339 replies to this topic

[Kudzu]

Phades, on 08 January 2012 - 06:13 PM, said:

Eh? You are just making people boat with gauss/ppc combos or large lasers instead of smaller weapons. Stationary and large banks of small lasers, flamers, or mg? Really?

I didn't say "rip it out and put in a bank of weapons", I said that smaller weapons short range balance out vs the larger weapons in different ways.

Quote

What about cover? The close range guy will never hit anything until melee range, while the long range guy will never be hit since only the bare minimum of his gun will be pointing out.

And the close range guys need to use speed and cover of their own to close the gap. If you have a sniper hiding in such perfect cover it means that he's got plenty of blind spots to exploit as well.

Quote

Also, the target's speed has more impact on the final calculation to hit than your movement did and at least equal weight to the distance. So, do your reticule just arbitrarily get bigger since your target is moving? What about movement directly towards or away (IE the easiest shots in the game i don't care which you are playing)?

That's where you shift away from the TT. Adjusting for target speed and angle should be handled by where you put your cone, perhaps with plenty of testing to find a good balance between torso rotation speeds and how hard it is to hit a fast moving target.

Quote

Think harder of a different mechanic because you have to realize that the rules were simplified to maintain dice based play and a lot of that was just arbitrary.

Anything will be better than "point, click, kill" of the old games.

[Fooooo]

I HATE RNG and bad cones of fire....

I like recoil effects and stuff, things you can COMPENSATE for ala Wolf:ET.

Not , Oh if i stand still i get a magical 50% more accurate weapon because the cone is now a little bit smaller, but rather Oh if i stand still i can keep my recticle on the target MUCH easier than if i was moving because its not swaying all over the place now !

So whilst I hate RNG in pretty much any aspect of a game, espescially a simulator, I'm not a proponent of your weapons are always 100% accurate I just prefer proper mechanics involved instead of a RNG deciding what the % chance is.

IE, recoil moves your weapon which means your 2nd shot is not going to hit the exact same spot even if you are ungodly with compenstating for it. (unless you wait, reset your aim, then fire...ie tap firing).

There are plenty more ways than just adding recoil as others have already stated in previous posts.

As for stacking lasers and 1 shotting an arm off or a leg....... to pull that off in a non RNG system you would have to be standing still (or 1 hell of a skilled aimer), the enemy also not moving to have an even reliable chance to hit it as moving would sway your recticle so much you would be firing "air balls" most of the time so to speak.

In a RNG system you plant your cone over the arm / torso and spray and pray moving or not.....

Similar effect, different ways of doing it.... 1 way keeps the skill of aiming, the other way compensates for poor aiming.


So all i have to say is.....

Go try out BRINK, its like 5 bucks now after only 6 or so months after being released and was supposedly a AAA game......

It has EXACTLY this RNG cone of fire stuff, AND THE GAME TANKED!!!
NOBODY from a competitive background (the old Wolf:ET crowds and ETQW crowds) like it because its spray and pray.

Most of the normal playerbase doesn't even like it.

The ONLY ones who do seem to like it are the xbox360 and ps3 players, and not all of them like it, just seems the hardcore fanboys are from 360/ps3.

They constantly try to troll any thread that gives feedback on the shooting mechanics or game itself, saying "You guys just cant adapt!, learn to play! " which is funny as, expecially when the top clan players in the WORLD are being trolled by them.

Edited by Foòóoo, 09 January 2012 - 01:55 AM.

[Fooooo]

Kudzu, on 09 January 2012 - 12:20 AM, said:

Anything will be better than "point, click, kill" of the old games.

Just thought id reply to this little bit....

What exactly to you propose then instead of moving your recticle over the target ? Using your mind to magically aim your weapons with no recticle ?
Maybe clicking (whoops theres a click) on the arm of the enemy locking your targetting onto the arm (theres pointing) and then telling your mech you want to fire.....(another click) but having the computer do the actual aiming (which would be far more accurate then myself doing it) ?

If im not mistaken, every FPS game requires "point , click, kill". Adding RNG does not remove the need to "point , click, kill" So what is it your asking for ?

A maths question when you spot someone ? The fastest right answer scores a hit ?

Im confused.....

Edited by Foòóoo, 09 January 2012 - 02:13 AM.

[Nik Van Rhijn]

The problem comes down to weapons balance in a computer game as distinct from the TT. In TT the accuracy etc were all balanced out and it was almost impossible for 2 weapons (or groups of missiles) to hit the same spot. In the MW games lasers are immediate, no ";lead" necessary, and multiple weapons hit the exact point that the crosshairs are over when the trigger is pulled. As long as your skill is sufficient to fire as your crosshair passes over the target then that is where you hit, with all grouped weapons, at that exact point. The armour and hitbox system was never intended for such accuracy. This also applies more or less to PPC's and Gauss Rifles. LRM's require that the target is held until lock is aquired, ballistics require some lead, and can't cope with changes of speed/direction after you fire.
All this arguement is immaterial as 1) neither side accepts the others points 2) No one has any idea what PGI intends to do.

[Fooooo]

Nik Van Rhijn, on 09 January 2012 - 03:13 AM, said:

The problem comes down to weapons balance in a computer game as distinct from the TT. In TT the accuracy etc were all balanced out and it was almost impossible for 2 weapons (or groups of missiles) to hit the same spot. In the MW games lasers are immediate, no ";lead" necessary, and multiple weapons hit the exact point that the crosshairs are over when the trigger is pulled. As long as your skill is sufficient to fire as your crosshair passes over the target then that is where you hit, with all grouped weapons, at that exact point. The armour and hitbox system was never intended for such accuracy. This also applies more or less to PPC's and Gauss Rifles. LRM's require that the target is held until lock is aquired, ballistics require some lead, and can't cope with changes of speed/direction after you fire.
All this arguement is immaterial as 1) neither side accepts the others points 2) No one has any idea what PGI intends to do.

Whilst I understand the part about all weapons hitting the exact same spot in older MW games, to me that was just poor design / laziness.
This is a new game, not the old game some are comparing it to.

I also don't expect MWO to have simple hitboxes, id expect many , or would at least like something akin to WoT (It has some sort of armour plates hitbox in addition to normal ones for the outside of the tank and normal hitboxes for the modules inside afaik.)



I would also expect that the weapons will not move instantly with your aiming recticle, nor will the torso follow your mouse..... (WoT does it, you can aim 180 degrees instantly but you better wait for your turret to turn and face the target or you will be firing backwards.)

So having lightning quick reflexes isnt really an advantage to have in WoT like a normal FPS, which i think some are also worried about (the fact that they dont have the reflexes that is).

As you also stated, nobody knows what PGI intends.... so........... any reference to what happend in any previous MW games is pretty much moot, for all we know, you cant 1 shot anything ANYTIME, EVER.

This isnt MW4, its not MW3, its not MW2 or MW, its MWO, they will have their own stuff, and as they have stated, they would like to do away with the laser all in 1 spot like people have been complaining about so I really think they already have that sorted, so adding any sort of CoF to the mix is not needed at all IMO. (unless of course they already have )

Still, its just my opinion



Oh also, a reply to the CoF in WoT........it is frustrating sometimes, you can have the whole cone on a tank and yet the round will go to the top corner and fly right into their turret....or over it........then you die to their perfect "random" shot into your lower glacis. =o

It really makes hitting for weak spot a hard thing to do unless your somewhat close or have a very accurate gun....it also makes for very random encounters......one time ill hit every shot, next game my shots will never hit....its inconsistant which is why i get frustrated I guess.

Edited by Foòóoo, 09 January 2012 - 06:34 AM.

[Vulpesveritas]

How about this? Rather than using a random number generator or the like, why not just USE PHYSICS.
You know, make it realistic and make you use skill. Bullet drop, light diffraction over distance due to gasses in the atmosphere, plasma bursting due to electromagnetic distortion over time. Stuff like that.

Why not just CryENGINE 3's already quite good physics system and use skill, knowledge, and math? That would to me seem the best option. Rather than using a random number generator which takes out the idea of using real-world tactics moot. The reason for targeting a weakspot is simply that- it's a weakspot. Making it some other method will merely have everyone rushing to assaults and leave sniper mechs and most heavy and medium mechs in an off point, and only people who are control aces will be able to pilot lights, and even still they will have issues as it validates spray and pray.
Which isn't how a simulator, which in it's own description, is supposed to impart a simulation of how it would actually work.

Why would you want guns to be less accurate than they would be in real life? Why would you want to take away from someone's skill with aim and make it so he is no better than tommy over there spraying bullets and getting more kills due to the nature of a random number generator? That takes out the point of trying to become more skilled at a game.

[IceSerpent]

Vulpesveritas, on 09 January 2012 - 08:52 AM, said:

How about this? Rather than using a random number generator or the like, why not just USE PHYSICS.
You know, make it realistic and make you use skill. Bullet drop, light diffraction over distance due to gasses in the atmosphere, plasma bursting due to electromagnetic distortion over time. Stuff like that.

Why not just CryENGINE 3's already quite good physics system and use skill, knowledge, and math? That would to me seem the best option. Rather than using a random number generator which takes out the idea of using real-world tactics moot. The reason for targeting a weakspot is simply that- it's a weakspot. Making it some other method will merely have everyone rushing to assaults and leave sniper mechs and most heavy and medium mechs in an off point, and only people who are control aces will be able to pilot lights, and even still they will have issues as it validates spray and pray.
Which isn't how a simulator, which in it's own description, is supposed to impart a simulation of how it would actually work.

Why would you want guns to be less accurate than they would be in real life? Why would you want to take away from someone's skill with aim and make it so he is no better than tommy over there spraying bullets and getting more kills due to the nature of a random number generator? That takes out the point of trying to become more skilled at a game.

Let me try to explain - the core of the issue lies in what exactly we are trying to simulate. If we are talking about simulating a real-life tank with legs attached to it, your idea is fine. On the other hand, if we are simulating mechs as they are described in the books, your idea doesn't make much sense because the "original" guns don't work like real-life guns. A mech in BT is actually more similar to a miniature walking WWII battleship than to a walking tank in terms of aiming the weapons.

That being said, either approach can certainly be implemented. Going for random spread (in RL terms it's just a very wide weapon grouping) has the advantage of being able to use the existing TT math (armor values, damage values, etc.), as it's already balanced with that damage spread in mind. There is a disadvantage of it being random, but that can be easily fixed by limiting the spread to just a certain area around the point you aim at. In other words, when you target the left side of a mech, hits scatter around left side only, as opposed to being all over the place.
Going for pinpoint accuracy would require rebalancing of the system and opens a door for boating. Frankly I don't see any advantages to doing that. The aiming skill applies to both setups with random spread setup having a bit more of luck in play, but I don't see a huge problem with me aiming for a left arm and spreading hits betwen left arm and left torso.

[Vulpesveritas]

But isn't the reason for the tabletop math in place because the game was being played in tabletop. CryENGINE 3 is made so that it can track millions of on screen objects at a time and run real time physics on each individual object. And with unguided missiles, or semi-guided as has been stated, you'll not see boats nearly as effective as a sniper with an AC 5 plinking hits at weak spots on a mech. Or as effective even as a guy jumping and moving to close range to launch a large bit of laser fire, as it's quite a bit harder to actually hit a moving target, especially if the target is moving in a ballistic arc as it would be if it used jump jets. A cone of fire would make it easier to hit jumping and moving targets, making such a tactic for light mechs less viable.

I'm not certain why you'd want to play a sim if you wanted it to work like tabletop. If that were the case all you'd get is tabletop with eyecandy. I want a realistic sim personally, using what such a machine would work as if it were in real life, as Battletech/mechwarrior to me has always been more an emphasis on 'hard' science fiction.

Do I think there should be boating? no. But if physics are implemented, and you have the thought to sidestep when you see missiles launched at you, unless they're SRMs you're likely going to doge them. Even with SRMs you should dodge at least half of missiles shot at you so long as you're not in an assault. That's the nature. Each mech will play in it's own way. Faster mechs will fare better against missiles and snipers, better armored mechs will fare better against barrages and lasers.

And it's not like it will be straight pinpoint accuracy. Physics makes it hard unless you're a sniper or a mathmatician. Bullet drop, laser diffraction over distance, crosswind, variable rate of combustion, all make munitions less accurate by nature than pinpoint. missiles without a corrective guidance system will stray from a straight target by nature, bullets are sideswaped by crosswind and dropped by distance, lasers err to the side due to water vapor and such lose power over distance.

Edited by Vulpesveritas, 09 January 2012 - 10:03 AM.

[IceSerpent]

Vulpesveritas, on 09 January 2012 - 10:00 AM, said:

But isn't the reason for the tabletop math in place because the game was being played in tabletop.

No, the reason is that the "original" meches in the books were described this way. TT merely simulates that "feature".

Quote

CryENGINE 3 is made so that it can track millions of on screen objects at a time and run real time physics on each individual object. And with unguided missiles, or semi-guided as has been stated, you'll not see boats nearly as effective as a sniper with an AC 5 plinking hits at weak spots on a mech.

A "boat" is not necessarily equipped with missiles - you can boat lasers just as well...or AC5s...or anything else.

Quote

Or as effective even as a guy jumping and moving to close range to launch a large bit of laser fire, as it's quite a bit harder to actually hit a moving target, especially if the target is moving in a ballistic arc as it would be if it used jump jets. A cone of fire would make it easier to hit jumping and moving targets, making such a tactic for light mechs less viable.

I am not suggesting COD-style cone of fire here. What I'd like to see is basically a 2 stage calculation:

Stage 1: calculate potential point of impact - depends on your movement, target's movement, projectile(s) travel time, lead on target, etc. If you're firing weapons with different projectile speeds, i.e. a laser and a gauss rifle, you may have two different points of impact.

Stage 2: calculate damage spead for each "impact" - this is where RNG kicks in and a shot that should have hit CT might actually hit RT or LT instead.

The hit-or-miss is determined at stage 1, so this is pure skill. The damage is determined at stage 2, so while quad medium lasers do the same overall damage as AC20, boating lasers would spread damage across 2-3 "hit boxes", while AC20 would deliver a single, potentially crippling hit. This makes heavy weapons actually useful - you have to make a choice between multiple lighter weapons "sandblasting" armor from multiple locations and single heavy weapon coring through a single armor plate.

Quote

I'm not certain why you'd want to play a sim if you wanted it to work like tabletop. If that were the case all you'd get is tabletop with eyecandy. I want a realistic sim personally, using what such a machine would work as if it were in real life, as Battletech/mechwarrior to me has always been more an emphasis on 'hard' science fiction.

That's because both MWO and TT attempt to simulate the same thing - BT universe. There are no real life mechs, so the "original" is what BT says it is. If you want a real life analogy, it would be a battleship - weapon platform designed for firing alpha strikes, but incapable of putting all shells into a specified part of the target.

Quote

Do I think there should be boating? no. But if physics are implemented, and you have the thought to sidestep when you see missiles launched at you, unless they're SRMs you're likely going to doge them. Even with SRMs you should dodge at least half of missiles shot at you so long as you're not in an assault. That's the nature. Each mech will play in it's own way. Faster mechs will fare better against missiles and snipers, better armored mechs will fare better against barrages and lasers.

Agreed on the dodging part, but I never implied that we should have "tab-targeting" like in MMOs - aiming should be "real life", but damage spread shouldn't simulate a sniper rifle IMHO.

Quote

And it's not like it will be straight pinpoint accuracy. Physics makes it hard unless you're a sniper or a mathmatician. Bullet drop, laser diffraction over distance, crosswind, variable rate of combustion, all make munitions less accurate by nature than pinpoint. missiles without a corrective guidance system will stray from a straight target by nature, bullets are sideswaped by crosswind and dropped by distance, lasers err to the side due to water vapor and such lose power over distance.

Also agreed, see above regarding aiming. I am using term "pinpoint accuracy" not to mean that you always hit the spot under the crosshairs, but to mean that boating multiple barrels of the same type allows one to put all projectiles into the same spot, in other words, a weapon platform with very tight grouping.

[Vulpesveritas]

My main issue is if you use a RNG in the targeting, it detracts from the bullet, particle beam, plasma burst, or laser for being a physical object in game.

May i propose this as a different solution for physical ammunition: Give each bullet at the very beginning a set spin variance based on the amount of non-homogeneous mass loss by heat and mass build up in barrel. Minimum loss of accuracy, though it is still slightly variable between rounds and the bullets physically move in game from point a to point b at a given speed.
lasers: diffraction should change real time, use a light RNG to implement lasers upon each firing. it should be applied over distance, though it should calculate it as light speed.
Plasma: use a RNG to determine the strength of containment, and effect how quickly it begins to burst dependent on that.
PPC: as laser, but less loss of accuracy / distance. Also 1/10th the speed.

Just base everything else on physics. Instead of a simple 'cone' just use real live variables and use them to effect the physics as such.

Edited by Vulpesveritas, 09 January 2012 - 10:46 AM.

[guardiandashi]

part of the issue is as has been mentioned battlemechs weapons are NOT pinpoint accurate in "realtime aiming" which is what I was trying to get at.

again if you fire 1 single weapon I really don't care if the engine makes it pinpoint accurate all the time, its when you start firing off multiple weapons that the mechanics break down

[Vulpesveritas]

guardiandashi, on 09 January 2012 - 10:46 AM, said:

part of the issue is as has been mentioned battlemechs weapons are NOT pinpoint accurate in "realtime aiming" which is what I was trying to get at.

again if you fire 1 single weapon I really don't care if the engine makes it pinpoint accurate all the time, its when you start firing off multiple weapons that the mechanics break down

Why not run physics for each gun separately, incorporating recoil and the like for all weapons as each is fired as physics would state would occur.

[IceSerpent]

Vulpesveritas, on 09 January 2012 - 10:46 AM, said:

My main issue is if you use a RNG in the targeting, it detracts from the bullet, particle beam, plasma burst, or laser for being a physical object in game.

Why is this an issue? When you're targeting, projectiles are treated as physical objects in order to determine hit or miss. On a successful hit damage is spread (randomized a bit), so the actual point of impact may be different from potential point of impact that was calculated during targeting phase. The projectiles are drawn so that they would hit the actual point of impact, so that there are no visual issues. If you fire 2 lasers and potential point of impact is left arm, but actual points of impact happen to be left arm and left leg, you would simply see one of your lasers shooting low.

Quote

May i propose this as a different solution for physical ammunition: Give each bullet at the very beginning a set spin variance based on the amount of non-homogeneous mass loss by heat and mass build up in barrel. Minimum loss of accuracy, though it is still slightly variable between rounds and the bullets physically move in game from point a to point b at a given speed.
lasers: diffraction should change real time, use a light RNG to implement lasers upon each firing. it should be applied over distance, though it should calculate it as light speed.
Plasma: use a RNG to determine the strength of containment, and effect how quickly it begins to burst dependent on that.
PPC: as laser, but less loss of accuracy / distance. Also 1/10th the speed.

Just base everything else on physics. Instead of a simple 'cone' just use real live variables and use them to effect the physics as such.

Problem with this is the amount of resources needed for such calculations - I have a feeling that it would cause a lot of lag if implemented. The purpose of the exercise here is to make it impossible to reliably hit the same hit box with multiple weapons. In your scenario this would require a fairly large loss of accuracy, otherwise people would simply boat whatever weapons are the most accurate and we'll be back to "core the CT with ungodly number of large lasers" problem. So, why go through all that trouble when a simple random choice between 2-3 hit boxes would do the trick at a fraction of a cost?

[Vulpesveritas]

5 reasons:
1. Not as realistic.
2. CryENGINE 3 is optimized for heavy workloads like this, being able to take advantage of even low end GPUs and use up to 8 threads on a CPU, so anyone with a generally modern PC shouldn't have issue.
3. With most weapons that's not an issue, thanks to recoil. Even 'recoilless' rifles and missiles/rockets create recoil. No guns no matter how fast your system is will fire at the exact same time, so aim will get steadily worse for each one used. Lasers are the only issue with it and they.... well I can only really think of three solutions.
A: Give an energy meter which depletes for lasers that slowly recharges over time
b; increase heat output on lasers
C: nerf laser damage
4. You should always strive for something better than what has been done prior.
5. Outside of Omnimechs, you could always make it so a mech could never be optimized to be a 'boat'.

Edited by Vulpesveritas, 09 January 2012 - 11:23 AM.

[IceSerpent]

Regarding reasons 1-4: Regardless of the "fluff" we use to explain it, If your loss of accuracy is large enough to spread damage between multiple hit boxes, then we're talking about the same exact thing and using different terms to describe it (accuracy loss vs. random spread...a rose by any other name is still a rose). If your loss of accuracy is not that large and there is a combination of weapons that is accurate enough to hit the same hit box with all shots, then we have a boating problem as everybody and their dog will be packing the same weapon config.

Regarding reason 5: Can't do it - a lot of stock mech variants are boats out of the box. You could technically change that, but that would make those mechs into something completely different and not necessarily better - how would you prevent a Javelin for example from boating medium lasers when that's the only weapons it has from get-go?

[Oderint dum Metuant]

IceSerpent, on 09 January 2012 - 11:16 AM, said:

Why is this an issue? When you're targeting, projectiles are treated as physical objects in order to determine hit or miss. On a successful hit damage is spread (randomized a bit), so the actual point of impact may be different from potential point of impact that was calculated during targeting phase. The projectiles are drawn so that they would hit the actual point of impact, so that there are no visual issues. If you fire 2 lasers and potential point of impact is left arm, but actual points of impact happen to be left arm and left leg, you would simply see one of your lasers shooting low.

Because even the most minor randomizing as above still detracts from the player skill aspect of the game, if my guass rifle hits the LA that is where the damage should be, if my laser beam that travels at the speed of light in a pin point beam of focused light (so some degree of accuracy is a given here) hits the RT that is where the damage should be.

Damage spread as you describe should be left to the physics aspect, the player might aim that guass rifle at LA but by the time he has fired and hit the mech he was aiming at "MAY" have moved so hits the CT instead. RNG is not needed or required in any part of the targeting aspect leave that down to the player.
It's what seperates the good from bad.

[MaddMaxx]

It could come down to something as simple as if you wish more Lasers, and want 4-5 of the same Lasers in a group, that Stock variant you bought has the Engine design in place to meet its current Energy requirements for that load out.

To allow for more energy based firepower, you will have to Customize that Stock Mech to have more "Engine" to meet power demands. Yes more Engine, so no more of the BS dropping the engine size to save that tonnage for more firepower, instead, it is just the opposite. And along comes "Bigger isn't always Better!" lol

This is not a new idea on here but I thought it couldn't hurt to mention it again. Let power consumption be the tipping scale point. You want firepower, fine, you will require the power plant to run that and still somehow offset the Heat generation.

So more Guns means more Engine, more Lasers means more heat means more Sinks or you get your firepower with serious (ugly serious) Heat issues or more fire power that comes with snail like speeds, so your choices are fire a volley, then have to wait to cool for 1-2 minutes, or only have power supply enough to fire 50% of your loadout at anyone time or fire it all and either shut down immediately or face a slue of heat based afflictions to your Mech.

So Boat them Lasers, if your Engine will allow it. Hope you don't skimp on the HS's or we'll see you in ShutDownsVille.

Have at her. Build em powerful and with large engines and alot of heat sinks with alot of Lasers. Oh wait, damn it all, ya can't get all three, now can we.


Ballistics can be dealt with seperate but don't have the inherent insta hit issue like the Lasers do. They are heavy, ammo dependant and other various drawbacks. And PPC's, they need ALOT power as well.

Edited by MaddMaxx, 09 January 2012 - 12:19 PM.

[IceSerpent]

@MaddMaxx: it won't work - if packing a lot of medium lasers (or PPCs, or whatever else) gives an advantage, people would simply pick a mech that comes with a lot of energy weapons to begin with and therefore has sufficient engine rating.

@DV^McKenna: you might want to actually read what I suggested...hint - damage spread as I outlined it (as opposed to the spread in classic BT) has very little to do with aiming/targeting skill.

[Oderint dum Metuant]

IceSerpent, on 09 January 2012 - 12:18 PM, said:

@DV^McKenna: you might want to actually read what I suggested...hint - damage spread as I outlined it (as opposed to the spread in classic BT) has very little to do with aiming/targeting skill.

[color=#959595] On a successful hit damage is spread (randomized a bit)[/color]

Is the bit im refering to, there should be no randomization involved where you hit, is where you hit end of story. PPC's may cause some splash type damage as well as LBX cluster type ammo and missiles.

[IceSerpent]

DV^McKenna, on 09 January 2012 - 12:24 PM, said:

Is the bit im refering to, there should be no randomization involved where you hit, is where you hit end of story. PPC's may cause some splash type damage as well as LBX cluster type ammo and missiles.

I really hate quoting myself, but here's the actual idea (just a few posts above):

Quote

I am not suggesting COD-style cone of fire here. What I'd like to see is basically a 2 stage calculation:

Stage 1: calculate potential point of impact - depends on your movement, target's movement, projectile(s) travel time, lead on target, etc. If you're firing weapons with different projectile speeds, i.e. a laser and a gauss rifle, you may have two different points of impact.

Stage 2: calculate damage spead for each "impact" - this is where RNG kicks in and a shot that should have hit CT might actually hit RT or LT instead.

The hit-or-miss is determined at stage 1, so this is pure skill. The damage is determined at stage 2, so while quad medium lasers do the same overall damage as AC20, boating lasers would spread damage across 2-3 "hit boxes", while AC20 would deliver a single, potentially crippling hit. This makes heavy weapons actually useful - you have to make a choice between multiple lighter weapons "sandblasting" armor from multiple locations and single heavy weapon coring through a single armor plate.

No randomization at all makes heavy weapons (PPCs, AC20s, etc.) useless - why bother with that when you can pack a bunch of lighter weapons that give the same combined damage and put all shots into a single hit box? I've already seen my share of ERLL boats and the idea of MWO turning into MW3 with better graphics doesn't give me a warm fuzzy feeling.