373 replies to this topic

[Roland]

Joseph Mallan, on 03 April 2014 - 06:54 AM, said:

Reflex can be honed Yes. But clicking a mouse...
you really want to justify clicking a mouse as "Skill"?
I used to be able to throw Shuriken all day long into a target the size of a human heart from 25'. That is skill. I can click a mouse and put an arrow into a Goblin an 400 yards... that is not skill. That is a program crunching numbers and giving a result.

Yes, it is in every possible way a skill.

It involves precise, fine degree muscle control. That's why some people are better than others at it. Neurologically, it is identical to any number of other skill based activities. Most sports involve a combination of large muscle and fine muscle control. For instance, a wide receiver uses large muscle control to perform large movements and drive himself around the field, while using fine muscle control for things like catching the ball. And those find muscle controls are identical to the type of muscle control used in a video game.

When you reduce it to "clicking a mouse" you are effectively just ignoring all of the complexity that leads to that shot actually hitting... Because clicking the mouse doesn't hit the target. What hits the target is the neurological process of your nervous system perceiving the game's state, sending signals through your nerves to the small muscles in your arm and hands to trigger precise movements in order to generate fire on a location.

This is not a trivial sequence of events. That's why you don't always hit exactly where you want. That's why it involves skill, and certain players are better than others at it.

This isn't the ENTIRETY of skill used in MWO, of course, just like it's not the entirety of skill used in ANY shooter. But it most certainly is a component of the skill used to play the game, and it's ridiculous for people to try and trivialize the skill of players who are better than them, by suggesting it's not skill at all.

Regarding your example of clicking a mouse and shooting a goblin with an arrow... In a game like an MMO, then of course THAT isn't skill, because you aren't actually using any kind of precision to do that. That really IS just clicking the mouse, and all players can do that click equally well.

But in MWO, we aren't telling the system to fire guns, and trusting the automation to make them hit. (Well, except in the case of weapons like LRM's, which is exactly the point here.)

[Joseph Mallan]

Roland, on 03 April 2014 - 07:44 AM, said:

Yes, it is in every possible way a skill.

It involves precise, fine degree muscle control. That's why some people are better than others at it. Neurologically, it is identical to any number of other skill based activities. Most sports involve a combination of large muscle and fine muscle control. For instance, a wide receiver uses large muscle control to perform large movements and drive himself around the field, while using fine muscle control for things like catching the ball. And those find muscle controls are identical to the type of muscle control used in a video game.

When you reduce it to "clicking a mouse" you are effectively just ignoring all of the complexity that leads to that shot actually hitting... Because clicking the mouse doesn't hit the target. What hits the target is the neurological process of your nervous system perceiving the game's state, sending signals through your nerves to the small muscles in your arm and hands to trigger precise movements in order to generate fire on a location.

This is not a trivial sequence of events. That's why you don't always hit exactly where you want. That's why it involves skill, and certain players are better than others at it.

This isn't the ENTIRETY of skill used in MWO, of course, just like it's not the entirety of skill used in ANY shooter. But it most certainly is a component of the skill used to play the game, and it's ridiculous for people to try and trivialize the skill of players who are better than them, by suggesting it's not skill at all.

Regarding your example of clicking a mouse and shooting a goblin with an arrow... In a game like an MMO, then of course THAT isn't skill, because you aren't actually using any kind of precision to do that. That really IS just clicking the mouse, and all players can do that click equally well.

But in MWO, we aren't telling the system to fire guns, and trusting the automation to make them hit. (Well, except in the case of weapons like LRM's, which is exactly the point here.)

Being a homerun moster is by no means as much skill in A video game as it is on a baseball field.

And yes we are clicking a mouse and letting the computer crunch the numbers. Shooting an Arrow in an MMO and an AC in MW:O is put the cursor over the target and *CLICK* It is just that easy.

And if Missiles were as easy mode as you are suggesting more players would have higher hit percentages than they do with lasers (REALLY REALLY easy mode) an Ballistics. But to most of my reading The high skill Ballistics and Lasers have an easier time hitting targets. So how is it that my Big Skillz weapons have a higher hit percentage than my No skill LRMs? Shoudn't my Missiles have a higher Hit percentage than 30%? I have a 52% hit rate with AC20s cause I willingly shoot when my target is near max range. AC10 At 60% hit rate. Lasers 70-80% I would call these pretty much Easy mode weapons. LRMs... 25-36% hit rate...

So if I am so bad with The big manly must have skillz weapons *CLICK CLICK* why am I on average twice as good with em than Missiles???

Edited by Joseph Mallan, 03 April 2014 - 08:01 AM.

[Roadkill]

Roland, on 02 April 2014 - 07:37 PM, said:

If there is another player, who is better than you are at gunnery... the that means it's not actually "easy" to you. It means that playing at his level if actually beyond your current capability. It's HARD to you. You would need to exert effort, practice, and get better to play at this level... and until you do, you can't say what he does is easy, because it's beyond your capability.

Not at all. You're making the assumption that I want to get better. I don't. I'm happy playing the game at my current level with my current time commitments. I don't feel the need to get better at gunnery, though I know it would be easy to do so if I wanted to.

It isn't hard for me to get better. It would be easy if I cared to do it. But BECAUSE PGI I just don't care anymore.

You should not assume that the rest of us care deeply about maxing out our skills in this game, because it's pretty clear that most of us don't. We play this as a game - a pastime - and not as a job or skill that needs to be honed to perfection.

[Prezimonto]

Corwin Vickers, on 29 March 2014 - 05:40 PM, said:

I was/am totally serious.

LRMs suck. People who bring them today after having time to feel out the change, suck. People who think LRMs are good suck.

I feel the same way about a LRM boat as I do about people who bring LPL and LB10xs. F___ that guy for handicapping my team.

They may be ok if you bring a launcher or two for range or indirect fire for that rare occasion when it would be better than another ton of ammo or a heatsink and that might change after the slow them down. Who knows, we'll have to see how it feels.

Team work is OP.

I agree LRM's are bad for solo play. LRM's are in a really go place with teamwork. If you buff LRM's from here to benefit solo players, then they'll be honestly OP for teamwork situations.

The only real solution is to find a way to nerf either indirect fire, the synergy between spotters and LRMs, or carriers of 50+ missiles. IF those aspects of LRM's got a nerf, the rest of the system could be buffed.

[Roland]

Quote

And yes we are clicking a mouse and letting the computer crunch the numbers. Shooting an Arrow in an MMO and an AC in MW:O is put the cursor over the target and *CLICK* It is just that easy.

No, this is categorically false.

In an MMO, things like selection is done for you as well. There is no requirement for precision in clicking, as you are merely telling the system to perform an action on the selected target, which generally doesn't even require that you click on the target, but can rather be done via things like tabbing to it.

Firing a weapon in a shooter involves fine motor control and hand eye coordination. As I explained, it's neurologically identical to the types of fine motor control used in various other sports. The difference between a video game and a sporting event is in the requirements for physical strength and endurance, but not in fine motor control.

Quote

And if Missiles were as easy mode as you are suggesting more players would have higher hit percentages than they do with lasers (REALLY REALLY easy mode) an Ballistics.

We've already addressed this.

"Low-Skill" is not equivalent to "Easy-Mode". Having a low skill cap does not equate to combat effectiveness. It merely means that there is a lower level of skill involved in using that weapon system. The low skill cap means that it's much easier for any given player to become "the best" with that weapon system. It may still be the case that being "the best" with that weapon system is still ineffective compared to other weapons.

[Nicholas Carlyle]

Roland, on 03 April 2014 - 08:06 AM, said:

QQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQ

Just stop dude. It's sad.

[Joseph Mallan]

Roland, on 03 April 2014 - 08:06 AM, said:

No, this is categorically false.

In an MMO, things like selection is done for you as well. There is no requirement for precision in clicking, as you are merely telling the system to perform an action on the selected target, which generally doesn't even require that you click on the target, but can rather be done via things like tabbing to it.

Firing a weapon in a shooter involves fine motor control and hand eye coordination. As I explained, it's neurologically identical to the types of fine motor control used in various other sports. The difference between a video game and a sporting event is in the requirements for physical strength and endurance, but not in fine motor control.



We've already addressed this.

"Low-Skill" is not equivalent to "Easy-Mode". Having a low skill cap does not equate to combat effectiveness. It merely means that there is a lower level of skill involved in using that weapon system. The low skill cap means that it's much easier for any given player to become "the best" with that weapon system. It may still be the case that being "the best" with that weapon system is still ineffective compared to other weapons.

That is as dumb a thing as I have ever read Roland, and I am sorry to say that. The Noob tube is a combat effective weapon. So much so that every Marine Fire team has one!
It is so effective that they have a rapid fire version for vehicles. and how much skill does this require before it is combat effective?

Dam army gets all the new toys!

Edited by Joseph Mallan, 03 April 2014 - 08:18 AM.

[Roland]

Joseph Mallan, on 03 April 2014 - 08:14 AM, said:

That is as dumb a thing as I have ever read Roland, and I am sorry to say that. The Noob tube is a combat effective weapon. So much so that every Marine Fire team has one!
It is so effective that they have a rapid fire version for vehicles. and how much skill does this require before it is combat effective?

Joe, when I say "Having a low skill cap does not equate to combat effectiveness", I'm saying that there is not a correllation. That does not mean that there is an inverse correlation, or that you can't have a low skill weapon with a high combat effectiveness.

Consider, as an example purely created to illustrate the point, a weapon which when fired, ALWAYS hit the target you wanted, but did no damage.

In that case, you have a weapon with essentially infinitely low skill cap (that is, anyone using it is instantly using it at MAXIMUM effectiveness, always. Everyone is "the best" at using that weapon.) but also infinitely low combat effectiveness (while everyone is the best at using that weapon, being the best at it still means you are doing nothing with it).

Thus, even though LRM's have a lower skill cap than weapons you must aim manually, that does not automatically mean that they are more effective than manually aimed weapons.

Thus "low skill" does not equate to "easy mode", as many people seem to be misunderstanding.

[Joseph Mallan]

Roland, on 03 April 2014 - 08:21 AM, said:

Joe, when I say "Having a low skill cap does not equate to combat effectiveness", I'm saying that there is not a correllation. That does not mean that there is an inverse correlation, or that you can't have a low skill weapon with a high combat effectiveness.

Consider, as an example purely created to illustrate the point, a weapon which when fired, ALWAYS hit the target you wanted, but did no damage.

In that case, you have a weapon with essentially infinitely low skill cap (that is, anyone using it is instantly using it at MAXIMUM effectiveness, always. Everyone is "the best" at using that weapon.) but also infinitely low combat effectiveness (while everyone is the best at using that weapon, being the best at it still means you are doing nothing with it).

Thus, even though LRM's have a lower skill cap than weapons you must aim manually, that does not automatically mean that they are more effective than manually aimed weapons.

Thus "low skill" does not equate to "easy mode", as many people seem to be misunderstanding.

Point Click Drag
is lower skill than
Drag Point Click... Got it! Wait???

For the record the easier a weapon is to use the more fighting men like them. So Killing you from 1000 meters away from good cover and concealment is ideal(point and click) fighting at bayonet range... bad!

Edited by Joseph Mallan, 03 April 2014 - 08:28 AM.

[Roadkill]

Roland, on 03 April 2014 - 08:06 AM, said:

"Low-Skill" is not equivalent to "Easy-Mode". Having a low skill cap does not equate to combat effectiveness. It merely means that there is a lower level of skill involved in using that weapon system. The low skill cap means that it's much easier for any given player to become "the best" with that weapon system. It may still be the case that being "the best" with that weapon system is still ineffective compared to other weapons.

Then by your own definition, LRMs are not "low-skill" weapons. It is rather apparent that it is harder to be among the best in the game with LRMs than it is to be among the best in the game with FLD weapons.

Why is that? Because the skills required to be truly exceptional with LRMs are not the same as the skills required to be truly exceptional with FLD weapons. Perhaps more to the point, those skills don't easily translate from CoD, MW, or other current FPS games. They're more-or-less unique to MechWarrior-style games.

That said, it is also clearly easier to become competent with LRMs than it is to become competent with FLD weapons. LRMs have a steeper learning curve - you get better more quickly - than FLD weapons. But that in no way means that they are low-skill weapons by your definition.

[Magos Titanicus]

yawn

[Roland]

Joseph Mallan, on 03 April 2014 - 08:25 AM, said:

Point Click Drag
is lower skill than
Drag Point Click... Got it! Wait???

The skill difference tends to be in that you are aiming at dramatically smaller targets when using precision weapons compared to LRM's. For instance, a single component location of a light mech, vs. the missile lock reticle which is larger than the entire mech's body.

I mean, no one here is really suggesting that getting a missile lock is anything other than trivial, right? While hitting a fast moving target at range with a weapon like a PPC is LESS trivial, right? Perhaps easier than various other games make hitting a target (although many other shooters just use hitscan weapons), but certainly harder than what is involved in getting a missile lock which is trivial.

[Joseph Mallan]

Roadkill, on 03 April 2014 - 08:26 AM, said:

Then by your own definition, LRMs are not "low-skill" weapons. It is rather apparent that it is harder to be among the best in the game with LRMs than it is to be among the best in the game with FLD weapons.

Why is that? Because the skills required to be truly exceptional with LRMs are not the same as the skills required to be truly exceptional with FLD weapons. Perhaps more to the point, those skills don't easily translate from CoD, MW, or other current FPS games. They're more-or-less unique to MechWarrior-style games.

That said, it is also clearly easier to become competent with LRMs than it is to become competent with FLD weapons. LRMs have a steeper learning curve - you get better more quickly - than FLD weapons. But that in no way means that they are low-skill weapons by your definition.

And not to mention they work BEST when used as a two man team... The best Missile boats are ones that have Spotters worth all the ammo in the game!

Killing the enemy before they are a threat is a thinking mans way of combat.

Roland, on 03 April 2014 - 08:30 AM, said:

The skill difference tends to be in that you are aiming at dramatically smaller targets when using precision weapons compared to LRM's. For instance, a single component location of a light mech, vs. the missile lock reticle which is larger than the entire mech's body.

I mean, no one here is really suggesting that getting a missile lock is anything other than trivial, right? While hitting a fast moving target at range with a weapon like a PPC is LESS trivial, right? Perhaps easier than various other games make hitting a target (although many other shooters just use hitscan weapons), but certainly harder than what is involved in getting a missile lock which is trivial.

I put my cursor in the middle of the red square either way(Unless I am Sniping... then I have my eye on your eye/cockpit). I have to keep it on/near the target longer for Missiles than I do for ACs and Lasers. Fire and forget weapons are not more skilled weapons.

Edited by Joseph Mallan, 03 April 2014 - 08:34 AM.

[FupDup]

This thread has become:

[Roadkill]

Roland, on 03 April 2014 - 08:30 AM, said:

I mean, no one here is really suggesting that getting a missile lock is anything other than trivial, right? While hitting a fast moving target at range with a weapon like a PPC is LESS trivial, right? Perhaps easier than various other games make hitting a target (although many other shooters just use hitscan weapons), but certainly harder than what is involved in getting a missile lock which is trivial.

Getting a missile lock requires you to maintain aim at a (relatively large) area for several seconds. Once you have a missile lock, it is relatively easy to maintain provided LOS isn't broken, ECM isn't introduced, etc. If you're a missile boat standing still at 400+ meters, then getting a missile lock is relatively easy. One might even say trivial, yes.

The twitch timing required to fire a PPC at a target is different, certainly. But it is also "trivial" in its own way because all you have to do is time your shot as your crosshairs sweep across the target. You can "fire and forget" and go back to concentrating on maneuvering. But if we're talking about a PPC sniper standing still at 400 meters and comparing that to a missile boat standing still at 400 meters... then no, I don't think it's any harder to hit a target with PPC fire than it is to hit a target with LRMs. In fact, given in-game accuracy numbers, it's clearly harder to hit a target with LRMs than to hit a target with a PPC.

But the two weapons don't use the same skills, so trying to say one is "low skill" and the other is "high skill" is both pointless and irrelevant.

The stats don't lie. LRMs are ~40% accurate weapons if you're really good with them. FLD weapons are ~70% accurate if you're just pretty good with them. If you're really good they're probably 80% accurate even at range.

LRMs need a buff of some sort or they're pretty much just a waste of tonnage on your Mech. It still makes sense to use them because some Mechs just don't have sufficient other hard points, but given a choice between variants these days you should pretty much always choose ballistics first, then energy (and within energy, PPCs before lasers), then missiles.

[Roland]

Joseph Mallan, on 03 April 2014 - 08:34 AM, said:

I put my cursor in the middle of the red square either way(Unless I am Sniping... then I have my eye on your eye/cockpit). I have to keep it on/near the target longer for Missiles than I do for ACs and Lasers. Fire and forget weapons are not more skilled weapons.

Well, I would have to suggest then, based on what you are saying here, that you are perhaps not using those direct fire weapons in a particularly skillful way.

Skilled gunners aren't simply trying to hit your mech, due to the way damage is modeled in this game vs. most shooters. It's not good enough to simply land shots on a mech somewhere.

You need to be able to hit a specific component of that mech.

If you are trying to do that, rather than simply land a shot somewhere in the mech's general vicinity (inside the target designation box), then you're talking about aiming at a much smaller target with direct fire weapons compared to missile weapons.

Hell, even if you are just trying to hit a mech, and don't care where, hitting it with direct fire weapons involves aiming at a smaller target than LRM's, since simply being inside the target designation box won't land a hit.

Roadkill, on 03 April 2014 - 08:45 AM, said:

The twitch timing required to fire a PPC at a target is different, certainly. But it is also "trivial" in its own way because all you have to do is time your shot as your crosshairs sweep across the target.

But you are aiming at a dramatically smaller target, and actually being forced to do calculations in your head to lead the target appropriately when firing at range on fast targets. None of that is true with LRM's.

Quote

In fact, given in-game accuracy numbers, it's clearly harder to hit a target with LRMs than to hit a target with a PPC.

But the accuracy of the PPC is actually determined by the player shooting, whereas the accuracy of the LRM is largely out of his control in many cases... With indirect fire, it's totally out of his control. It's based purely upon whether his teammates are keeping a lock. This is generally the reason why folks often have low LRM accuracy rates... because they fired the missiles, and then their team lost the lock, so those missiles flew off into space.

So it's not really the case that it's "harder" to hit a target with LRM's... because in many of those cases, it's not something you can control at all. It's just something which happens, regardless of your actions as the shooter.

This is actually one of the biggest problems with LRM's, and why they tend to be so poorly balanced.

I would tend towards removing the indirect fire capabilities from them, but restore their tracking abilities they had earlier in closed beta. Probably actually include some more precise tracking on specific locations, like they had in MW4. In those cases, you could much more easily balance LRM's against other weapons.

Quote

The stats don't lie. LRMs are ~40% accurate weapons if you're really good with them. FLD weapons are ~70% accurate if you're just pretty good with them. If you're really good they're probably 80% accurate even at range.

Are you actually getting 70% accuracy with all of your direct fire weapons? Because in the past, some folks (including some of those folks posting in this thread) have stated that THEIR accuracy rates are actually down closer to 50%.

And as pointed out, that's merely hitting SOMETHING with a shot fired.. not necessarily the actual section you were aiming at.

For LRM's, they aren't 40% accurate "if you are really good at them". They are 40% accurate, pretty much for anyone shooting them.. The bigger differentiator for their accuracy is actually your TEAMMATES, rather than you, and their ability to hold a lock consistently.

[Joseph Mallan]

Roland, on 03 April 2014 - 11:06 AM, said:

Well, I would have to suggest then, based on what you are saying here, that you are perhaps not using those direct fire weapons in a particularly skillful way.

Skilled gunners aren't simply trying to hit your mech, due to the way damage is modeled in this game vs. most shooters. It's not good enough to simply land shots on a mech somewhere.

You need to be able to hit a specific component of that mech.

If you are trying to do that, rather than simply land a shot somewhere in the mech's general vicinity (inside the target designation box), then you're talking about aiming at a much smaller target with direct fire weapons compared to missile weapons.

Hell, even if you are just trying to hit a mech, and don't care where, hitting it with direct fire weapons involves aiming at a smaller target than LRM's, since simply being inside the target designation box won't land a hit.


But you are aiming at a dramatically smaller target, and actually being forced to do calculations in your head to lead the target appropriately when firing at range on fast targets. None of that is true with LRM's.

Oh I switch to pointing at the shoulder or the big honking AC barrel on occassions, But my real life combat training still takes over and center mass for the win Chuck. even though on the range I put 7:10 shots in a Human head sized target when I have an entire body silhouette to use at 500m. See Aiming for an enemy weapon in his hand isn't combat effective

[Roland]

Joseph Mallan, on 03 April 2014 - 11:14 AM, said:

Oh I switch to pointing at the shoulder or the big honking AC barrel on occassions, But my real life combat training still takes over and center mass for the win Chuck. even though on the range I put 7:10 shots in a Human head sized target when I have an entire body silhouette to use at 500m. See Aiming for an enemy weapon in his hand isn't combat effective

Sure, but we're playing giant robots, not shooting at human targets.

[Harathan]

/grenade

Aren't LRM systems primarily meant to be *support* weapons?

[Roadkill]

Roland, on 03 April 2014 - 11:06 AM, said:

So it's not really the case that it's "harder" to hit a target with LRM's... because in many of those cases, it's not something you can control at all. It's just something which happens, regardless of your actions as the shooter.

You're just proving that you don't understand the skill required to use LRMs to their potential.

If you fire LRMs and then a teammate loses your lock, then you shouldn't have fired. It's no different than aiming a PPC directly at a jump sniper who then falls back to earth while your PPC shot goes sailing over his head. You missed. Your teammate didn't make you miss; you failed to consider your teammates actions and time your LRM volley appropriately. You lacked the skill to properly use your LRMs.

Just one example of how LRMs require different skills than FLD weapons.

Quote

Are you actually getting 70% accuracy with all of your direct fire weapons? Because in the past, some folks (including some of those folks posting in this thread) have stated that THEIR accuracy rates are actually down closer to 50%.

Not all of them, no. I range from 55% to 90% depending on the weapon. But then I'm more of a brawler by nature. I have a tendency to miss at long range because I haven't bothered to practice leading targets at long range. I'm also dumb enough to try to use the AC/20 to hit moving targets at ranges beyond 500 meters. Sure, it can be done, but after the velocity nerf it's sort of pointless. Doesn't stop me, though. NEED MOAR DAKKAZ. Anyway...

I'm sure that I could get them all to 70% if I really cared to put in the effort. It wouldn't be hard, just time consuming. And since I don't have that much time to play these days, I'd rather play for fun.

Quote

They are 40% accurate, pretty much for anyone shooting them.

Not at all. Only the better (or, perhaps, more conservative) LRM users are at 40%. It seems like most LRM users are below that, with some people as low as 25-30%.

Quote

The bigger differentiator for their accuracy is actually your TEAMMATES, rather than you, and their ability to hold a lock consistently.

Again, incorrect. Your lack of skill in predicting the actions of your teammates is what causes you to lose lock.

A skilled LRM user knows which of his teammates is providing his lock, what that teammate is likely to do in various circumstances, and what threats are near that teammate.

An unskilled LRM user gets a lock and fires away without regard for any of that information, both giving away his own position fruitlessly and probably also putting a teammate at risk by letting the enemy know that there's a spotter on the prowl.