339 replies to this topic

[VYCanis]

Amechwarrior, on 18 November 2011 - 05:10 PM, said:

Alright, "cone of fire", "RNG" and "Random" have become red-scare words around here and I want to clear some stuff up about the examples people are using. Personally, I want the heavy sim elements on the right side in a MW game. RNG is not even how the table top works. 2d6 works on a curve(slant-whatever). It is not totally random, it actually works more like Kudzu's post where the possible results in the middle of the chart are most likely to appear then results at the ends. This is also what we see in games that implement CoF, please stop just misrepresenting how the table top rules for hit location chances work and how CoF works in video games.

That left side column is not what anyone advocating CoF actually wants. Does anyone want the left column(100% cone effects, no reticle swinging, no recoil jostle just-coneBIG/conesmall), please speak up? We all see the problem with hyper accurate fire and we got 2 strong sides advocating only their own solution. But why not have "just a little" cone of fire?

-- I forgot to change the text on top of the 3rd panel, ignore that. --

-- I forgot to change the text on top of the 3rd panel, ignore that. --

Let it be hard to get a bead on the target, let there be travel times, recoil compensations, laser time on target, but toss in just a little bit of cone to prevent total domination of the potential cases that allow hyper accurate fire. Even if you add in problems like VYCanis's model they can be learned, mitigated and neutralized by skilled players. These examples use smaller, faster targets and more chaotic movement then anything you will see in MW. They show that as long as you have inherently accurate aim, factors like slow time to target, rapid visual adjustments and small windows of opportunity are defeatable.

I do not want to negate a highly skilled players advantage. Adding a small amount of weighted cone of fire combined with the heavy sim elements would still allow better pilots to be better at mitigating the reticle movement factors, but not let put an Awesomes 3 PPCs in the same location reliably.

Everyone is taking sides like you cannot combine these game mechanics for greater overall balance.

seems like a good idea.

[Lasercat]

verybad, on 18 November 2011 - 01:18 PM, said:

You know what? It's NOT as easy to hit just a leg (for example) as it is to hit any part of the mech. The leg may be behind a building, the target may be running and you hit the wrong leg. Etc. In most cases in current games hitting a specific part of a target mech requires the player to wait for that target to be available. They're causing less damage per second (DPS) overall, they're just doing it in more useful areas.

Yes, many people here seem to underestimate how hard it is to hit things in mechwarrior games. Since mechs have multiple individual hit zones it's not easy to do concentrated damage to begin with, things like lag just makes it worse.

Amechwarrior, on 18 November 2011 - 05:10 PM, said:

Even if you add in problems like VYCanis's model they can be learned, mitigated and neutralized by skilled players.

Well you said this,

Amechwarrior, on 18 November 2011 - 05:10 PM, said:

I do not want to negate a highly skilled players advantage.

then you said that. But I can see what you're getting at overall.

The deal with a random cof is the fact that it's random. There's always an extra middle man in the game interpreting what you do and changing it however it likes, so it's never possible to get direct control. This means after a certain point, there is no incentive to improve your aiming skill because you aren't able to beat that extra middle man which is integrated in the game. I said extra because the reliability of the computers and servers and whatnot is another unavoidable middle man.

Sure you could change that pure random cof so that it's affected by movement and other things, but there still is no direct control given to the player, only indirect. Some function in the game still changes what you were really aiming at in the end.

If the idea was changed to a non-random cof, then that would be fine. What non random cof means is that the weapon doesn't always shoot where you aim at, rather there are many different factors which can slightly change where the shot goes. If they aren't learned and compensated for the final effect is as good as random, even though it isn't.

If any kind of cof were to be added, a non random one is preferable. For joe mechwarrior it would look like a random cof, but if somebody was dedicated enough to learn how it works, there's nothing holding them back.

The unnecessary limitation of aiming skill is the core reason why random stuff is a bad idea. It doesn't have to do with alphas or anything, those can be balanced by other means if they became a big enough problem.

[Amechwarrior]

Lasercat, on 18 November 2011 - 07:05 PM, said:

...then you said that. But I can see what you're getting at overall.

The deal with a random cof is the fact that it's random. There's always an extra middle man in the game interpreting what you do and changing it however it likes, so it's never possible to get direct control. This means after a certain point, there is no incentive to improve your aiming skill because you aren't able to beat that extra middle man which is integrated in the game.

Maybe I did not pick the exact right words for those parts. I want a better shot to be a better shot. But not allowed to be so good, they could utilize that skill to the point where only aiming becomes the catalyst that games are won and lost over like in MW4. Is this a better way of wording it?

"Yes, many people here seem to underestimate how hard it is to hit things in mechwarrior games."
But just about everyone in every one of these threads are discussing methods to mitigate the problems seen in MW3/4. Yes the issues might get overblown, but they were game-changing issues that changed the way people played the game in order to win. If it was not such a problem you would not see such big discussion over it.

[Kudzu]

VYCanis, on 18 November 2011 - 12:38 PM, said:

Smooth enough. These are half ton weapons hardmounted on something large and relatively stable (remember gyros?). If a mech's stride is going to affect its aim, its going to apply as a bobbing or swaying motion, where the weapon's accuracy would be the same, it would just be pointing in different direction. If you are running with a watergun, and shooting it. does the thin stream suddenly turn to a wide spray? no, the stream just bobs around in various directions tracing out the perturbations of your motion, but without changing the characteristics of its stream. i.e. guns kicking upwards instead of just CoFing everywhere.

I see you're starting to get what I'm talking about, let's take it a few steps further. Run full out on a freshly plowed field (to simulate what the pressure of a mech's weight coming down on one leg at full speed would do to the ground.) Notice how you have to shift your weight around more (including your torso and arms), that your landings are more jarring? Now run uphill on muddy ground. Now try running on really rough and rocky ground. How about downhill on gravel?

What you'll notice is an inherit flaw in bipedal design-- it's not the most stable platform especially on rough terrain at high speed. Gyro's will keep you upright, but they won't make it smooth.

Quote

I don't watch star wars because i don't like star wars, sound in space, air combat in vacuum, and slow lasers are the least of what's wrong with star wars. And frankly even if the canonicity of magical weapon mountings that seem to actively be trying to miss, and cannot be calibrated for love or money, were carved into stone and carried down from a mountain I still would rather not see it translated into a MW, because it goes beyond the simple suspension of disbelief required to justify big *** robots and goes crashing into looking really stupid territory.

That sounds like more of a personal inability to suspend disbelief than a flaw in the canon. Also, how can you not like Star Wars?

Quote

Making lousy weapons that cannot hit properly was NEVER what seperated BT from other mecha. I have never heard that once. Battletech to me was about simulating damaged equipment, about mechs that actually had weight and momentum, about relatively believable hard-ish science fiction weapons, about space opera stuff, political intrigue, about logistics, different cultures clashing, screaming DFA at tables, having units that didn't necessarily need to look cool to be cool,and trying to maintain a sort of internal consistency.

It's something that's featured in every novel and short story in the sourcebooks-- name a mecha series that features inaccuracy and ridiculously short ranges from both the protagonists and antagonists the pre-dates BT.

Quote

That still doesn't make sense, unless the weapon is literally only held in place by zip ties and bubblegum. Take a bradley IFV, it has a machinegun coax next to its 25mm autocannon. They can both fire in the same direction pretty damn accurately, the coax doesn't just magically spaz out. And even if that bradley were on legs, and bobbing around, guess what, whatever the 25mm is going to be pointing at, the mg will be too and vice versa. They might not hit exactly the same point, but thats only because of a slight space between the barrels and the difference in ballistic qualities of the calibers.

The Bushmaster cannon has an effective range of around 3000 meters (Max range of 6000 meters), the coax 7.62 has an effective range around 800 -1500 meters (depends on bipod/tripod) with max range of 3725 meters. Sounds familiar, doesn't it?

[Kudzu]

verybad, on 18 November 2011 - 01:18 PM, said:

Mechwarrior isn't a simulation of Battletech the boardgame. It's a simulation of battles between mechs in the 31st century.

And where do you think all that knowledge of battlemechs in the 31st century comes from, exactly?

Quote

I can guarantee you that a cone of accuracy, combined with lag, combined with actual player innacuracy for whatever reason, would be a fatally damaging flaw for the game, and for the majority of players. You'll get loads of people complaining about it and quitting over it.

And I can guarantee you that a game that features it heavily has survived, thrived, and even spawned video games, novels, and a cartoon.

Eegxeta, on 18 November 2011 - 02:21 PM, said:

Know what? I think we shouldn't base the physics engine off another game. Everyone here is say oh lets do it like (insert game here). How about we mimic reality and base everything of real physics, not video game physics. I've always seen MW as a simulation game not a shooter. Why is it not a shooter? Because shooters don't use real physics they make their own rules to balance the game. Cone fire doesn't make sense on any level except for shooters. Bullet leaves the barrel where the barrel is pointed unless you change the laws of physics cone fire is impossible. I want MW to follow the laws of physics not the laws of shooters.

Tell you what, if you want realistic mech physics then build me an Atlas in your backyard-- featuring a fusion engine, combat effective lasers, myomer muscles, and all the other nifty things that go into BT--then come back and tell us how accurate the sim is.

[Kudzu]

Yeach, on 18 November 2011 - 06:08 PM, said:

As VYCanis explained there are these things called gyros on a mech. In my mind these gyros and the (suspension/legs) make the upper portion of the torso stable with minimal bobbing motion.

And in the established canon it doesn't. There's a reason that even in non-combat situations mechwarriors are strapped in tight and prefer to use cruising speeds.

Quote

FYI The M1 Abrahms has gyro-stabilized gun so it can fire while moving on uneven terrain.

FYI, a battlemech isn't an M1. Different universe, different abilities.

Quote

If the mech is suppose to imitate human movement, a good runner minimizes the up and down movement of the torso. Going faster the torso will lean forward but alway upright. Oh this would be done with neurohemet.

Oh, and the arms would be pumping and the whole mech jostling, this is due to physics.

Quote

Hey that sounds like almost like BattleTech in terms of ranges. I don't believe they have randomized spread damage in those X-Wing vs Tie-Fighters fights.

Rewatch the space battles and count the hit to miss ratio using lasers in a vacuum in a universe where space travel is possible. It falls under "rule of cool"-- sometimes firing away and not hitting looks a lot cooler than having super-accurate computer controled weapons that never miss.

Quote

So what is it? mediums completely useless or too powerful in instantly coring you?

Pumpkin, the first said "medium lasers". The second, when read in context, was referring to medium weight mechs.

Quote

You are too focused about the "never miss" part and less of the "point here". Its about getting to the "point here" that we have up for discussion.

The "never miss" part is a huge part of the problem.

Quote

Where can you learn this dice roll skills?
It sure would be handy to have in Vegas.

Come play a few dozen games on some of the megamech campaign servers. You'll quickly learn what I'm talking about.

[Melissia]

In the end, Kudzu, I will never, EVER agree with you because I would rather lose because my opponent played better than me than because the random number generator screwed me over.

Because your idea would implement this, it sucks. There's no redeeming it, no argument that would appease me, and likely the same for many other people who loathe the idea of "random" number generators determining who wins. There's nothing remotely good about this idea.

Edited by Melissia, 18 November 2011 - 08:03 PM.

[Kudzu]

Melissia, on 18 November 2011 - 08:01 PM, said:

In the end, Kudzu, I will never, EVER agree with you because I would rather lose because my opponent played better than me than because the random number generator screwed me over.

How "random" it is depends entirely on your actions. It introduces a layer of tactics and choices that weren't there before.

Quote

Because your idea would implement this, it sucks. There's no redeeming it, no argument that would appease me, and likely the same for many other people who loathe the idea of "random" number generators determining who wins. There's nothing remotely good about this idea.

Because when someone doesn't understand something they're obviously the expert on how good or bad of an idea it is.

[Melissia]

Kudzu, on 18 November 2011 - 08:19 PM, said:

How "random" it is depends entirely on your actions. It introduces a layer of tactics and choices that weren't there before.

No it doesn't. There is nothing this introduces that could not be introduced without such an atrociously bad game design being put in.

[Kudzu]

Melissia, on 18 November 2011 - 08:36 PM, said:

No it doesn't. There is nothing this introduces that could not be introduced without such an atrociously bad game design being put in.

Why don't you explain to the rest of us what you think is involved with center-weighted expanding reticule cone of fire.

[Melissia]

Kudzu, on 18 November 2011 - 08:39 PM, said:

Why don't you explain to the rest of us what you think is involved with center-weighted expanding reticule cone of fire.

Why don't you explain why your idea doesn't suck?

There's nothing in your idea that could not be done better using methods which do not involve removing the skill in aiming.

[Kudzu]

Melissia, on 18 November 2011 - 08:43 PM, said:

Why don't you explain why your idea doesn't suck?

There's nothing in your idea that could not be done better using methods which do not involve removing the skill in aiming.

So what you're really saying is that you don't understand it at all and thus your opinion means less than nothing on this subject.

[Melissia]

Kudzu, on 18 November 2011 - 08:48 PM, said:

So what you're really saying is that you don't understand it at all and thus your opinion means less than nothing on this subject.

Right, because anyone who disagrees with you "just doesn't understaaaaaaand!"

No, I understand your idea. It just isn't a very good one.

[Lasercat]

Amechwarrior, on 18 November 2011 - 07:33 PM, said:

Maybe I did not pick the exact right words for those parts. I want a better shot to be a better shot. But not allowed to be so good, they could utilize that skill to the point where only aiming becomes the catalyst that games are won and lost over like in MW4. Is this a better way of wording it?

lol no I got you the first time. I agree with the gist of what you were saying.

Amechwarrior, on 18 November 2011 - 07:33 PM, said:

But just about everyone in every one of these threads are discussing methods to mitigate the problems seen in MW3/4. Yes the issues might get overblown, but they were game-changing issues that changed the way people played the game in order to win. If it was not such a problem you would not see such big discussion over it.

To that I would say the forum here is very biased. All the mechwarrior games to date have been really great, the style of play was somewhat different in each one, but they were all lots of fun online. Most of the complaints about those "problems" come from people who haven't spent much time really playing online matches in each of the games (check the posts, you'll almost never read anything detailed about multiplayer), and believe the battletech bible is too holy to change when applied to a video game

That's completely cool, everybody wants their own thing, and to be honest it would be interesting if the new game approached it all from a different angle, since a rehash of the previous games would end up being dull after a while. So long as the new approach preserves or increases the amount of skill that was needed to get good at the previous games, there shouldn't be any problem.

>>Right so this is where the idea of introducing any kind of global randomness to where a player aims gets dangerous. You may or may not solve something which is a problem to the minds of some people, at the expense of losing a certain amount of aiming skill needed to play well. It's not the best decision to make since there are alternatives which do the same thing and don't involve RNG's.

That aside, the people making the game have already said a few times they're shying away from using dice rolls to determine combat, so meh.

[Kudzu]

Melissia, on 18 November 2011 - 08:52 PM, said:

Right, because anyone who disagrees with you "just doesn't understaaaaaaand!"

No, I understand your idea. It just isn't a very good one.

No, the difference is that I went into detail about a system I believe to be bad, explaining exactly why I think this with evidence and examples. I have demonstrated that I understand how the system works and what I would do to change it.

You, instead, have gone the route of "it sucks because it sucks" and refuse to demonstrate why you believe this, much like a small child throws a temper tantrum. You have evidenced absolutely no understanding of the topic whatsoever.

[Melissia]

Kudzu, on 18 November 2011 - 09:00 PM, said:

You, instead, have gone the route of "it sucks because it sucks"

No, I said it sucks because it reduces the level of skill required and is utterly unnecessary, while adding nothing to the game. That, and pretty all of its stated goals can be done in better ways.

But keep getting mad at me for disliking your idea... that'll really convince me.

Edited by Melissia, 18 November 2011 - 09:05 PM.

[Kudzu]

Melissia, on 18 November 2011 - 09:04 PM, said:

No, I said it sucks because it reduces the level of skill required and is utterly unnecessary, while adding nothing to the game. That, and pretty all of its stated goals can be done in better ways.

But keep getting mad at me for disliking your idea... that'll really convince me.

Or you could stop evading and demonstrate your full knowledge of the center weighted expanding reticule cone of fire system like I asked.

[Melissia]

Kudzu, on 18 November 2011 - 09:07 PM, said:

Or you could stop evading and demonstrate your full knowledge of the center weighted expanding reticule cone of fire system like I asked.

Funny that you should accuse me of "evading", considering you're evading answering me when I ask you to explain why this idea should be chosen over all the others and what this idea adds that couldn't be done better somewhere else.

[phalanx]

Why are we debating this, the Devs have already said that the game will NOT have an RNG.

[Kudzu]

Melissia, on 18 November 2011 - 09:14 PM, said:

Funny that you should accuse me of "evading", considering you're evading answering me when I ask you to explain why this idea should be chosen over all the others and what this idea adds that couldn't be done better somewhere else.

Considering the sheer number of posts in this thread featuring me already explaining that exact topic just goes to show you really don't understand. Your turn.