339 replies to this topic

[Kudzu]

Ran Ito, on 23 November 2011 - 12:08 PM, said:

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.

That's the basic idea, but adjusted to fit in the BT universe.

[DocBach]

The cone of fire doesn't need to be as dramatic as everyone thinks it needs to be - the best way that I can describe what I imagine is how the M68 Close Combat Optical works on the M4 in real life - it has a 4 minute of angle red dot as an aiming reticle - which means at 100m it obscures a 4" circle inside its target, at 300m it obscures a 12" circle - which means the bullet's point of impact could be anywhere within that 12" circle. I'm imagining a similar system in MWO. Close up your reticle doesn't obscure the target 'Mech as much, but once you get farther away and the little dot in your reticle completely obscures your target, sure you'll hit it, but there's no way for you to determine where in your reticle your going to hit your target.

[canned wolf]

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.

What you're describing isn't a cone of fire, it's a die roll based system. I don't think anyone has asked for this at all. cone of fire has deviation from the center point of fire, not from the target. So if my shots are all aimed 5 feet to the left of your mech, I will still miss, no matter how accurate I am within the cone. One or two strays may hit, but you're in a mech, it's not likely to matter.

I still think that giving people a configurable, replaceable fire control system is the way to do this. Just make people trade the number of weapons you can group or other factors for accuracy. Give snipers a system that allows them to fire two or three weapons hyper accurately, but only detects targets worth a damn in a 30 degree arc in front of them. Shooters have this covered just by giving them a scope. They look through it, then they get knifed in the back.

[Yeach]

Why don't we keep the sniper system of a moving sideways figure 8 when zoomed?

[diana]

People, you talk like there are only two options:
Cone of fire
Pinpoint accuracy with ideal convergence for all weapons

There're other suggestions that don't involve either, so calm down, there's no need to go 'I will accept even a cone of fire, if it means nobody will be able to core others at maximum range with pinpoint accuracy alpha strikes'.

Also, light mechs are not supposed to be fighting, they are recons.

And Kudzu, it seems you have quite a bit of a grudge left from MW4, but let me remind you that MWO is not MW4 and there'll be more maps than just 'open field with some hills'.

Edited by Diana, 24 November 2011 - 08:05 AM.

[Phades]

Halfinax, on 22 November 2011 - 09:48 PM, said:

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

Umm, being in direct control of it is the same as being it. Commanding something you don't have control over is different. Also, link please.

If you are saying what i think you are saying, then this game won't be worth the time in a first person format (might as well be 3rd person locked camera or top down view). If you are confused as to the meaning of what was stated, like i implied, then it is a different story entirely.

[Kudzu]

Diana, on 24 November 2011 - 08:05 AM, said:

And Kudzu, it seems you have quite a bit of a grudge left from MW4, but let me remind you that MWO is not MW4 and there'll be more maps than just 'open field with some hills'.

Actually, I've got a nasty taste in my mouth leftover from all of the MW games, MW4 just happens to be the worst offender.

[wolf74]

Something most of you have looked over is a manually controlled convergence. The player must control the range to a bracketed setting. I think jumps somewhere in the range of 15 to 30m with the basic targeting computer doing a 5 to 15m correction to the basic bracketed range. The "Targeting Computer" upgrade can do a large corrections.

[Halfinax]

wolf74, on 24 November 2011 - 10:51 AM, said:

Something most of you have looked over is a manually controlled convergence. The player must control the range to a bracketed setting. I think jumps somewhere in the range of 15 to 30m with the basic targeting computer doing a 5 to 15m correction to the basic bracketed range. The "Targeting Computer" upgrade can do a large corrections.

I've suggested this a number of times, but you, as I did, must realize this would generally be overly complex for the average player.

Phades, on 24 November 2011 - 10:10 AM, said:

Umm, being in direct control of it is the same as being it. Commanding something you don't have control over is different. Also, link please.

If you are saying what i think you are saying, then this game won't be worth the time in a first person format (might as well be 3rd person locked camera or top down view). If you are confused as to the meaning of what was stated, like i implied, then it is a different story entirely.

You're asking me to pour through (again) much material to find a specific quote for you, but instead of undertaking that arduous and time consuming task I will simply point you to the faq, and the basic game description. They repeatedly refer to the Mechwarrior and the player as separate entities. Obviously when they say the Mechwarrior will level they aren't saying you will have some sort of digital leveling system affecting you the player. I never said that the player didn't have direct control over it. I was simply implying that the player's skill set and the Mechwarrior's skill set are going to be different.

I don't see how having a leveling system directly correlates to not being a good FP experience. Many modern games do this, and do it well.

[Phades]

Halfinax, on 24 November 2011 - 03:32 PM, said:

Obviously when they say the Mechwarrior will level they aren't saying you will have some sort of digital leveling system affecting you the player. I never said that the player didn't have direct control over it. I was simply implying that the player's skill set and the Mechwarrior's skill set are going to be different.

I don't see how having a leveling system directly correlates to not being a good FP experience. Many modern games do this, and do it well.

Mostly in the fact it is redundant and unneeded while clipping the field of view in a manner not required since you, the player, do not have control over the end result in a precise manner. Also, "leveling up" can take many different forms. It can take the form of "unlocks" where you, as a player, earn the right to use certain things for your character. It can also be WoW.

If there is a system where it is a COF and your character levels up and gets bloom reduction, heat control, expertise in ballistic weapons, etc, it really stops being a mechwarrior title that the player is controlling and begins being you commanding someone from your lance roster (in battletech and mechwarrior campaign versions that had the NPCs with progressive skill sets). In this setup, it ends up being the RNG deciding who wins the match while you sit back and mostly watch the show with a minimal amount of command input. A simplified version of this format is EVE online, which is reasonably popular but has its own problems inherently. Some of which wouldn't translate into a limited scope that this game would encompass.

[Halfinax]

No, first of all cone of fire is not the same as a straight up RNG. Second player skill would still be more of a determining factor than some minimal advantages provided by skills. Having your CoF reduce or shrink by .15% wouldn't be game breaking much less take your skill as a player out of the equation by any measure. It would, however; add a large element that allows a player to specialize their Mechwarrior for specific roles than everyone just being generic and samey in which the person with the best hardware (high dpi mouse, larger screen, faster processor/gpu, and other peripherals that may be supported) and the highest twitch skill wins. I agree that there is potential of abuse in that system if it isn't implemented correctly, but guess what. It's F2P which means they can tweak and patch frequently as long as people are playing and revenue is flowing. It takes the whole work within a 6 month window of release, or the even more popular fire and forget methods for games in which you pay up front and never again.

I think unlocking of equipment is the worst possible implementation they could take. That suggests arms race. That is the last thing I think any of us want. Being a bit more competent with a weight class, or at a specific range, or with some equipment than the other guy is a more reasonable solution that lets people play the role they want. If you want equipment unlocks then you remove that element to a larger extent because what if the player has to choose between a BAP or a LBX20. What do you think most players will go with in that case (the question is rhetorical). Then you end up without much EW on a pub team and it's all about who has the best equipment for taking a 'Mech down faster.

[Phades]

Halfinax, on 24 November 2011 - 06:50 PM, said:

No, first of all cone of fire is not the same as a straight up RNG.

COF systems implement RNG in order to randomize the shot spreads so that each shot does not land in the same place as the last one was fired. You understand this right? This is the entire point behind why you are supporting it.

Halfinax, on 24 November 2011 - 06:50 PM, said:

Second player skill would still be more of a determining factor than some minimal advantages provided by skills. Having your CoF reduce or shrink by .15% wouldn't be game breaking much less take your skill as a player out of the equation by any measure. It would, however; add a large element that allows a player to specialize their Mechwarrior for specific roles than everyone just being generic and samey in which the person with the best hardware (high dpi mouse, larger screen, faster processor/gpu, and other peripherals that may be supported) and the highest twitch skill wins.

Sigh... Computer hardware is a common factor among all games, which is not the point of the discussion involving base game mechanics. Might as well base the same argument stating that all actions should be strictly client side with no authentication in order to not handicap folks who have bad connections (however in turn you handicap everyone else in the process). Secondly, any direct benefit to the character that has direct effects on the outcome of the match also points back to a RNG making that determination range rather than the player. It also creates the same inequities that you cite below being a fault as an "arms race". Personally, I'd much rather see folks graduating from certain frame options in a tonnage range to different options becoming available to them within the same tonnage range rather than forcing everyone into the exact same machine, but have one guy be trapped inside Stephen Hawking's body while another be in Carl Lewis's body simply because he played longer. Also, there is simply no need to give the illusion of precision by giving the field view of the targeting system in place if that is not the primary method of which the shots are determined.

I see battletech as a really simple 3 step system revolving around an overarching strategy phase, which involves machine choices and customization. A tactics phase which involves positioning and coordination between players and a micro management phase involving the player actually crossing the Ts and dotting the Is when pointing the guns at an opponent. There are other ways of going about implementing the game than removing the last and the first while dropping folks into small arenas with chess board layouts that I see an oddly overwhelming support for within the forums. It is quite disheartening.


I know first hand why certain platforms get shunned implementing systems proposed by others in various games and how it creates a bias in the game play and the players who actually choose to stay and play it. Look up the prowler, dual cycler, pounder, and lasher for a point of reference in planetside. It features cone of fire, expanding bloom, and in in 3 instances separate point of origin on the shots. Their comparable weapon platforms performed better in every instance at every given range. It doesn't matter that they could throw out more potential damage than other platforms, since they couldn't hit reliably. The parallel into mechwarrior will be range and weight class of the weapons employed in addition to guided missiles. This isn't even getting into the experienced character versus the inexperienced one or length of matches or team play versus PUGS. It will be a very basic core game mechanic that will lead to very specific mechs or mech builds as a byproduct, which will get boring really fast.

[Halfinax]

Phades, on 24 November 2011 - 09:37 PM, said:

COF systems implement RNG in order to randomize the shot spreads so that each shot does not land in the same place as the last one was fired. You understand this right? This is the entire point behind why you are supporting it.

I support it because all my shots coming from the reticule is ridiculous (for all intents and purposes that's what PPA is). I further support it because it makes the most sense with a weapons system that is calculating many variables simultaneously for multiple weapons. Yes, it is in a basic sense a RNG, but it is within a very limited variable range (likely than 5% off target at maximum movement).

Phades, on 24 November 2011 - 09:37 PM, said:

Sigh... Computer hardware is a common factor among all games, which is not the point of the discussion involving base game mechanics. Might as well base the same argument stating that all actions should be strictly client side with no authentication in order to not handicap folks who have bad connections (however in turn you handicap everyone else in the process). Secondly, any direct benefit to the character that has direct effects on the outcome of the match also points back to a RNG making that determination range rather than the player. It also creates the same inequities that you cite below being a fault as an "arms race". Personally, I'd much rather see folks graduating from certain frame options in a tonnage range to different options becoming available to them within the same tonnage range rather than forcing everyone into the exact same machine, but have one guy be trapped inside Stephen Hawking's body while another be in Carl Lewis's body simply because he played longer. Also, there is simply no need to give the illusion of precision by giving the field view of the targeting system in place if that is not the primary method of which the shots are determined.

I was simply pointing out that a PPA system is more unfair based on those factors. I was not in anyway suggesting that they should cap latency speeds or any other such notion. The Stephen Hawking vs Carl Lewis is a very misleading argument taking things to extremes, however; despite the lack of validity I will continue. All Mechwarriors will start at a same base level. This would presumably be more or less fresh out of basic training for Mechwarriors, so it's extremely unlikely any of them are quadriplegic. I do think that someone that's been in the field for 2 months has more experience and is more adept on the battle field (this would be Mechwarrior level), but that doesn't mean that rookie can't have inherently better skill (this would be player skill). What's more is the leveling system would more likely focus on getting more out of the equipment than on making the equipment better. If you can get a better range from the BAP (notice not a RNG factor) than a guy that didn't take that skill then that gives you a slight edge. Maybe you can get better acceleration out of a light 'Mech (again not RNG) than a guy that doesn't focus on that. There are many areas that can be effected without them being tied to RNGs, and don't have anything to do with the physical aptitude of the Mechwarrior.

Phades, on 24 November 2011 - 09:37 PM, said:

I see battletech as a really simple 3 step system revolving around an overarching strategy phase, which involves machine choices and customization. A tactics phase which involves positioning and coordination between players and a micro management phase involving the player actually crossing the Ts and dotting the Is when pointing the guns at an opponent. There are other ways of going about implementing the game than removing the last and the first while dropping folks into small arenas with chess board layouts that I see an oddly overwhelming support for within the forums. It is quite disheartening.

So determining your skill sets can't be considered part of the strategy phase? I mean this could be all the way up to the Merc Group asking people to focus on a certain area of expertise to ensure they have a well rounded battle field presence. I also never suggested any chess board like game play. Yes, I would have liked to have seen the game use only canon variants, but the devs aren't moving that direction. I'm sure they have some clever method of preventing the 1 or 2 shot coring problems of laser boats, but that remains to be seen. I don't see how having a Cone of Fire removes player skill from the equation in the combat phase. The guy that better manages his speed, facing, and team coordination, while also being on the ball about keeping his or her CoF down as much as possible wins. That's player skill. Shooting lasers out of the reticule regardless of range or speed isn't as skillful in my opinion. I run while trying to shoot a gun my shots are going to hit more wildly than when I sit still and fire the same gun.

Phades, on 24 November 2011 - 09:37 PM, said:

I know first hand why certain platforms get shunned implementing systems proposed by others in various games and how it creates a bias in the game play and the players who actually choose to stay and play it. Look up the prowler, dual cycler, pounder, and lasher for a point of reference in planetside. It features cone of fire, expanding bloom, and in in 3 instances separate point of origin on the shots. Their comparable weapon platforms performed better in every instance at every given range. It doesn't matter that they could throw out more potential damage than other platforms, since they couldn't hit reliably. The parallel into mechwarrior will be range and weight class of the weapons employed in addition to guided missiles. This isn't even getting into the experienced character versus the inexperienced one or length of matches or team play versus PUGS. It will be a very basic core game mechanic that will lead to very specific mechs or mech builds as a byproduct, which will get boring really fast.

Looking up information on a game that I know very little about is going to tell me nothing, but there are plenty of examples of games that use CoF and aren't horribly imbalanced towards one or the other. I don't see how specializing player roles leads to an arms race of bigger is better. If anything it would lead in the exact opposite with people trying to be useful in roles beyond up front fighter. Yes, there is imbalance when a team plays against pubs (often referred to as pub stomping), and yes a less experienced person has less of a chance than an experienced person. There are ways of mitigating the latter two points by trying to match people in queues against similar leveled people and teams to teams.

[MaddMaxx]

I hope that next Wednesday we don't get a new Mech but instead they give us what MWO's Damage Model will be. Highly unlikely, but it would so cut down on this whole endless debate about PPA vs CoF etc etc ad-nausea.

Pointing a Reticule 800m down range and having all 6 of your Large Laser combine on one small Mech section for 48 damage has nothing to do with Player Skill (my Mouse goes exactly where I want it to).

Sure it does not make use of some form of RNG but it also has nothing to do with the guy pulling the trigger. That is what needs to be addressed, one way or another.

[Phades]

Halfinax, on 24 November 2011 - 11:23 PM, said:

I support it because all my shots coming from the reticule is ridiculous (for all intents and purposes that's what PPA is). I further support it because it makes the most sense with a weapons system that is calculating many variables simultaneously for multiple weapons. Yes, it is in a basic sense a RNG, but it is within a very limited variable range (likely than 5% off target at maximum movement).

You don't know this and clearly haven't played games with expandable blooms and how rapidly small changes become large ones.

Halfinax, on 24 November 2011 - 11:23 PM, said:

I was not in anyway suggesting that they should cap latency speeds or any other such notion. The Stephen Hawking vs Carl Lewis is a very misleading argument taking things to extremes, however; despite the lack of validity I will continue. All Mechwarriors will start at a same base level. This would presumably be more or less fresh out of basic training for Mechwarriors, so it's extremely unlikely any of them are quadriplegic.

If your pilot and machine do not behave in a manner that responds to the player input, it is like feeling you are stuck inside a body that is unresponsive and clumsy. Do you have the basic comprehension of this now? Pit this against someone who is not handicapped in such a manner and all matches are a forgone conclusion assuming the other person isn't an dummy (forum censors idio t?). This is not an invalid argument simply because there are other ways of handling multiple shots fired from different points of origin and resigning all shots fired to a random system (remember if you can predict the shot spread, it stops being random).

Halfinax, on 24 November 2011 - 11:23 PM, said:

I do think that someone that's been in the field for 2 months has more experience and is more adept on the battle field (this would be Mechwarrior level), but that doesn't mean that rookie can't have inherently better skill (this would be player skill). What's more is the leveling system would more likely focus on getting more out of the equipment than on making the equipment better. If you can get a better range from the BAP (notice not a RNG factor) than a guy that didn't take that skill then that gives you a slight edge. Maybe you can get better acceleration out of a light 'Mech (again not RNG) than a guy that doesn't focus on that. There are many areas that can be effected without them being tied to RNGs, and don't have anything to do with the physical aptitude of the Mechwarrior.

Hi, there is a little thing called talent which has nothing to do with skill and goes in the opposite direction of needing months of experience in order to figure out the turreting rate of speed, step pattern of the machine, and how to multi task. Also implying that the rate of acceleration is going to vary simply due to the pilot is a bit odd. If player A steps on the throttle all the way to maximum and player B does the same, both machines should accelerate exactly the same if they are both piloting the same machine. This is like implying one player's machine will be able to take more hits simply because he played longer. Those kinds of things are not representative of a balanced game primarially focused on the machines.

Halfinax, on 24 November 2011 - 11:23 PM, said:

So determining your skill sets can't be considered part of the strategy phase?

Total time played is not strategy.

Halfinax, on 24 November 2011 - 11:23 PM, said:

I don't see how having a Cone of Fire removes player skill from the equation in the combat phase. The guy that better manages his speed, facing, and team coordination, while also being on the ball about keeping his or her CoF down as much as possible wins. That's player skill. Shooting lasers out of the reticule regardless of range or speed isn't as skillful in my opinion. I run while trying to shoot a gun my shots are going to hit more wildly than when I sit still and fire the same gun.

You need to apply metagame thought processes to what you just said there. You don't seem to understand the play environment that leads to and the player bias in machine and weapon choices. It leads to a lot of standing still, hiding, and the first person getting hit losing. The amount of COF required in order to really spread out the shots over a machine is going to be huge. The way trajectories work will mandate that COF will invalidate longer range fights. Then having COF with any amount of cover concealing everything but the one weapon they intend to shoot with any semelance of accuracy will invalidate virtually all hits that don't have the luck behind it that would strike the cockpit of a mech.

Halfinax, on 24 November 2011 - 11:23 PM, said:

Looking up information on a game that I know very little about is going to tell me nothing, but there are plenty of examples of games that use CoF and aren't horribly imbalanced towards one or the other. I don't see how specializing player roles leads to an arms race of bigger is better. If anything it would lead in the exact opposite with people trying to be useful in roles beyond up front fighter.

Expanding bloom games with multiple weapon mounts fired in tandem you have not played. This would also make you unaware of sniper rifles being used as shotguns among other things as well. I provided direct examples of the system you put forward works in a finished product.

Edited by Phades, 25 November 2011 - 12:05 PM.

[Tierloc]

I don't think a CoF has any place in the targeting model.

[Halfinax]

Phades, on 25 November 2011 - 12:04 PM, said:

You don't know this and clearly haven't played games with expandable blooms and how rapidly small changes become large ones.

Good thing you are omnipotent and know what games I play and have experienced first hand.

Phades, on 25 November 2011 - 12:04 PM, said:

If your pilot and machine do not behave in a manner that responds to the player input, it is like feeling you are stuck inside a body that is unresponsive and clumsy. Do you have the basic comprehension of this now? Pit this against someone who is not handicapped in such a manner and all matches are a forgone conclusion assuming the other person isn't an dummy (forum censors idio t?). This is not an invalid argument simply because there are other ways of handling multiple shots fired from different points of origin and resigning all shots fired to a random system (remember if you can predict the shot spread, it stops being random).

This is a programming issue not a leveling issue. I and no one else ever suggested making begning players controls not function properly. I don't think you can differentiate bad control mechanics and a skill based leveling system. Comparing the physical aptitude of a quadriplegic to a world class athlete and assuming that this also negates any and all player skill is indeed an absurd and invalid argument. OKAAAAY. Obvious statement is obvious.

Phades, on 25 November 2011 - 12:04 PM, said:

Hi, there is a little thing called talent which has nothing to do with skill and goes in the opposite direction of needing months of experience in order to figure out the turreting rate of speed, step pattern of the machine, and how to multi task. Also implying that the rate of acceleration is going to vary simply due to the pilot is a bit odd. If player A steps on the throttle all the way to maximum and player B does the same, both machines should accelerate exactly the same if they are both piloting the same machine. This is like implying one player's machine will be able to take more hits simply because he played longer. Those kinds of things are not representative of a balanced game primarially focused on the machines.

Talent equates skill in the sense of the player. You are kinda making just the argument you seem to being trying to refute. Now you also assume that someone with more experience with a machine (in the example given a light mech) can't get more performance out of it than a greenhorn. Figuring out how to balance properly with minimal loss of effecient movement would equate into perceived improved performance (again in the example given it equates to better acceleration). I never once ever in my argument said that anyone would be able to do more damage or take more damage based on skill sets. That would not make sense as there is no skill based aspect to the durability of armor, or the impact of weaponry. Quit trying to imply arguments and making assumptions about what I have said.

Phades, on 25 November 2011 - 12:04 PM, said:

Total time played is not strategy.

How you apply your points as you obtain them is.

Phades, on 25 November 2011 - 12:04 PM, said:

You need to apply metagame thought processes to what you just said there. You don't seem to understand the play environment that leads to and the player bias in machine and weapon choices. It leads to a lot of standing still, hiding, and the first person getting hit losing. The amount of COF required in order to really spread out the shots over a machine is going to be huge. The way trajectories work will mandate that COF will invalidate longer range fights. Then having COF with any amount of cover concealing everything but the one weapon they intend to shoot with any semelance of accuracy will invalidate virtually all hits that don't have the luck behind it that would strike the cockpit of a mech.

Again you are seeming to predicate what I do and do not know and that is frankly arrogant. Especially since the entire conversation is about the metagame. How a player would play would be determined by their confidence in their team, their Mechwarrior's skill set, at what range they prefer to engage, and their own abilities. A fire support player would likely hang back and play in the manner in which you speak as that would most accomodate their preffered method of engagement. A scout likely would move around constantly and only fire on targets of opportumity likely with more of an intent to harass and confound than any real desire to get a kill. Yes, blind fire is luck fire. This wasn't my argument at any point, but again thank you for bringing the obvious into the argument.

Phades, on 25 November 2011 - 12:04 PM, said:

Expanding bloom games with multiple weapon mounts fired in tandem you have not played. This would also make you unaware of sniper rifles being used as shotguns among other things as well. I provided direct examples of the system you put forward works in a finished product.

Wait so if I haven't played a game in with multiple weapons on a single platform then I also cannot have played any FPS with snipers? You did provide examples from a game that is nearly a decade old that I haven't played. Assuming that cone of fire in every game has to work as it did in your singular example is dishonest. Most modern shooter games use CoF, and don't take player skill out of the equation. Hitting within a meter of your intended target would be highly accurate for a 'Mech, and considering the size of these machines hitting within a meter of where your center reticule is aimed would be devastating even if you are focusing the cockpit.

[Pht]

J Echo, on 21 November 2011 - 02:46 PM, said:

Nope, that's not how it works in Mechwarrior. In the Mechwarrior series, we directly control where our weapons point. There's no auto-aiming like you want.

So, you're actually implying that the mechwarrior some how ... I guess it would have to be magically ... does the actual physical aiming of the 'Mechs weapons?


...


Are you serious?



----


The previous games screwed this up big time, either due to programming or hardware limitations, or some other factors - there's no reason that the new MW game shouldn't be an armored combat sim instead of slower unreal tournament with more guns and armor.

[Dsi1]

Pht, on 26 November 2011 - 06:34 PM, said:

The previous games screwed this up big time, either due to programming or hardware limitations, or some other factors - there's no reason that the new MW game shouldn't be an armored combat sim instead of slower unreal tournament with more guns and armor.

Totally agreed, so why then would anyone want to make it CoD in mechs with the cone of fire system?

[Haeso]

Dsi1, on 27 November 2011 - 08:26 PM, said:

Totally agreed, so why then would anyone want to make it CoD in mechs with the cone of fire system?

You're completely misrepresenting how a CoF would work, just judging by your posts and your sig it's pretty obvious you either don't know what you're talking about or do and have created a strawman. Your sig suggests hitscan, do you even know what hitscan means? Because nobody I've seen in this entire thread or the others has suggested hitscan, maybe someone has but it's certainly not represented by the majority.

Also, CoD Ironsights/scopes are pinpoint last I checked with slightly random recoil, I could be wrong regarding recoil, it might be fixed.

It's far more realistic that the MechWarrior and computer systems would be incapable of pinpoint accuracy as well, and it's easier to represent that with a CoF than tons of variables that cause screen shaking, blurring, loss of vision, random reticule movement etc.