to get decent data would be to try both builds. Run either in 12 man sync duels, or just a 4 man group and use the various builds and gauge performance.

I would say the 12 man syncs could get better data, since you know both pilots would be competent, and you can arrange different settings for the builds to be tested.

been doing this exact thing. Still need to get together to try this. Sorry its been busy, been doing alot of 12 mans with the guild and focusing on guild stuff of late.

[Tombstoner]

Joseph Mallan, on 13 January 2014 - 06:43 AM, said:

You sir are the one who gave me the ammo I needed. You said we can hit a target with GPS tracking within a few Meters (quite an achievement honestly). This is partly the reason why TT used Random hit locations. Cause a couple meters in any direction could be an arm or a leg, instead of a Center Torso or Head. The Advanced Targeting Computer that allows Called shots (the kind of shooting we have now) cost 1 ton and one crit for every 4-5 tons of weapons on a 'Mech. That is +5 Tons a Warhawk does not need as shooting goes right now!

Exactly.... presumably that extra tonnage is needed to substitute for the lack of a GPS systems and includes active and passive sensors plugged into computers for screen scrapping/calculations/ triangulations excreta.

I realize that any reference to real COP performance is easily countered with show me. People can't simply accept what i consider common knowledge that modern non laser guided systems are very accurate: a few meters. Are they paper plate accurate. That i cant say. The government may not easily release that info. but It is possible to hit a ballistic missile moving at multi mach speeds. It wasn't possible in the 80's. that was kinda the point of the star wars program.

Also the weapon being used must be considered. Iraq skud missile accuracy was +/- 1.5 miles. now for a missile to hit a target with a COF of 3 miles in size would be considered inaccurate/ useless except that SKUD missiles where designed to carry nukes. Being 1-2 miles off from your target with a nuke detonation is considered a hit.

My point was to set a science fiction oriented base line for the technical performance that is embodied within the TT Rules and resulting mech designs. it explains why a 2d6 hit roll works and pin point accurate breaks the design regardless of how it "Feels"

Science fantasy is an oxymoron. Its also the genre that gives us sharknado and and all the other garbage being produced by the SYFY channel. it has its place, just not anywhere near BT.

[Cimarb]

Varent, on 13 January 2014 - 07:20 AM, said:

I can say the same. And they do not seem irrefutable at all and your refusing to play test is questionable. I dont want to argue with you. I honestly feel we should come together to try to test some things to come to an understanding. Im sorta feeling you dont want to playtest or work towards this because you feel I may be right though. However since you refuse to come to playtesting we will never know. GL either way and ill continue to argue my point I suppose.

been doing this exact thing. Still need to get together to try this. Sorry its been busy, been doing alot of 12 mans with the guild and focusing on guild stuff of late.

Sorry, I'm just a little perturbed at the complete lack of compromise from you, and my posts have reflected that annoyance so I apologize. You say you do play testing with your guild, but every bit of your testing has obviously been biased because you have refused to acknowledge anything other than how jump jets are the issue, which they aren't. It's like saying walking is the issue because it lets you move around a wall to shoot the enemy.

I "playtest" every night by dropping in actual random matches. I don't set up scenarios, have biased people in my playtesting, or have any sort of organization to it. I have no clue what my ELO is, but I wind up in drops with the leaders of the Davion Royal Guards quite often and even had a match with Khobai a day or two ago. I see the prevalence of autocannons in every single match and, while I do see jump snipers in most matches, they are no more dangerous than any other snipers. It is not the jump jets that are the issue - it is the front-loaded damage burst that they take advantage of that is the issue. I don't need to get into a group with you to see that, and it would be pointless because neither of us are going to change our minds on the issue and I would rather be able to edit my comments on this forum than do this over a live comm and regret what I say...

[Varent]

Cimarb, on 13 January 2014 - 08:01 AM, said:

Sorry, I'm just a little perturbed at the complete lack of compromise from you, and my posts have reflected that annoyance so I apologize. You say you do play testing with your guild, but every bit of your testing has obviously been biased because you have refused to acknowledge anything other than how jump jets are the issue, which they aren't. It's like saying walking is the issue because it lets you move around a wall to shoot the enemy.

I "playtest" every night by dropping in actual random matches. I don't set up scenarios, have biased people in my playtesting, or have any sort of organization to it. I have no clue what my ELO is, but I wind up in drops with the leaders of the Davion Royal Guards quite often and even had a match with Khobai a day or two ago. I see the prevalence of autocannons in every single match and, while I do see jump snipers in most matches, they are no more dangerous than any other snipers. It is not the jump jets that are the issue - it is the front-loaded damage burst that they take advantage of that is the issue. I don't need to get into a group with you to see that, and it would be pointless because neither of us are going to change our minds on the issue and I would rather be able to edit my comments on this forum than do this over a live comm and regret what I say...

Keep in mind you may be percieving things based off the skill or lack of skill in groups you are playing with or droping with as well as specific preference. This can largely effect what you see and what your feelings are. This is a major reason why I would instead encourage a mixed drop with a group dedicated to testing so that you could see a multitude of different playstyles.

I am unmoving on my opinion because I test and through this testing I strongly feel I am correct just as you feel the same. This is also why I want to include you in testing. Ive said multiple times ive nothing against you and I keep trying to keep it as civil as possible.

[Cimarb]

Varent, on 13 January 2014 - 08:10 AM, said:

Keep in mind you may be percieving things based off the skill or lack of skill in groups you are playing with or droping with as well as specific preference. This can largely effect what you see and what your feelings are. This is a major reason why I would instead encourage a mixed drop with a group dedicated to testing so that you could see a multitude of different playstyles.

I am unmoving on my opinion because I test and through this testing I strongly feel I am correct just as you feel the same. This is also why I want to include you in testing. Ive said multiple times ive nothing against you and I keep trying to keep it as civil as possible.

My wife tries to do that in arguments too

Hand picking your testing group is as biased as it comes. I appreciate the offer, but I feel testing it in actual random drops is much better testing because it is blind. I see what people are ACTUALLY playing by their own choice and how they are playing naturally, not within a "testing environment". Regardless of how you organize it, if the participants know in advance that they are testing, their actions are going to be biased. It was a fault in my suggestion that you try it out yourself - you were against jump jets to start off with, so you are going to find fault with them (and not the weapons) regardless of what I have you do.

Here is an example: if I hand you a gallon of milk and say "man that's good" as I drink a glass, you are likely to drink some without worry. If I instead hand it to you and say "smell that and see if it's bad", you are going to assume its bad and smell it first, if not outright refuse.

You have already said the milk is bad, so I'm refusing to drink it.

[Varent]

Cimarb, on 13 January 2014 - 08:30 AM, said:

My wife tries to do that in arguments too

Hand picking your testing group is as biased as it comes. I appreciate the offer, but I feel testing it in actual random drops is much better testing because it is blind. I see what people are ACTUALLY playing by their own choice and how they are playing naturally, not within a "testing environment". Regardless of how you organize it, if the participants know in advance that they are testing, their actions are going to be biased. It was a fault in my suggestion that you try it out yourself - you were against jump jets to start off with, so you are going to find fault with them (and not the weapons) regardless of what I have you do.

Here is an example: if I hand you a gallon of milk and say "man that's good" as I drink a glass, you are likely to drink some without worry. If I instead hand it to you and say "smell that and see if it's bad", you are going to assume its bad and smell it first, if not outright refuse.

You have already said the milk is bad, so I'm refusing to drink it.

Bring your own testing group, or combine a testing group with my own? And actually ive extended the offer to a few people. Im willing to bend and work under any restrictions to try to make it a good clean environment as much as you wish? We can agree to a set of ideas that we want to test and work over and come together on some concepts to test and then you can use your own people under the controlled circumstances.

[Cimarb]

Varent, on 13 January 2014 - 08:39 AM, said:

Bring your own testing group, or combine a testing group with my own? And actually ive extended the offer to a few people. Im willing to bend and work under any restrictions to try to make it a good clean environment as much as you wish? We can agree to a set of ideas that we want to test and work over and come together on some concepts to test and then you can use your own people under the controlled circumstances.

Seriously, I don't group - it's a rule I have set for myself and is why I have not added anyone in game (at all). Not going to get into the why, but it is what it is. Nothing personal.

I want to test burst fire and some sort of change for PPCs. I can't do that until PGI starts using the test server like they are supposed to.

[Noesis]

Varent, on 13 January 2014 - 08:39 AM, said:

Bring your own testing group, or combine a testing group with my own? And actually ive extended the offer to a few people. Im willing to bend and work under any restrictions to try to make it a good clean environment as much as you wish? We can agree to a set of ideas that we want to test and work over and come together on some concepts to test and then you can use your own people under the controlled circumstances.

As much as I will still suggest PGI as being capable of having their own data for issues I cannot condone such efforts for the interests of science.

Problem with lab rats is though, they don't truly behave like rats in the wild, but I still think with due care an attention and looking at effective baselines that can be measured it might still return some interesting understanding.

And even if it might be against my better judgement I'd be interested in offering my time to the cause, so I'd be willing to help test things. I expect Varent you will jump at the chance to have an opportunity to offload ordinance in my direction?

[Cimarb]

Noesis, on 13 January 2014 - 08:58 AM, said:

I expect Varent you will jump at the chance to have an opportunity to offload ordinance in my direction?

Lol, that's funny.

[Varent]

Noesis, on 13 January 2014 - 08:58 AM, said:

As much as I will still suggest PGI as being capable of having their own data for issues I cannot condone such efforts for the interests of science.

Problem with lab rats is though, they don't truly behave like rats in the wild, but I still think with due care an attention and looking at effective baselines that can be measured it might still return some interesting understanding.

And even if it might be against my better judgement I'd be interested in offering my time to the cause, so I'd be willing to help test things. I expect Varent you will jump at the chance to have an opportunity to offload ordinance in my direction?

for the pure sake of not wanting to start problems I would make a point to not fire at ya and instead let you jsut observe others actually? Though to be frank I think we have hit a nice middle ground of understanding at least and ive agreed with alot of your posts as of late since we are working towards the same thing in a few areas.

That said. yes there is always the issue of lab rats not acting like lab rats. Though I think if you take a large enough test group and CONTINUE to test and work at things you can at least get a nice idea and concept no?

[Noesis]

Varent, on 13 January 2014 - 09:02 AM, said:

for the pure sake of not wanting to start problems I would make a point to not fire at ya and instead let you jsut observe others actually? Though to be frank I think we have hit a nice middle ground of understanding at least and ive agreed with alot of your posts as of late since we are working towards the same thing in a few areas.

That said. yes there is always the issue of lab rats not acting like lab rats. Though I think if you take a large enough test group and CONTINUE to test and work at things you can at least get a nice idea and concept no?

Its simply a case of being able to understand how things are being measured, some content will remain constrained by the underlying form however despite the test conditions. So it is just a case of identifying the premise of the test accordingly and identifying the test conditions as apparent to the understanding. I don't mind doing these kinds of things as long as there is condition to understand this nature in the process and not formulate conclusions beyond the scope of the study.

Other than that I personally think it would be helpful therapy for you to fire at my Mechs. Assuming this is in no way detrimental to the progression of science.

[Joseph Mallan]

Tombstoner, on 13 January 2014 - 07:43 AM, said:

Exactly.... presumably that extra tonnage is needed to substitute for the lack of a GPS systems and includes active and passive sensors plugged into computers for screen scrapping/calculations/ triangulations excreta.

I realize that any reference to real COP performance is easily countered with show me. People can't simply accept what i consider common knowledge that modern non laser guided systems are very accurate: a few meters. Are they paper plate accurate. That i cant say. The government may not easily release that info. but It is possible to hit a ballistic missile moving at multi mach speeds. It wasn't possible in the 80's. that was kinda the point of the star wars program.

Also the weapon being used must be considered. Iraq skud missile accuracy was +/- 1.5 miles. now for a missile to hit a target with a COF of 3 miles in size would be considered inaccurate/ useless except that SKUD missiles where designed to carry nukes. Being 1-2 miles off from your target with a nuke detonation is considered a hit.

My point was to set a science fiction oriented base line for the technical performance that is embodied within the TT Rules and resulting mech designs. it explains why a 2d6 hit roll works and pin point accurate breaks the design regardless of how it "Feels"

Science fantasy is an oxymoron. Its also the genre that gives us sharknado and and all the other garbage being produced by the SYFY channel. it has its place, just not anywhere near BT.

TT had that baseline. Having our "supposed" skills converge 3-5 weapon on one paper plate sized target is just not right for weapons that are accurate to "a few meters". It's why we got "advanced" targeting computers. To be able to put multiple weapons impact on a dime.

In one of the older MW games I remember hitting what I was shooting at (much like TT) but then when I used my Advanced Targeting Computer I could put 6 lasers in the Right Knee Actuator. As it is right now, we don't have to pay the price for that accuracy and we should have to. It is why that piece of hardware was put into the game. As it stands it is not needed in MW:O Cause the whiners got it added for free in Closed Beta.

[Varent]

Noesis, on 13 January 2014 - 09:12 AM, said:

Its simply a case of being able to understand how things are being measured, some content will remain constrained by the underlying form however despite the test conditions. So it is just a case of identifying the premise of the test accordingly and identifying the test conditions as apparent to the understanding. I don't mind doing these kinds of things as long as there is condition to understand this nature in the process and not formulate conclusions beyond the scope of the study.

Other than that I personally think it would be helpful therapy for you to fire at my Mechs. Assuming this is in no way detrimental to the progression of science.

frankly my stress relief is minecraft

That said, I think your euro time ya? Im pacific so would have to be on weekends when I can play in the mornings my time.

My thoughts just because I feel a good time for them is this. (since we cant test burst balistic atm) We test the viability of jump jet builds and FLD items against other mechs in different configurations. This wouldnt be real combat testing as the testing would be made as sterile as possible while simulating combat situations, for example one mech move and shield with an arm while another makes a jump in the air and fires down. Then test without shielding, Then test with a different angle taken. Then test with different mechs.

Obviously these are just ideas. Most of the testing ive done bas basically been jump capable mechs with ppc/ac minus the jump jets and how they do with often times me being the guinea pig and dieing alot.

[Tombstoner]

Joseph Mallan, on 13 January 2014 - 09:17 AM, said:

Stuff i agree with.



As it stands it is not needed in MW:O Cause the whiners got it added for free in Closed Beta.

That last part i cant go along with. The accuracy increase is PGI's attempt to differentiate this game from other games. Not hitting what your aiming at is frustrating. i total get it. it's something i hate about WOT but i accept it cause i know its derived from real world data adapted to WOT. Its just that the IP's source mechanics require a lot of tweaking and conversion that didn't happen during beta, but it "Feel's good".

Current levels of accuracy/ precision could have been obtained via a player skill tree or slots. something you grind at or spend money / GXP on. Auto cannons could have been realigned twords real world performance and no one would have batted an eye. hey its not TT right.

My vision for MWO is a cross between EVE and WOT just with mechs. Not Counter strike with mechs. I want the conquest of the IS one hex at a time, not who won the most battles for a faction in a 24 hour time frame.

So without fixing the fundamental flaw with weapons, clan mechs are FUBAR due to cool art. PGI will have to resort to reworking all the hit boxes for all mechs.... PGI will have to shrink the CT hit box and replace it with more torso and in turn more torso gets converted into arm. The end result is your mech's upper body hit boxes might be 50% arm, 40% torso 10% CT.

where you place your shots becomes irrelevant if the hit boxes dont match the art work.

So in the future when you aim at a torso section and hit it, but your shot registers on the arm instead.....its not the fault of bad net code, you can thank all the Luddites who resist fixing accuracy forcing PGI to pervert the hit boxes. But it "Feels good"

Edited by Tombstoner, 13 January 2014 - 10:09 AM.

[Joseph Mallan]

Hitting what you are aiming at requires some practice, but hitting what you are aiming at when it is moving while youare in motion is a whole new level of frustration. A one meter maybe two meter RoF would be more realistic to what is actually happening, cause as it is right now at 600+meters what you shoot at now, may not be there when the projectile reaches the range.

[Nik Van Rhijn]

Did you mean CoF (cone of Fire) rather than Rate of Fire Joe?
I just wish we had a test server.