64 replies to this topic

[Xarian]

UrsusMorologus, on 17 October 2014 - 05:17 PM, said:

Buffing speed is a relatively poor hack, because it doesnt actually help accuracy any, it makes weapons behave differently which is counterproductive. The only buff to accuracy is relative because all other platforms become more inaccurate.

If other platforms are less accurate than the Hunchback, then the Hunchback, by definition, is more accurate than those other platforms.

Since the other platforms weren't changed in any way, they were not made less accurate - they were left exactly the same. So if the Hunchback is more accurate than those other platforms, and it was changed by adding new quirks, then it was made more accurate.

This isn't rocket science.

[aniviron]

Scratx, on 17 October 2014 - 10:15 AM, said:

Gameplay reasons trump Reality.

...

Besides, why are you asking for projectiles not to be sped up and not asking for laser beams not to have their burn time changed? Some of the known buffs affect laser burn times. It's no different.

I agree that gameplay trumps reality, and your post is pretty solid. That last line though, I feel I can explain.

Target lead is an incredibly important thing to get a feel for. It's something you just have to know, and you have to know it instantly and instinctively if you want to be a good player and consistently make your shots. Knowing your lead distances and times isn't a skill you pick up in one match or ten, it takes a lot of play to get it right. That's a big part of why there was so much bellyaching about the PPC speed change; nobody wanted to have to relearn that. Ask anyone good at shooters, this is very important- anyone who knows what's what in Quake or UT or Arma can pick players out of midair with a rocket launcher, and while MWO isn't as fast, putting damage on a specific part of the target is still just as important.

So if you play four different mechs with the same primary weapon and the projectile moves at a different speed on all those mechs, good luck landing consistent shots on target. Your lead amount will be different on every single one. Nobody sits down and does trigonometry to figure out how far ahead you have to shoot, you just need to know what the lead is already before you take the shot. If the projectile is a different speed on every mech, you'll never get consistent performance.

Projectile speed changes are actually a bad thing.

[Bishop Steiner]

UrsusMorologus, on 17 October 2014 - 09:47 AM, said:

I like the idea of quirks improving the overall performance of specific weapons on specific mechs, but I am not a fan of changing the behavior of weapon projectiles. It is counterproductive.

If you want to say AC20 reload time is shorter because hunchback has an optimized loading racks, that is good. It provides a nice buff, a little immersion, and encourages specialization and canon loadout. But you should not have a quirk that says the projectile travels further. That is not good. This is supposed to be an off-the-shelf weapon using basic ammo, so the munition should perform exactly the same for all of them. Similar for the PPC, you should certainly buff the heat dissipation, which in turn will allow for faster fire rates, but you should not change the speed of the projectile.

Another factor is that changing the projectile behavior will be disruptive to people who switch between chassis frequently. If a PPC moves at a certain speed on all mechs but this one, then when I switch to the special one I might actually perform worse because my timing and aim is all wrong. Its actually unhelpful, potentially harmful in some cases. [Modules get around this because you can slot the module on every mech, quirk buffs are not portable.]

Another thing is that changing the projectile behavior adds a corner-case dimension to balance which will make it harder to affect broad-scale balance changes. Want a module to improve flight speed? Well you have to consider how it affects the few quirks.

Integration buffs good. Projectile buffs bad.

Do you understand the only reason the weapons are getting projectile buff and nerfs, be it in quirks, or targeting computer?

Because that is the easiest way to represent "being more accurate" with the weapon. The faster the projectile gets there, the less lead time you need to figure.

Nothing more.

[Cyborne Elemental]

Scratx, on 17 October 2014 - 10:15 AM, said:

Gameplay reasons trump Reality.

WINNER!

[UrsusMorologus]

Bishop Steiner, on 17 October 2014 - 06:42 PM, said:

Because that is the easiest way to represent "being more accurate" with the weapon. The faster the projectile gets there, the less lead time you need to figure.

Speed is not the same as accuracy. Yes it makes the window of opportunity smaller and puts more shots on targets who are standing still, but if you are shooting at a moving target then you still have to lead your shots. It doesnt actually make you more accurate, it just makes the lead time characteristic different.

If you want accuracy, make the projectile hit-box bigger so that it collides with the target more often (effectively makes the target bigger). That will be much more forgiving for aim.

All this does is make weapons inconsistent, which is ironically BAD for actual aiming.

[Bishop Steiner]

UrsusMorologus, on 17 October 2014 - 07:25 PM, said:

Speed is not the same as accuracy. Yes it makes the window of opportunity smaller and puts more shots on targets who are standing still, but if you are shooting at a moving target then you still have to lead your shots. It doesnt actually make you more accurate, it just makes the lead time characteristic different.

If you want accuracy, make the projectile hit-box bigger so that it collides with the target more often (effectively makes the target bigger). That will be much more forgiving for aim.

All this does is make weapons inconsistent, which is ironically BAD for actual aiming.

You sort of missed the point, but whatever.

Faster projectile speed IS more accurate because you have to lead less, and worry less about figuring lead time. Which is why The Gauss is so deadly, because you really don't need to lead in most cases. It also minimizes response time from the target.

Higher projectile speed DOES make hitting a target easier for most people and thus, yes, is an accuracy aid.

Does it affect the mechanical accuracy of the system? For most purposes, no. Does it affect actual "practical" accuracy because of the human factor? Absolutely.

Edited by Bishop Steiner, 17 October 2014 - 07:29 PM.

[Mercules]

stjobe, on 17 October 2014 - 03:20 PM, said:

The single-shot AC is a myth, a misunderstanding of the lore based on the simplifications made for the TT rules.

One which has been perpetrated ad nauseum by past MW titles that originally got it wrong. I've been saying ACs were wrong since MW2.

UrsusMorologus, on 17 October 2014 - 03:55 PM, said:

That would be pretty nifty, but it kind of carries an assumption that I should be able to buy the Tomodzuru Autocannon somewhere for my other mechs as well.

Well, it could be the Tomodzuru is custom built to fit in a Hunchback hunch with all the extra special bracing and specific feed system the Hunchback has to support it and just wouldn't work as well on a different mech.

[oneproduct]

Quote

Gameplay reasons trump reality.

Consistency is a part of gameplay and something that game designers are trained to pay attention to. Lasers have different colors so you can identify their ranges. You can read your opponent's weapon loadout so you know what to expect. Changing weapons so that they are inconsistent hurts gameplay as much as it helps. There are pros and cons and some are worth taking while others aren't.

Personally the worst offender to me is weapon range because one important part of the game is choosing at what distance you want to fight and that will vary based on your opponents' weapons. If you can't make reliable reads on your opponents it throws that out the window. If you changed all lasers to be the same color it would be a lot harder to deal with lasers since you don't know if that spam of single color lasers are all large lasers or medium lasers so you don't know if they're effective at that range or not.

In the same way we have consistency with hill climbing. Slopes that are too steep to climb are colored differently.

Changing projectile properties, velocity and range, are harmful to game consistency. Cooldown and heat generation are not.

I don't play TT so I don't know for sure, but it sounds to me from reading the Sarna wiki that although in the lore there are different models of autocannons that they all perform the same in terms of actual gameplay.

Edited by oneproduct, 17 October 2014 - 07:47 PM.

[UrsusMorologus]

Bishop Steiner, on 17 October 2014 - 07:28 PM, said:

Faster projectile speed IS more accurate because you have to lead less, and worry less about figuring lead time.

Whats the practical difference to your aim between having to lead a running Jenner by 8mm or having to lead it by 6mm? You have to lead the target in both cases. Target size is the same in both cases so you have the same chance to hit or miss if you are off by 1mm.

When lead-time is involved, you have to take the visual data from your 2D monitor to infer depth-of-field with your third-eye, and then predict where the bullet and the target will meet within that imaginary 3D scape. Do you understand? There is zero difference to your "aim" between leading a target by 8mm and leading it by 6mm, same damn work both cases.

In order for aim to be significantly diminished, you would have to take lead-time out of the picture entirely so that you just highlight and click, no 2D projection into your third-eye depth-of-field, cursor over target YAH I WIN that is what you need for speed to affect AIM. Is this buff going to give that level of gain? If not then all you have done is require different kinds of lead time calculations for different mechs. You have only made it harder.

[oneproduct]

Although I'm on your side of the argument UrsusMorologus, I will agree with Bishop in the subject of speed's relation to aim. The slower the projectile moves, the more time your opponent might suddenly turn and make you miss, so it's not just about predicting a straight line path because your opponent might do something during the flight time.

However I am still against changing projectile speed.

[UrsusMorologus]

oneproduct, on 17 October 2014 - 07:55 PM, said:

Although I'm on your side of the argument UrsusMorologus, I will agree with Bishop in the subject of speed's relation to aim. The slower the projectile moves, the more time your opponent might suddenly turn and make you miss, so it's not just about predicting a straight line path because your opponent might do something during the flight time.

However I am still against changing projectile speed.

Yes shorter flight-time is definitely a factor because it reduces the targets ability to move (actively or accidentally), but at the speeds we are talking about its not signifcant enough to matter unless you are at extreme distance (travel). And when a heavy target is standing still its basically a mouseover either way, since the target cant accelerate fast enough in any case.

[Bishop Steiner]

UrsusMorologus, on 17 October 2014 - 07:50 PM, said:

Whats the practical difference to your aim between having to lead a running Jenner by 8mm or having to lead it by 6mm? You have to lead the target in both cases. Target size is the same in both cases so you have the same chance to hit or miss if you are off by 1mm.

When lead-time is involved, you have to take the visual data from your 2D monitor to infer depth-of-field with your third-eye, and then predict where the bullet and the target will meet within that imaginary 3D scape. Do you understand? There is zero difference to your "aim" between leading a target by 8mm and leading it by 6mm, same damn work both cases.

In order for aim to be significantly diminished, you would have to take lead-time out of the picture entirely so that you just highlight and click, no 2D projection into your third-eye depth-of-field, cursor over target YAH I WIN that is what you need for speed to affect AIM. Is this buff going to give that level of gain? If not then all you have done is require different kinds of lead time calculations for different mechs. You have only made it harder.

OK, keep telling yourself that.

Faster projectile moves, less time for outside forces, like target movement, zigzag, etc to effect arrival of projectile. Period. Thus less factors involved in landing the shot.

For the record, I hunt and shoot IRL guns competitively. I know the factors involved in making a shot. And all other factors being equal, when making a shot, you take the options that eliminate as many variables as humanly possible.

Again, none of that actually affects mechanical accuracy potential. It does directly matter in practical accuracy.

Practical test. Take 10 random mechwarrior in 10 matches each. Give them ac20s in 5, ac2s in five. Move moderately fast mechs back and forth across the map 600 meters out. See which weapon they have the higher hit rate with. It will be the ac2, because with higher projectile speed, lower time to target, there are less variables to deal with. And yes, it's easier (more forgiving) to lead.

Edited by Bishop Steiner, 17 October 2014 - 08:00 PM.

[Mercules]

UrsusMorologus, on 17 October 2014 - 07:50 PM, said:

When lead-time is involved, you have to take the visual data from your 2D monitor to infer depth-of-field with your third-eye, and then predict where the bullet and the target will meet within that imaginary 3D scape. Do you understand? There is zero difference to your "aim" between leading a target by 8mm and leading it by 6mm, same damn work both cases.

The longer the round takes to get to target the bigger the chance that the target will be moving in a way that makes the projectile miss. This is why I don't run full speed all the time in my light mechs and DON'T run in straight lines. I am constantly changing it up so that people using slower projectiles will have THAT MUCH HARDER of a time figuring out how much they have to lead me. See... a 45 degree shift in my direction means I am no longer moving at the same speed parallel to them AND changing my distance to them at the same time. So at longer ranges I am almost never hit by anything short of AC2s and Gauss.

Edited by Mercules, 17 October 2014 - 08:01 PM.

[Bishop Steiner]

Also, I should note, I am not a fan of the speed boost either, I simply get what the Devs were attempting to accomplish with it. We really don't have any other ways to simulate "improved accuracy" in this game, since they have made it point and click in the first place.

We would have different options for quirks, TCs and such in toto, if there we expanding/swaying reticles, CoFs or other such mechanics in operation. There isn't so options were limited.

Now do I even realyl think an accuracy/projectile speed buff was needed? Not overall.

But if you don't think Projectile Speed hampers accuracy, why no task the Comp why they stopped using ac10s....and then PPCs?


Because when they were slowed down, they became less effectively accurate at longer engagement ranges.

[Mercules]

Bishop Steiner, on 17 October 2014 - 08:05 PM, said:

Because when they were slowed down, they became less effectively accurate at longer engagement ranges.

Yep, I used to hit targets like crazy at long ranges with ERPPCs. I can still hit slow moving targets at long range(I do this typically in lights and mediums moving rather fast themselves) but against a fast light I can't predict well enough where they will be unless they are dumb and run in a straight line at the same speed.

[UrsusMorologus]

Bishop Steiner, on 17 October 2014 - 08:05 PM, said:

Also, I should note, I am not a fan of the speed boost either, I simply get what the Devs were attempting to accomplish with it. We really don't have any other ways to simulate "improved accuracy" in this game, since they have made it point and click in the first place.

We would have different options for quirks, TCs and such in toto, if there we expanding/swaying reticles, CoFs or other such mechanics in operation. There isn't so options were limited.

Now do I even realyl think an accuracy/projectile speed buff was needed? Not overall.

But if you don't think Projectile Speed hampers accuracy, why no task the Comp why they stopped using ac10s....and then PPCs?


Because when they were slowed down, they became less effectively accurate at longer engagement ranges.

They used to be 2000 m/s, the same as Gauss now? Gauss is effectively a mouseover now, so PPC was then too.

If the quirk adds 500m/s back then yeah it will be easy mode again

Otherwise it just means learning two different kinds of leading with PPCs

ps--Target evasion and your aim are different for balance purposes. I know they affect each other but its different, really. Does your aim get better when you shoot a Dire? not the right question

[Bishop Steiner]

UrsusMorologus, on 17 October 2014 - 08:25 PM, said:

They used to be 2000 m/s, the same as Gauss now? Gauss is effectively a mouseover now, so PPC was then too.

If the quirk adds 500m/s back then yeah it will be easy mode again

Otherwise it just means learning two different kinds of leading with PPCs

ps--Target evasion and your aim are different for balance purposes. I know they affect each other but its different, really. Does your aim get better when you shoot a Dire? not the right question

no. You are just not making or admitting the connection between practical accuracy and mechanical or absolute accuracy.

Also I believe PPCs were 1500. And ac10s were 1200 or 1300. Yet the relatively minor total reduction to 950 ended their short Meta reign over night. Amongst the best shots in the game, let alone Joe Average.

As for target evasion and aim, one directly impacts the other, and PGI can't really do much on the target evasion side, now can they?

Edited by Bishop Steiner, 17 October 2014 - 08:33 PM.

[UrsusMorologus]

Bishop Steiner, on 17 October 2014 - 08:32 PM, said:

no. You are just not making or admitting the connection between practical accuracy and mechanical or absolute accuracy.

Also I believe PPCs were 1500. And ac10s were 1200 or 1300. Yet the relatively minor total reduction to 950 ended their short Meta reign over night. Amongst the best shots in the game, let alone Joe Average.

As for target evasion and aim, one directly impacts the other, and PGI can't really do much on the target evasion side, now can they?

http://mwomercs.com/...ember-3rd-live/

Quote

PPC/ERPPC projectile speed slowed to 1500m/s down from 2000m/s.

Gauss projectile speed increased from 1200m/s up to 2000m/s, internal health increased to 5 (up from 3).

So according to that PPC used to be the same as Gauss is now

Edited by UrsusMorologus, 17 October 2014 - 08:56 PM.

[5th Fedcom Rat]

I think the armor quirk is more nonsensical than the weapon ones. What, the hunchback and awesome are using super rare alien titanium armor that other mechs, including Clan mechs, don't have access to? Makes no sense.

[Bishop Steiner]

UrsusMorologus, on 17 October 2014 - 08:55 PM, said:

http://mwomercs.com/...ember-3rd-live/



So according to that PPC used to be the same as Gauss is now

hasn't been that in a very long time. And if you check NOW, when it stopped being used its 850-950 . So if speed doesn't matter why has it stopped being used?

5th Fedcom Rat, on 17 October 2014 - 08:58 PM, said:

I think the armor quirk is more nonsensical than the weapon ones. What, the hunchback and awesome are using super rare alien titanium armor that other mechs, including Clan mechs, don't have access to? Makes no sense.

Not really, Simply using Unobtanium to cover hitbox deficiencies. HBK is supposed to be a tough brawler. Realities of FPS and hitboxes, is it was not. This allows it to fulfil its role.

*shrugs*