Jump to content

On Cones of Fire Without RNG Nonsense


229 replies to this topic

#221 allmhuran

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Elite Founder
  • Elite Founder
  • 189 posts
  • LocationSydney Australia

Posted 08 August 2012 - 10:37 PM

I agree. I think that's pretty much how we draw the line between "required level of realism to avoid complete confusion", and "way too much detail, unnecessarily hindering the design process".

For a game, particularly a game where real people are playing against each other, randomness is a major design no-no. If the finer points of "realism" (like the expansion and contraction of metals as they heat up, the inaccuracy that comes from barrels that aren't just-cleaned, etc) call for randomness to be added, then we should ignore those finer points in preference for better gameplay.

If, on the other hand, a design decision was made to implement a gameplay mechanic like, say, wind effects, then it would be important that the wind effects were applied consistently and to things that "should" be affected by wind, so as not to confuse players or make things unintuitive.

I guess the key here is that anything that realism suggests should be "random" is, by definition, unpredictable. Your intuition about "what should happen" is therefore not going to be of any value anyway. We can therefore safely ignore such aspects.

Realism may dictate that weapons aren't perfectly accurate, but there's no way you can use your intuition to predict the random deflection that would occur due to such realistic models, therefore there's no reason to include it in the game.

Edited by allmhuran, 08 August 2012 - 10:41 PM.


#222 CocoaJin

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,607 posts
  • LocationLos Angeles, CA

Posted 09 August 2012 - 07:29 AM

View Postallmhuran, on 08 August 2012 - 10:37 PM, said:

I agree. I think that's pretty much how we draw the line between "required level of realism to avoid complete confusion", and "way too much detail, unnecessarily hindering the design process".

For a game, particularly a game where real people are playing against each other, randomness is a major design no-no. If the finer points of "realism" (like the expansion and contraction of metals as they heat up, the inaccuracy that comes from barrels that aren't just-cleaned, etc) call for randomness to be added, then we should ignore those finer points in preference for better gameplay.

If, on the other hand, a design decision was made to implement a gameplay mechanic like, say, wind effects, then it would be important that the wind effects were applied consistently and to things that "should" be affected by wind, so as not to confuse players or make things unintuitive.

I guess the key here is that anything that realism suggests should be "random" is, by definition, unpredictable. Your intuition about "what should happen" is therefore not going to be of any value anyway. We can therefore safely ignore such aspects.

Realism may dictate that weapons aren't perfectly accurate, but there's no way you can use your intuition to predict the random deflection that would occur due to such realistic models, therefore there's no reason to include it in the game.


Unrestricted, random application of variables would be problematic, but if variables are applied due to intutitive triggers, and these variables are given restrictions on how they are applied and to what magnitude, you can emulate (not simulate) with a believable degree the affects the varibles are emulating.

For instance, you can emulate ballistic gun dispersion of a .50 Browning Machine Gun by using actual dispersion data on the gun. This will provide you restrictions on how the gun will disperse shots. You can then take into account the various conditions that contribute to the dispersion, such vibration induced by the weapon's platform(such as mounted in a wing of a fighter, or atop a Humvee), heat, user proffiency, etc, etc. From that, you can build a reasonable...or at least reasonable believeable facimile of these conditions and how they affect dispersion within the confines of the data.

Since we don't have PPCs a, AC10s, we can take what we know about systems with similar principles and affected by smilar conditions, variables, etc, etc. So we can extrapolate dispersion data from lets say a 20mm, or 30mm or 40mm Bofors to approximate a reasonable dispersion model for in game auto-cannons. Use data from short-barreled 75mm or 100mm anti-tank or tank rounds to approximate largers Auto-cannon dispersions. Of course the actual rounds in mech warrior are bigger, but the conventional rounds of the last centuries tank/armored vehicle munitions would scale up just fine with the those rounds used by mechs...its close enough to be "believeable", pluse we are more inclined feel the attributes of conventional muntions as "correct"...since most have no concept/experience(real-life or in games) of a naval ship size round behaves in a short-range, direct fire capacity.

With respect to lasers, if their alignment is off, they miss their target and loses coherence, thus reduced damage...so a reductn in DoT is a nice emulation. I've actually seen this happen to a laser's beam due to amplification chamber anamolies/defects(it requires a re-tuning of the lense to correct).

Particle weapons, Rail-guns, etc, etc...are essentially ballastic in many respects. Those affects of barrel anamolies essentially apply to these guns too.

The key is building within the game's engine, a model that is based on natural laws and utilizes educated assumptions and input to crank believable and not purely random results.

#223 Victor Steel

    Member

  • PipPip
  • Bridesmaid
  • Bridesmaid
  • 22 posts
  • LocationTennessee

Posted 10 August 2012 - 08:10 AM

Very cool and very well thought out. I can say that I sure would like this level of realism when I am taking out an enemy 'mech. I can only see a few issues with this idea.

I could see this level of complexity completely scaring off the casual gamer. The super-naive gamer probably would not care and just alpha strike whenever it struck his fancy. But the potential for scaring off revenue I think is there. You could make it configurable on a user by user basis, but then only the hardest core fans would stick to the "real" reticles if the alternative resulted in tighter groupings.

The plan is very well presented, but it may be harder to put into code. Computers are great at this kind of stuff, but I am just unsure as to how difficult a task this would be. So it may be a question of cost-benefit analysis. The current system is probably fun and "good enough", so the developers will likely focus their efforts on bugs and new features.

And parallel weapons grouped a few inches apart will hit a few inches apart (based on angle of the surface). So, for the most part, they would hit the same location. Sometimes that would result in a different location or even a miss, but the amount of math and complexity to make the computer do this may be too much.

But to reiterate, I am very impressed with the well-thought-outedness of your idea. I would totally use the 5 reticles bouncing and swaying all over the place for "realism". Very, very, cool.

- Victor Steel

#224 GrimDeath

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 106 posts
  • LocationGA

Posted 10 August 2012 - 08:16 AM

I can get behind this idea.

#225 EndoDrake 263

    Member

  • PipPipPip
  • 55 posts

Posted 15 August 2012 - 01:00 AM

Bumping this. Realistic, logical, great diagrams to explain it all, and I think it's a very good idea for making MWO feel more like something else than just a basic FPS. It'd also make different 'Mechs and variants thereof -feel- different from one another, thanks to weapon positioning/arm configuration.

#226 Belorion

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 5,469 posts
  • LocationEast Coast

Posted 15 August 2012 - 03:33 AM

Pretty much any weapon system mounted in modern warcraft/tanks/ships move to target. There is no reason to belive that the weapons mounted on the mechs do not move.

Which pretty much negates your whole argument. Static mounting of weapons would be highly limiting.

#227 Intruder

    Member

  • PipPip
  • The Bold
  • The Bold
  • 48 posts

Posted 15 August 2012 - 06:40 AM

Fantastic analysis and suggestions.

#228 Rofleupagus

    Member

  • PipPipPip
  • Knight Errant
  • Knight Errant
  • 67 posts
  • LocationClimbin' in yo' window

Posted 15 August 2012 - 07:15 AM

Regardless of how I feel about it your post was well thought out. Keep up your thinking, Cavadus.

#229 Alexandrix

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Stone Cold
  • Stone Cold
  • 910 posts

Posted 15 August 2012 - 09:48 AM

Gonna go ahead and give you a bump.I agree with this and think it would be a great addition.As it stands with the pinpoint accurate reticle for all weapons,laser boating is far more effective than it should be.





12 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 12 guests, 0 anonymous users