339 replies to this topic

[Creel]

Technoviking, on 22 November 2011 - 11:15 AM, said:

Most of us BT nerds are over complicating. Taking it to the root does not make it "Straw Man".

Creel: Answer the question. Many players here are speaking of what it "Should be like" without extrapolating that with a real world example.

Lots of ideas thrown around. The core of it, what involves the player more? What is more what you think would happen on a planet. Lets throw out gravity, wind, heat, all the things that might make a planet special. Should Bullets ricohet? Or should their trajectories be predetermined at trigger point?

What happens when you pull the trigger 10 times on 10 gauss shots at 1200m standing still? What should happen? What factors do YOU take into account? Just Movement + Range?

I think pretty much everyone agree that at a standstill when firing on a target within your range the point of contact with the target should be very near the point of aim.
I don't think that anyone is advocating completely random "it will go godknowswhere within this circle". Implying that this is what is intended, is what turns this into a strawman.

[CeeKay Boques]

Creel, on 22 November 2011 - 01:11 PM, said:

I think pretty much everyone agree that at a standstill when firing on a target within your range the point of contact with the target should be very near the point of aim.
I don't think that anyone is advocating completely random "it will go godknowswhere within this circle". Implying that this is what is intended, is what turns this into a strawman.

Its not though. I'm not strawmanning, this picture was posted, and applauded. What happens, with lightguass at 1200m (which is what it was in MW4, so might be again, Kudzo) and this picture? So truly, I might miss, no? My point is not that, but should I aim high? Will gravity matter? Because CoF usually implies "in the cone, gravity doesn't matter" all weapons shoot straight to infinity. And if we care about gravity, then CoF shouldn't exist. If CoF exists, then who cares about gravity?

Edited by Technoviking, 22 November 2011 - 02:52 PM.

[Kudzu]

Technoviking, on 22 November 2011 - 02:45 PM, said:

Its not though. I'm not strawmanning, this picture was posted, and applauded. What happens, with lightguass at 1200m (which is what it was in MW4, so might be again, Kudzo) and this picture? So truly, I might miss, no?

Then if that's the case it just means that you'll need to get in closer or risk missing, doesn't it? Keeping MW:O from turning into a purely sniper game isn't a bad thing at all IMO.

[Creel]

if you're standing still, that shot should be pretty doable. if you're moving, some scatter is to be expected. The circle is probably a little big, but the concept is sound. I'm not suggesting that it won't be frustrating, but frustration is part of what keeps us interested.

overall accuracy can be easily adjusted by weighting more or less toward center, and the physics engine should be capable of handling any number of variables.

the biggest question is not whether some shots may miss at that range, but whether every shot should be perfectly aligned to make contact with the target at the exact center of that circle. Even if you're standing still, that answer should be no.

edit: even very small deviations at that range could easily result in hits to the arms legs or any torso.

Edited by Creel, 22 November 2011 - 02:55 PM.

[Phades]

Creel, on 22 November 2011 - 02:53 PM, said:

the biggest question is not whether some shots may miss at that range, but whether every shot should be perfectly aligned to make contact with the target at the exact center of that circle. Even if you're standing still, that answer should be no.

Why is your opponent running directly into the shot after the first shot is fired?

The human element should not be removed from any game system, otherwise we would be better off just sitting back and watching a movie instead. It is the quickest and easiest complaint from auto attack systems where character functions occur as a byproduct of the system making choices (dice rolls) for the player.

[Halfinax]

You are right Phades. The human element of the 'Mech pilot shouldn't be removed from the shot to shot element. If we allow pure input from the mouse then we are removing the human element of the pilot from the game. A Human, even with computer input, cannot track so accurately as a 10k dpi mouse across 4+ different weapons with 4+ different trajectories.

Edited by Halfinax, 22 November 2011 - 09:36 PM.

[Phades]

Also, is the human involved the player or is the player a commander of a 3rd party as he views the action through the cockpit?

This is the conceptual divide i think a lot of folks have with the game.

[Halfinax]

Phades, on 22 November 2011 - 09:38 PM, said:

Also, is the human involved the player or is the player a commander of a 3rd party as he views the action through the cockpit?

This is the conceptual divide i think a lot of folks have with the game.

The developers have already said that the player controls the Mechwarrior, and not is the Mechwarrior

[Haeso]

Dsi1, on 22 November 2011 - 01:47 AM, said:

Every game that has anything approaching an RNG based CoF has failed. Games with predictable CoF are all incredibly arcade, and I assume this is something we don't want for MWO.

This is blatantly false as several people after your post explained.

Quote

Affecting the physical weapons(and ballistics) on the mech through outside forces (caused by the player, the opponents, and the environment) is the least annoying and most skillful way to fight. If you missed, you know why you missed, if your shot connects, you know why it connected. You can learn how to shoot, have to be effective under pressure, or fail.

It's less annoying to miss a shot while running rather than hit while standing still and opening yourself up to enemy fire in exchange, rather than getting cored or legged outside the range of 90% of the weapons in the game? Sorry, that's quite subjective. I can easily core people at 1200M before they reach 1km with HVAC2's in MW4 Mercs. That shouldn't be possible for anyone no matter how good they are. Pinpoint accuracy is not an accurate simulation of battletech and it is terrible for gameplay. Whether there's more skill involved or not should not be the deciding factor for a game system, not to mention I could argue there's still a great deal of skill involved if the reticules are handled properly: If you aim dead center on a mech at an appropriate range, you will always hit without being shot yourself/overheating/moving too fast, whereas if your aim isn't up to snuff and you're centered on RT when you fire, there's a good chance of hitting air between RA and RT

[Yeach]

Haeso, on 22 November 2011 - 11:11 PM, said:

This is blatantly false as several people after your post explained.


It's less annoying to miss a shot while running rather than hit while standing still and opening yourself up to enemy fire in exchange, rather than getting cored or legged outside the range of 90% of the weapons in the game? Sorry, that's quite subjective. I can easily core people at 1200M before they reach 1km with HVAC2's in MW4 Mercs. That shouldn't be possible for anyone no matter how good they are. Pinpoint accuracy is not an accurate simulation of battletech and it is terrible for gameplay. Whether there's more skill involved or not should not be the deciding factor for a game system, not to mention I could argue there's still a great deal of skill involved if the reticules are handled properly: If you aim dead center on a mech at an appropriate range, you will always hit without being shot yourself/overheating/moving too fast, whereas if your aim isn't up to snuff and you're centered on RT when you fire, there's a good chance of hitting air between RA and RT

Ah but can you do it without zoom?

[Halfinax]

Yeach, on 23 November 2011 - 12:07 AM, said:

Ah but can you do it without zoom?

I don't see how that really is relevant. Superior technology and preferential builds takes player skill much more out of the equation than a Cone of Fire system does. Where I can point my mouse is less skill based than how I can effectively manage my shots, heat, ammo, and movement.

[Haeso]

Yeach, on 23 November 2011 - 12:07 AM, said:

Ah but can you do it without zoom?

Not as reliably, but that's mostly because I hardly ever fire without zoom. If I were to practice without it? Probably almost as reliably. Match the range/[ ] brackets and mech, and you should know where to aim even without the mech actually being on your screen. Whether you do it zoomed in or not just makes it a little harder, doesn't change if it's doable or not.

[Yeach]

Haeso, on 23 November 2011 - 12:18 AM, said:

Not as reliably, but that's mostly because I hardly ever fire without zoom. If I were to practice without it? Probably almost as reliably. Match the range/[ ] brackets and mech, and you should know where to aim even without the mech actually being on your screen. Whether you do it zoomed in or not just makes it a little harder, doesn't change if it's doable or not.

Your chances of hitting the CT would also be lower without zoom.

[Haeso]

Yeach, on 23 November 2011 - 12:21 AM, said:

Your chances of hitting the CT would also be lower without zoom.

I was talking purely of coring them being less reliable, with HVAC2 the only time I miss a mentionable percentage of shots zoomed or not is when I get hit right as I fire and get knocked off target.

[Hendell]

First off let me apologize for missing anything as I freely admit to having skimmed some of the 13 pages of backlog I am catching up on.

My understanding of this discussion is that it boils down to a few fairly simple questions.

1. How good is Battletech era tracking and aiming technology anyways. The answer is that its crap, simple crap. Modern technology can drop a single missile down a hatch from a 1000 miles away no sweat. SRM's are unguided, dumb fire, rockets really. This is the BEST part of battletech, its wild discrepancy with the real world, it makes the setting more fun, more interesting, and best of all, playable, both in table top and in a digital environment. (Point in favor of Cone of Fire)

2. Is the Player piloting a mech, or guiding the intent and planning of a character (presumably with game stats and XP earning and expenditure choices) who is in turn piloting a MUCH more complex user interface than a mouse, in a combat environment full of distractions. From what I read it is fairly clear the game comes down on the 'player is not the pilot' side of this question and thus the skills, abilities, luck (RNG), and countless other variables should influence the firing solution. (Point in favor of Cone of Fire)

3 Have I as a player (despite being no good at FPS games) played MW 1-4 and all their expansions to the point that I could expect, not hope, but actually plan, to take out enemy mechs with a single shot of 14 Extended Range Medium Pulse lasers into the leg (MW 1 or 2) or two shots into the arms (MW 3-4) every time I need to, and think that is kinda fun in a single player game, or lightly multiplayer game where my opponents can do the same if they get the drop on me? Hell yes, that was a blast. (Point in favor of Pinpoint Aim)

4. Does the Battletech universe have an amazing amount of cannon information, system mechanics that have withstood 30 ish years of play with what amounts to no revision (only additional content), and player entertainment based almost entirely on the principle addressed in the question. "You hit, now Where did you hit, and does it help?" I think this one is a big, you bet it has, yes. (Point in favor of RNG of some type)

5. Do we want the game to be fun, interesting, challenging, and offer some benefit to both player skill, and character advancement/specialization in a role or even weapon type? Well sure that's what games are. (Point in favor of Cone of Fire with player guidance)

So to summarize my opinion as a long time player, and a system mechanic favoritism, and a damn fine sniper of mechs if I do say so my self. If this game keeps the MW 1 or 2 style of pinpoint aim and death on single leg destruction I will NEVER play it, I did that 15 years ago, and that is done. If however I get to have a story, a character with some growth both XP wise and perhaps even style wise, in addition to playing with my friends and making a faction that can fight on the galactic scale, then I think I may never pick up another game again. (Point in favor of Cone of Fire)

[Yeach]

Hendell, on 23 November 2011 - 01:31 AM, said:

So to summarize my opinion as a long time player, and a system mechanic favoritism, and a damn fine sniper of mechs if I do say so my self. If this game keeps the MW 1 or 2 style of pinpoint aim and death on single leg destruction I will NEVER play it, I did that 15 years ago, and that is done. If however I get to have a story, a character with some growth both XP wise and perhaps even style wise, in addition to playing with my friends and making a faction that can fight on the galactic scale, then I think I may never pick up another game again. (Point in favor of Cone of Fire)

Sounds like you want to play Star Wars the Old Republic.
oh oops.

[Hendell]

Fair enough, and as I have already pre-ordered and participated in the beta for that game I will be playing it, until this one comes out. But I figured I would at least try to stay on topic.

[CeeKay Boques]

Yes there's plenty of room for MassEffect and Star Wars The old Republic version of MW if it ever takes off and people want more... rpg. But this isn't it. The magic place of MechWarrior, is that we are all part of the story, unlike MMOs, where you get to do exactly the same quest as everyone else and watch the same story unfurl.

Back on topic.

I agree with Haseo that you can core a mech at 1200 meters with MW4 physics, before they can get to their own weapon distance. In a mech built just for that, standing still, on an open plain. And if physics were the same, no weapon drop, wind, gravity or other factors, still these mechs had problems because of things like mountains, walls, and fast mechs. We were not coring Ravens at that distnace often with that weapon. No doubt, a non moving heavy fire mech in an open plain is scary thing, and it should be, something that needs to be dealt with with tactics. Don't forget missile boats will enjoy this "coring excitement" and CoF won't even come into play for them.


Everyone is talking about what its like shoot with Cone of Fire. What's it like to be SHOT at with Cone of fire? There I am in my 120kph Kit Fox, cruising past your lane of fire at 800m. You open with your guns, I am in your cone fire. That means, no matter how much I serpentine, weave, or try to use every form of evasive movement, as long as you roll high (cuz, y'know, they'll be lowering the chance to hit via my speed) it doesn't matter if I weave or bob or change direction. You stil will have Speedxdistance chance to hit. Again, boring piloting caused by the need to randomize fire. Because if we aren't tracking the bullets trajectory, it either hits or it doesn't. If we are tracking the trajectory, might as well have the muzzle direction decide that.

[Kudzu]

Technoviking, on 23 November 2011 - 08:33 AM, said:

Yes there's plenty of room for MassEffect and Star Wars The old Republic version of MW if it ever takes off and people want more... rpg. But this isn't it. The magic place of MechWarrior, is that we are all part of the story, unlike MMOs, where you get to do exactly the same quest as everyone else and watch the same story unfurl.

Back on topic.

I agree with Haseo that you can core a mech at 1200 meters with MW4 physics, before they can get to their own weapon distance. In a mech built just for that, standing still, on an open plain. And if physics were the same, no weapon drop, wind, gravity or other factors, still these mechs had problems because of things like mountains, walls, and fast mechs. We were not coring Ravens at that distnace often with that weapon. No doubt, a non moving heavy fire mech in an open plain is scary thing, and it should be, something that needs to be dealt with with tactics. Don't forget missile boats will enjoy this "coring excitement" and CoF won't even come into play for them.


Everyone is talking about what its like shoot with Cone of Fire. What's it like to be SHOT at with Cone of fire? There I am in my 120kph Kit Fox, cruising past your lane of fire at 800m. You open with your guns, I am in your cone fire. That means, no matter how much I serpentine, weave, or try to use every form of evasive movement, as long as you roll high (cuz, y'know, they'll be lowering the chance to hit via my speed) it doesn't matter if I weave or bob or change direction. You stil will have Speedxdistance chance to hit. Again, boring piloting caused by the need to randomize fire. Because if we aren't tracking the bullets trajectory, it either hits or it doesn't. If we are tracking the trajectory, might as well have the muzzle direction decide that.

Because we saw so many lights in MW2-4... Oh wait, they were busy getting auto-cored by pinpoint fire once people learned how to lead a target.

[Ran Ito]

When I first read the title of this topic I was dead set against any sort of cone of fire thingy. But after some thought, and if I'm understanding what you all are talking about right (an aiming reticle that gets bigger if you're trying to shoot while doing something stupid), it works pretty well in world of tanks.

I don't see why it wouldn't translate well into our beloved mwo.