1126 replies to this topic

[Dino Might]

Kuritaclan, on 14 April 2015 - 03:00 PM, said:

I uploaded the pics now to show what a degree is in mwo


I do not rambling about rng. I add up your concept with rng, to simulate a hit distribution. You also can define the postions for like 4 weapons at the circle on lets say 0°, 90°, 180°, 270°, if you don't wanna add in rng. And if you do not adjust the radius you have the maximum range between all 4 hitpoints for those 4 weapons. However with rng the 4 weapons of the exampe do the same, what the lbx does to its shrapnel.

I'm agianst it because there are weapons wich do spread damage like a lbx or a srm - and there are weapons like ppc, who "should" hit what i aimed for (and because of velocity of it and relative movement of you and the enemy it does not hit 100% the part you aimed for) If i fire to much of them i get a heat penality.

Look at the pictures if you make the radius of this circle to short it does not matter for lets say 4 lasers, since the beam duration add in a natural displacment, however if you mage the radius to big it is a shotgun effect you have with the usage of more weapons. You add in modifiers, and they can be used to adjust. But to be honest i don't see how this will help. Alpha would be over in this case yes, but if you can not alpha your lets say 5+ lasers why bring them if you have a better alpha with natural spread weapons what do more damage with less penality like heat.

This is 200m! Now we are also talking of ppc and weapons named Extreme Range Large Laser. Now say me what is the correct degree of spread you would acept at 1000m that alpha is no longer available, but you may at least hit with one weapon? - you know how small the cone becomes, when you this little circle use on the low range, the spread is nearly not existent.

I appreciate what you have done, but i don't think it is a good solution. Another point is you have a linear scaling of weapons in your formula - if you wanna do something like that you may need a "ghost" if/then query, so that 2 weapons of the same kind are not hit with penality of this spread, but 4 get kicked hard for example - maybe an expotenital increase would help too.

You use your illustration as an example of "too much spread." I agree, for a battery of lasers. Now, for multiple gauss, fired on the run at high heat? Maybe, maybe not (anyone know how heat impacts the mag coils, and what deviation is allowed for the EMF in the gun at the various stages?). The point is that those spread values can be adjusted. You keep trying to argue with hyperbole, and it's nonsense. Not all numbers are less than 2 just because 1 is less than 2.

Edited by Dino Might, 14 April 2015 - 03:26 PM.

[Telmasa]

Dino Might, on 14 April 2015 - 03:25 PM, said:

You use your illustration as an example of "too much spread." I agree, for a battery of lasers. Now, for multiple gauss, fired on the run at high heat? Maybe, maybe not (anyone know how heat impacts the mag coils, and what deviation is allowed for the EMF in the gun at the various stages?). The point is that those spread values can be adjusted. You keep trying to argue with hyperbole, and it's nonsense. Not all numbers are less than 2 just because 1 is less than 2.

I don't think heat would affect the mag coils at all, unless the mech designers were dumb enough to try to use them as heat sinks or vent all the heat externally right over the gauss rifle.

[Dino Might]

Telmasa, on 14 April 2015 - 03:40 PM, said:

I don't think heat would affect the mag coils at all, unless the mech designers were dumb enough to try to use them as heat sinks or vent all the heat externally right over the gauss rifle.

Probably not, but if the coils weren't sufficiently shielded, they could heat up from conduction from surround parts of the chassis. Then, you get the whole issue of resistance changing with temperature, and that would throw a wrench or two in your coil timing, me guesses. I usually think of 90% heat in a mech meaning the thing is pretty much hot all over - why else does it show up white hot in thermals?

[Kuritaclan]

Dino Might, on 14 April 2015 - 03:25 PM, said:

You use your illustration as an example of "too much spread." I agree, for a battery of lasers. Now, for multiple gauss, fired on the run at high heat? Maybe, maybe not (anyone know how heat impacts the mag coils, and what deviation is allowed for the EMF in the gun at the various stages?). The point is that those spread values can be adjusted. You keep trying to argue with hyperbole, and it's nonsense. Not all numbers are less than 2 just because 1 is less than 2.

I don't know how to reply. I argue with hyperbole, well lbx 10 is the spread you may need to unlink the firepower of an alpha, if you make the cone of fire to small you won't get a noticeable change on assaults/heavys, but it needs to stay tide, to at least have the chance to grill light Mechs, or they will become "nearly infinceable". There are some problems within the assumption that such a solution will bring the cure. And when i say i told you so, then it is not my fault.

For example leg a light: You need with assumed armor of 32 and internals pretty much firepower to rip it away (subject to everything hit - beam mechanic of laser? velocity diversity between weapon systems? Ping? Hitreg?). The light in 30-50m in a back of an assault like a fs9A isn't that much penalized with spread or how big the cone should be to make it unable to fire 8 small pulse lasers and hit exactly? And if he can not fire the 8SPL, he might fire 4+4 (since the beam time is so small he does not loose that much time) In case the Assault do the nearly impossible and geht the Light in to his front by outmaneuver, he ca not harm this jordle, since his alpha will spread to much so he can only fire a small group of his weapon set like the light did. The light gigle and run away after the kill.

Now you say gauss needs a spread circle so you can not headshot with two (more are not linkable) on a distance of for example 660m optimal range. Fine but do this cone you wanna apply to the dualgauss make it impossible for him to shot the legs of lights? You see a DRG-1N, a mech with one of the highest DPS in this game, he will shred your ct in less then 10 seconds - but since you get the cof penality you can not amputate his arm, which is the main threat.

And another question what about weapons which have a spread allread like srms - will you add to the srm spread aditional cone of fire if it is fired in a alpha situation?

Edited by Kuritaclan, 14 April 2015 - 04:13 PM.

[tangles 253]

reply to the op. leave convergence as is.

[Dino Might]

Kuritaclan, on 14 April 2015 - 03:58 PM, said:

I don't know how to reply. I argue with hyperbole, well lbx 10 is the spread you may need to unlink the firepower of an alpha, if you make the cone of fire to small you won't get a noticeable change on assaults/heavys, but it needs to stay tide, to at least have the chance to grill light Mechs, or they will become "nearly infinceable". There are some problems within the assumption that such a solution will bring the cure. And when i say i told you so, then it is not my fault.

For example leg a light: You need with assumed armor of 32 and internals pretty much firepower to rip it away (subject to everything hit - beam mechanic of laser? velocity diversity between weapon systems? Ping? Hitreg?). The light in 30-50m in a back of an assault like a fs9A isn't that much penalized with spread or how big the cone should be to make it unable to fire 8 small pulse lasers and hit exactly? And if he can not fire the 8SPL, he might fire 4+4 (since the beam time is so small he does not loose that much time) In case the Assault do the nearly impossible and geht the Light in to his front by outmaneuver, he ca not harm this jordle, since his alpha will spread to much so he can only fire a small group of his weapon set like the light did. The light gigle and run away after the kill.

Now you say gauss needs a spread circle so you can not headshot with two people on a distance of for example 660m optimal range. Fine but do this cone you wanna apply to the dualgauss make it impossible for him to shot the legs of lights? You see a DRG-1N, a mech with one of the highest DPS in this game, he will shred your ct in less then 10 seconds - but since you get the cof penality you can not amputate his arm, which is the main threat.

And another question what about weapons which have a spread allread like srms - will you add to the srm spread aditional cone of fire if it is fired in a alpha situation?

I'm saying that each of these cases can be looked at to find some reasonable numbers. I don't want to completely nullify alpha striking. I think with careful piloting, low heat, and good aim, the alpha should go mostly or completely to one spot. It's the repeated on-the-move, high heat, jumping around alphas that still go right to one spot that I'd like to address. I think there is a way to strike this happy medium.

[NocturnalBeast]

Burktross, on 14 April 2015 - 07:15 AM, said:

there is none. Angry neckbeards can't agree with each other.

This is the cop out of a weakminded fool who is losing an argument on a game forum.

[Frostiken]

Apocryph0n, on 20 January 2015 - 02:01 AM, said:

The other possibilty that would be closer to canon/TT etc. would be to make weapons like WoT guns: ConeOfFire so that you can kind of aim still, but have spread (with lasers: terrible 200year old targeting computers ). Would kind of replicate the RNG roll on which component got hit and instantly remove pinpoint as well. <-not an actual suggestion btw, I have no clue how this would work out

I don't really understand why everyone freaks the **** out when 'cone of fire' (a not so great term to describe a slew of things that ultimately amount to 'some inherent inaccuracy') is mentioned. They're fine with it in other games, but suddenly in Mechwarrior, the game that was built from a tabletop game where you could stand literally 30 meters from a stationary enemy and miss every single shot, it's imperative that every single shot go exactly where your HUD says it will.

Seriously there's people saying 'NO THANKS I WANT TO PLAY A SHOOTER NOT A DICE ROLLING SIMULATOR'. Really find me one FPS game that doesn't have a gun with some sort of spread to it. The closest you're going to get is Unreal Tournament Instagib Shock Rifles rounds, but almost nobody plays those games for a reason. Every single popular shooter in the last ten years uses cones of fire for a reason.

Pixel-perfect accuracy has been a the elephant in the room ever since MW3. Jump-sniping isn't a problem, the fact that you can jump-snipe and alpha-strike a single point on a mech is. Boating isn't a problem, the fact that you can drill a perfect hole through the enemy in one button-push is.

MWLL tried to solve the problem somewhat with long laser burn durations, but I never felt they were long enough. The CERLL only needed like half a second to dump its insane damage out.

Edited by Frostiken, 15 April 2015 - 12:02 AM.

[Mcgral18]

Ed Steele, on 14 April 2015 - 11:05 PM, said:

This is the cop out of a weakminded fool who is losing an argument on a game forum.

It's the truth.

We have people putting forward thought out convergence systems, or simple ones that PGI could theoretically implement.

Then you have people saying:" DONT TOUCH MY SKILL! I don't want to hit his toe at 20M!"


Too much hyperbole to ever have an actual discussion.

[Fooooo]

Frostiken, on 15 April 2015 - 12:00 AM, said:

I don't really understand why everyone freaks the **** out when 'cone of fire' (a not so great term to describe a slew of things that ultimately amount to 'some inherent inaccuracy') is mentioned. They're fine with it in other games, but suddenly in Mechwarrior, the game that was built from a tabletop game where you could stand literally 30 meters from a stationary enemy and miss every single shot, it's imperative that every single shot go exactly where your HUD says it will.

Seriously there's people saying 'NO THANKS I WANT TO PLAY A SHOOTER NOT A DICE ROLLING SIMULATOR'. Really find me one FPS game that doesn't have a gun with some sort of spread to it. The closest you're going to get is Unreal Tournament Instagib Shock Rifles rounds, but almost nobody plays those games for a reason. Every single popular shooter in the last ten years uses cones of fire for a reason.

Pixel-perfect accuracy has been a the elephant in the room ever since MW3. Jump-sniping isn't a problem, the fact that you can jump-snipe and alpha-strike a single point on a mech is. Boating isn't a problem, the fact that you can drill a perfect hole through the enemy in one button-push is.

MWLL tried to solve the problem somewhat with long laser burn durations, but I never felt they were long enough. The CERLL only needed like half a second to dump its insane damage out.

What happens when you fire a sniper rifle in any of those shooters ?

Is there a CoF ???

No ??


Thats pretty much EVERY weapon in MWO atm. They all act as SINGLE SHOT rifles (AC's and gauss) or single shot plasma (ppc etc).

The only weapons in MWO that act anything like a traditional FPS is the MG and possibly the flamer (because it can continuosly fire basically).


When you fire a machine gun at a rifle range in single shot mode, is there a CoF ? Does it not goto where your sight is pointing. (not accounting for wind, which MWO doesnt account for, and heat in the air, which MWO also doesnt account for.)


This is my beef with a lot of people sprouting CoF. They fail to realise we are not firing machine guns, but are instead firing single shot rifles.

To re-adjust in single-shot mode is easy.

To re-adjust in full-auto is not easy. (Muzzle creep is what you get, CoF attempts to simulate it but your better off just making the gun move instead of doing CoF hence making the bullets change direction naturally etc........)



CoF is already present on MG's, no need to add it to anything else.

I would rather there be some slight movement of the torso when firing to basically simulate muzzle creep in a way. The smaller the mech and bigger the gun, the more effect it has etc. Lasers exempt obv.



As to the OP, I would prefer "adjusting" convergance (explained below somewhat). Basically like other posters multiple recticle thing.

However putting it into the hud is a little clumsy as you have many recticles..... I mocked up a screenshot a long time ago with i think 4 recticles or 5. 1 for each arm, 1 for each side of torso and 1 for CT.

Basically the weapons in those locations would all hit inside the recticle representing them (LA recticle or RA recticle etc) however in the pattern they are mounted on the mech etc. (so there is still a "slight convergance" just not 100% basically)

So 1 weapon on the left arm may hit the far right edge of the circle / recticle, another on the same arm may hit the far left side of the same recticle etc. (The distance apart would be fairly neglible really, its mainly splitting the sections into their own recticles that would change things)

Edited by Fooooo, 15 April 2015 - 01:23 AM.

[Kuritaclan]

Dino Might, on 14 April 2015 - 04:18 PM, said:

I'm saying that each of these cases can be looked at to find some reasonable numbers. I don't want to completely nullify alpha striking. I think with careful piloting, low heat, and good aim, the alpha should go mostly or completely to one spot. It's the repeated on-the-move, high heat, jumping around alphas that still go right to one spot that I'd like to address. I think there is a way to strike this happy medium.

And you think there would be an agreement about?

Look at my discussion with pbiggz. His suggestion was so far only a scaler. The result in his equation is modified by numbers of fired weapons + modifier for every weapon. It is nothing thought out (as much as he think), nor is there any table who show modifiers for every weapon. Why get wich weapon penelized how much? Do you wanna do it with an efficiency analysis. What happens to quirk modified weapons, are they treated like un quirked weapons? Are modules taken into account?

Also i have a problem with the dokumentation done by the developer and how it is handled in MWO - you don't have a place to look up all the fine details - so if such a thing is implented, when and where do i get to see formulas how is it done. (Back then when i played mwo, i was a spreadsheet warrior to boost raid dps - this is a part of game) If i do not see, how is something done, and it is a black box, there is no potential to solve problems nor to get a feeling of numbers how to do best.

Now you need a way of implementation like i did suggested with rng to define the position of the hit point. Or you make a regressiv curve for the deplacment from the center like.


This would give the result of the the cone of fire a bell curve with lower possibility to hit on the border what is defined by the the circle which is difined by the angle you think is good to unlink weapon groups.

Or you don't like a excursion with the bell distribution, and you wanna have it more like the lbx/srm spread, what do not have any chance to converge on a single point of the surface of the circle.

As you can read pbiggz couldn't follow what i did with his scaler. - But if you see the pictures of my post #1016 you have impression how this could work out to make a cone of fire. Now you need to decide how much weapons over all could be fired before you get penelized, is the equation only aplied to higher number of one kind of weapons or with the first two adding up.

And the last and maybee main question is do you wan't this at all. Because as i mentioned often, there are other aspects in the game, like relative movement of mechs and velocity which generate a spread, if you are far away enough by default, when you fire different weapons at the same timepoint in one direction. Take for example the alpha of 3-6 LL/ErLL - since the beam Duration is in between 1 sec and 1,5sec you have a natural deplacment of your aim if you need to move and the object you hit at is not standing still. - The other extrem is your enemy is standing still and you stand still and you fire and don't move your aim - but this situation should not happen - if it happens do you don't think the enemy who get the full damage into one location deserve it, because he stood still?

And above of this, we don't even agree how accurate are the fictional targeting&tracking computers of clans and is (what would be a point to discuss of equality standards for a pvp game like this? So what a older IS Mech has less accuracy as a clan mech - you know what would happen if we do swap in a simulation of this?) - since some have the belive (what is strange to me) that the mechs act like ww II tech. What is the point using targeting, guidiance system etc if they do not recalibrate/compensate weapons to the point i wanna hit as a mechwarrior? Every engineer who has the task to develop such a device would be fired if it does not be as accurate as the need would be for the weapon system of a mech. In our days and likely in the near past we have/had such systems in mil tech, but as you can follow the debatte, some do not wanna take this into account.

Edited by Kuritaclan, 15 April 2015 - 03:25 AM.

[Mechwarrior Buddah]

Get rid of? Did they finally put it in at all?

[KuroNyra]

Fooooo, on 15 April 2015 - 12:22 AM, said:

What happens when you fire a sniper rifle in any of those shooters ?

Is there a CoF ???

No ??

There is, shoot multiple time aiming at the same place, from the same position. There will be a slight difference.
Even ARMA use a CoF for his weapons, and that include the snipers.


Easy to use one of the most prescise weapons for you, what about a semi-automatic rifle? Shooting one by one like a M4?
A CoF is also present because a weapon will NEVER be 100% accurate and you will never see a gun where each bullet have the exact trajectory a the atom.

[Kuritaclan]

Influence on trajector is mostly a heated barrel - thermic deformation on rifled barrel and air friction.

But you are informed that we dont have only guns in MW:O - lasers and ppc and to a less kind also gauss are no guns, they are weapons with mechanisms of action, so accuracy is not or nearly not influenced by environmental conditions:
laser is fully accurate, but gets refraction in air interact with particle - only damage reduction;
ppc is mass in a higher lvl of energy (some kind of plasma), no accuracy isues beside collision with atmospheric particles - only damage reduction;
no friction because of magnetic acceleration, unstability caused by aerodynamic imbalance of the bullet and interaction with air friction - high velocity stabalize the bullet, nearly fully accurate

Edited by Kuritaclan, 15 April 2015 - 07:08 AM.

[Mystere]

Fooooo, on 15 April 2015 - 12:22 AM, said:

What happens when you fire a sniper rifle in any of those shooters ?

Is there a CoF ???

No ??


Thats pretty much EVERY weapon in MWO atm. They all act as SINGLE SHOT rifles (AC's and gauss) or single shot plasma (ppc etc).

The only weapons in MWO that act anything like a traditional FPS is the MG and possibly the flamer (because it can continuosly fire basically).


When you fire a machine gun at a rifle range in single shot mode, is there a CoF ? Does it not goto where your sight is pointing. (not accounting for wind, which MWO doesnt account for, and heat in the air, which MWO also doesnt account for.)


This is my beef with a lot of people sprouting CoF. They fail to realise we are not firing machine guns, but are instead firing single shot rifles.

To re-adjust in single-shot mode is easy.

To re-adjust in full-auto is not easy. (Muzzle creep is what you get, CoF attempts to simulate it but your better off just making the gun move instead of doing CoF hence making the bullets change direction naturally etc........)



CoF is already present on MG's, no need to add it to anything else.

I would rather there be some slight movement of the torso when firing to basically simulate muzzle creep in a way. The smaller the mech and bigger the gun, the more effect it has etc. Lasers exempt obv.



As to the OP, I would prefer "adjusting" convergance (explained below somewhat). Basically like other posters multiple recticle thing.

However putting it into the hud is a little clumsy as you have many recticles..... I mocked up a screenshot a long time ago with i think 4 recticles or 5. 1 for each arm, 1 for each side of torso and 1 for CT.

Basically the weapons in those locations would all hit inside the recticle representing them (LA recticle or RA recticle etc) however in the pattern they are mounted on the mech etc. (so there is still a "slight convergance" just not 100% basically)

So 1 weapon on the left arm may hit the far right edge of the circle / recticle, another on the same arm may hit the far left side of the same recticle etc. (The distance apart would be fairly neglible really, its mainly splitting the sections into their own recticles that would change things)

We will need only 2 reticles. One for torso and head mounted weapons and one for arm-mounted ones. If the control system allows for it, then we can have one reticle for each arm. With such a system, knowing the position of each weapon relative to the reticle center is important when firing outside of the convergence point.

[Kuritaclan]

Mystere, on 15 April 2015 - 07:10 AM, said:

We will need only 2 reticles. One for torso and head mounted weapons and one for arm-mounted ones. If the control system allows for it, then we can have one reticle for each arm. With such a system, knowing the position of each weapon relative to the reticle center is important when firing outside of the convergence point.

You should unlock the arms lock - and you have asap 2 reticles. It does work, for example i use it to fire on uavs with my arms or enemys above below me i can not fire with my torso weapons

Edited by Kuritaclan, 15 April 2015 - 07:56 AM.

[Mystere]

Kuritaclan, on 15 April 2015 - 07:45 AM, said:

You should unlock the arms lock. It does work, for example i use it to fire on uavs with my arms or enemys above below me i can not fire with my torso weapons

You misunderstood me by a light year. I want to be able to control 3 separate reticles: one for torso and head mounted weapons, one for left arm weapons, and another for right arm weapons. That will allow me to fire simultaneously at 3 different targets instead of the current 2.

Also, look at how many targets this mech is firing at:




Locked arms are supposed to be for people who do not know how to aim with articulated arms, or are unable to coordinate arm and torso weapons without using a crutch. So why are you locking yours?

Edited by Mystere, 15 April 2015 - 08:20 AM.

[Kuritaclan]

Mystere, on 15 April 2015 - 08:12 AM, said:

You misunderstood me by a light year. I want to be able to control 3 separate reticles: one for torso and head mounted weapons, one for left arm weapons, and another for right arm weapons. That will allow me to fire simultaneously at 3 different targets instead of the current 2.

humm im curious how you wanna aim with the third - a second mouse?

Mystere, on 15 April 2015 - 08:12 AM, said:

Also, locked arms are supposed to be for people who do not know how to aim with articulated arms, or are unable to coordinate arm and torso weapons without using a crutch. So why are you locking yours?

I use the unlock option within the key setting. - I prefer the situational use what i need. I however could live with a removal of armlock for experienced pilots after a certain time for newbee's if they achived a certain number of games or whatever the hurdle will be. But this proposal i mentioned long ago in #563 to prevent concentration of for with all weaponhardpoints to make it more difficult.

Edited by Kuritaclan, 15 April 2015 - 08:27 AM.

[Almond Brown]

pbiggz, on 14 April 2015 - 10:56 AM, said:

Try to break this. No really. That's how you test to see if a system will work. You create it, then you try to destroy and see if it holds up.

ps: i realize even a 2 degree cone of fire at 300 meters would be huge. This is just proof that the math works. You sub in better values if you actually want to implement it.

Looks promising but requires some answers about some basic things. First, with example #2 and 4 weapons fired, do they disperse "randomly" within that 10 degree "cone" or is the disbursement somehow related to possible weapons location on the chassis doing the firing?

Second, and only a numbers thing really, and more curiosity than anything, but why did you give the erPPC 10x the modifier of the ML when it does only 2x the damage and has 3x the range and you "realize even a 2 degree cone of fire at 300 meters would be huge?"

[Dino Might]

Kuritaclan, on 15 April 2015 - 01:14 AM, said:

This type of curve behavior is what I've been advocating for CoF, but the standard deviation is based on a number of factors including movement and heat at the time of firing. I would cut off the tails, so that there is no chance of deviating by more than a certain angle (1 degree? 2 degrees? 5 degress? not sure I'd have to give it some thought). And just push the CDF of the tails back into the distribution.

The standard deviation determines how wide the normal distribution curve is, and the x-axis is the magnitude of the angular deviation for the particular shot. So with a sufficiently small standard deviation, when you run the RnG, you have have a very very small or zero angular deviation from point of aim.

If you really want to get complex, you can have total angular standard deviation made up of a vertical and horizontal component based on mech movement, and a random direction component based on heat. Then you get the total magnitude of this vector and that's your standard deviation for your curve, you run the RnG to get a number from that curve that gives you the total angular deviation, and you already have the direction. Shot goes based on the calculation of the resulting true weapon direction.

Again, this would need to have numbers that would get us to a point where a cool mech not jumping/making snap shots/falling off a cliff and hitting the ground at the instant of firing would put pretty much all weapons to the same component (within a few meters at 1000m or so). But, if you start adding in heat, then movement, and maybe weapon condition, you can see where it would make sense to start having some spread.

Lasers are quite often cited for having no realistic spread effect; however, we get heat from lasers that is vented by (what I assume) liquid cooling jackets; but we only get an average measure of heat across the mech based on calculations of total heat balance. We never consider that firing that ER Large Laser made the mech 10% hotter, but that particular laser is now scorching after firing and will take some time to cool down back to ambient, which will be slightly longer than it takes for the average mech heat to get within measurement accuracy of ambient. So, right when you get back to ambient 5% on the heat scale, that ER Large Laser (housing, lenses, cabling, collimator, excitation bank) may still be sufficiently hotter than ambient to result in some deviation from perfect accuracy.

There are tons of factors that can be incorporated to get us to reasonable numbers that balance the weapons/mechs, and all of this would happen behind the scene resulting in a completely intuitive experience for the user (seeing the effects of firing at high heat/movement rapidly vs. firing when cool and stationary with more time in between shots). If they wanted to, we could open up the black box and show the calculations.

Edited by Dino Might, 15 April 2015 - 08:44 AM.