1126 replies to this topic

[Dimento Graven]

Bush Hopper, on 08 April 2015 - 07:09 AM, said:

</p>I am sorry but what is your problem: reading comprehension, intentional disregarding of what is said?No one says you should miss. It is about NOT hitting the SAME spot under certain circumstances. Got it?

You'll have to do better at explaining yourself.

I can't think of any circumstance where, when I have my target reticule on your cockpit, or cherry red CT, or cherry red leg, et al, that I shouldn't hit it when I pull the trigger.

So... Explain to me when I'm supposed to have weapons spontaneously, magically, miss the target...

Quote

And your comment about LRMs cracks me up. Doing well with LRMs isn't so easy. However, I bet you boat lasers and think that's the epitome of skill

First off, lemme roll my eyes, I have to do it so hard it's going to hurt...

Next, for your viewing enjoyment:


LRMs became TOO easy, to the point of boredom.

So yeah, from personal experience, and vast time spent using them, I hold LRM "skills" in low regard.

Edited by Dimento Graven, 08 April 2015 - 07:24 AM.

[NocturnalBeast]

No "cone of fire", skillful aiming should be rewarded, I do not want to play a COD style spray and pray shooter.

[Dino Might]

Anyone whining about how cone of fire will instantly force all shots to not hit where they are aimed doesn't understand how random number generators work and has certainly never shot a rifle before.

Offhand position shooting is all about cone of fire. You build your stable position to minimize your sway (but you'll never eliminate it), and you don't try to time your shot based on your sight alignment with the center of the bull - rather you keep your natural point of aim and fire with your breathing, and this works because as you tighten up your "cone of fire," the sights will necessarily be pointed at the center the majority of the time.

It works like a normal distribution centered at the point of aim. Some shots will go a bit wide, but most shots stay within 1 standard deviation of the center. As you build a more stable position, the standard deviation becomes smaller, so your tails of the distribution (the places where the wide shots would hit) end up being closer to the point of aim.

I can't understand why this would be so terrible. It would require aiming. It would require just as much, if not more aiming as before to be effective, because TTK would go up, and so you'd have to aim more shots. The one with the better aim over the course of a longer fight will win, rather than the one who gets lucky in the first salvo and gets the one shot kill.

[AntiCitizenJuan]

Dino Might, on 08 April 2015 - 07:24 AM, said:

Anyone whining about how cone of fire will instantly force all shots to not hit where they are aimed doesn't understand how random number generators work and has certainly never shot a rifle before.

Offhand position shooting is all about cone of fire. You build your stable position to minimize your sway (but you'll never eliminate it), and you don't try to time your shot based on your sight alignment with the center of the bull - rather you keep your natural point of aim and fire with your breathing, and this works because as you tighten up your "cone of fire," the sights will necessarily be pointed at the center the majority of the time.

It works like a normal distribution centered at the point of aim. Some shots will go a bit wide, but most shots stay within 1 standard deviation of the center. As you build a more stable position, the standard deviation becomes smaller, so your tails of the distribution (the places where the wide shots would hit) end up being closer to the point of aim.

I can't understand why this would be so terrible. It would require aiming. It would require just as much, if not more aiming as before to be effective, because TTK would go up, and so you'd have to aim more shots. The one with the better aim over the course of a longer fight will win, rather than the one who gets lucky in the first salvo and gets the one shot kill.

Because you're talking about nerfing something that actually takes skill to do. Aim.
As opposed to just reducing heatscale and creating penalties for alpha striking all of the time.
CoF does not belong in Mechwarrior. Period.

It's just the next big stupid idea forumwarriors are flocking to without looking at the big picture.
The problem isnt accuracy, the problem is you can blow your load every 4-5 seconds without any kind of penalty or restriction.

It's treating the symptoms, not the disease.

Edited by AntiCitizenJuan, 08 April 2015 - 07:34 AM.

[Artgathan]

In BT pilots don't actually aim their weapons (in the sense that a soldier aims a rifle). Since mechs are equipped with a limited AI, you can think of the pilot's role (with respect to the weapons) as being to guide the mech's 'attention'. The longer (or more intensely) the pilot can keep the mech focused on a target, the more likely the mech is to hit that target. Things like Targeting Computers allow the pilot to focus the mech's attention more precisely, while things like C3 computers let mech's tap into a 'hive-mind' that allows them to benefit from each other's focus on other targets.

I think a system like this would help set MW:O drastically apart from other FPS games, but it would be a complicated system for players to manage. That said, people would definitely experience some 'I just missed a shot with 99% chance to hit' moments of frusteration.

[Dino Might]

AntiCitizenJuan, on 08 April 2015 - 07:31 AM, said:

Because you're talking about nerfing something that actually takes skill to do. Aim.
As opposed to just reducing heatscale and creating penalties for alpha striking all of the time.
CoF does not belong in Mechwarrior. Period.

Riding the heat curve takes skill, and you're suggesting we nerf that...

Are you against any type of weapon nerfs ever? Using weapons takes skill (not just aiming, but determining range relative to effective range). How about ammo consumption? All of it factors into the battle. Should we never be allowed to change anything that has skill associated with it?

The change I'm recommending actually raises the skill cap. It provides a wider skill range to have more of an impact (what we'd call "dynamic range" in optics). If you want to continue with normalization of point-and-click performance, then you'll never really be able to tell the amazingly skilled aimers from those who are just pretty good.

Edited by Dino Might, 08 April 2015 - 07:37 AM.

[Weeny Machine]

Ed Steele, on 08 April 2015 - 07:22 AM, said:

No "cone of fire", skillful aiming should be rewarded, I do not want to play a COD style spray and pray shooter.

Ironic considering the state of hitreg...

[AntiCitizenJuan]

Dino Might, on 08 April 2015 - 07:33 AM, said:

Riding the heat curve takes skill, and you're suggesting we nerf that...

Riding the heat curve doesnt take skill because any idiot can make a build that negates the majority of their heat generated.

>Blowing your alpha load repeatedly until you have to wait a couple of seconds takes skill.

******* lol.

Edited by AntiCitizenJuan, 08 April 2015 - 07:37 AM.

[Dimento Graven]

Dino Might, on 08 April 2015 - 07:24 AM, said:

Anyone whining about how cone of fire will instantly force all shots to not hit where they are aimed doesn't understand how random number generators work and has certainly never shot a rifle before.

Offhand position shooting is all about cone of fire. You build your stable position to minimize your sway (but you'll never eliminate it), and you don't try to time your shot based on your sight alignment with the center of the bull - rather you keep your natural point of aim and fire with your breathing, and this works because as you tighten up your "cone of fire," the sights will necessarily be pointed at the center the majority of the time.

It works like a normal distribution centered at the point of aim. Some shots will go a bit wide, but most shots stay within 1 standard deviation of the center. As you build a more stable position, the standard deviation becomes smaller, so your tails of the distribution (the places where the wide shots would hit) end up being closer to the point of aim.

I can't understand why this would be so terrible. It would require aiming. It would require just as much, if not more aiming as before to be effective, because TTK would go up, and so you'd have to aim more shots. The one with the better aim over the course of a longer fight will win, rather than the one who gets lucky in the first salvo and gets the one shot kill.

Wrong.

First off we're talking machine mounted weapons, not hand held weaponry. That difference alone should be enough.

Secondly, what you're talking about is implementing and additional factor of "luck" into whether or not people hit what they are aiming at.

IE: I have pint point aimed at a cockpit, I pull the trigger, CoF would dictate that a majority of my shots would hit AROUND the cockpit and a random minority would actually hit it.

For people who are bad at aiming, and in general just practice the 'spray and pray' methodology of fire control, this is good enough, they don't give a rat's ass whether or not the component their reticule was on was actually hit, they're happy they hit the 'mech period.

That's a majority of people I've observed in this game.

For a smaller portion, people who are "THINKING" in this "THINKIN MAN'S SHOOTER", are looking to take out a red crit leg, red crit side torso/center torso, arm, et al, they want to hit what they've aimed at, period.

The only time they feel 'comfortable' missing is if there's an external factor, like "cockpit shake", an intervening 'mech suddenly popped into view, the target happened to turn at just the right instant.

However, having an RNG determine if they 'deserve' to hit what they aim at...

F*** that.

Bush Hopper, on 08 April 2015 - 07:35 AM, said:

Ironic considering the state of hitreg...

That's such a valid point as to invalidate the actual perceived 'need' of a 'cone of fire.'

Seriously, I've wanted to mention it so many different times, but I was like... "No, at SOME POINT, maybe PGI will actually FIX hit reg, so let's not use craptastic hit reg as a basis for reasoning that CoF is not necessary."

[Dino Might]

Dimento Graven, on 08 April 2015 - 07:41 AM, said:

Wrong.

First off we're talking machine mounted weapons, not hand held weaponry. That difference alone should be enough.

Secondly, what you're talking about is implementing and additional factor of "luck" into whether or not people hit what they are aiming at.

IE: I have pint point aimed at a cockpit, I pull the trigger, CoF would dictate that a majority of my shots would hit AROUND the cockpit and a random minority would actually hit it.

For people who are bad at aiming, and in general just practice the 'spray and pray' methodology of fire control, this is good enough, they don't give a rat's ass whether or not the component their reticule was on was actually hit, they're happy they hit the 'mech period.

That's a majority of people I've observed in this game.

For a smaller portion, people who are "THINKING" in this "THINKIN MAN'S SHOOTER", are looking to take out a red crit leg, red crit side torso/center torso, arm, et al, they want to hit what they've aimed at, period.

The only time they feel 'comfortable' missing is if there's an external factor, like "cockpit shake", an intervening 'mech suddenly popped into view, the target happened to turn at just the right instant.

However, having an RNG determine if they 'deserve' to hit what they aim at...

F*** that.

That's such a valid point as to invalidate the actual perceived 'need' of a 'cone of fire.'

Seriously, I've wanted to mention it so many different times, but I was like... "No, at SOME POINT, maybe PGI will actually FIX hit reg, so let's not use craptastic hit reg as a basis for reasoning that CoF is not necessary."

So, the winners at Camp Perry every year are based on luck....okay...

The RNG is not uniform for all states of play. The RNG standard deviation depends on the factors that YOU control. That means you actually have to control things like movement in the horizontal and vertical, heat, acceleration/deceleration, inertial effects. That requires a heck of a lot more skill than point and click.

Machine mounted, human mounted, floating in space...weapons have tolerances, that means not 100% precise, that means cone of fire. Robot arms have tolerances, the joints have tolerances, the actuators, etc. That means that every time you point your reticle at something, there shouldn't be a 100% guarantee that the projectile/laser will travel right to that spot.

You are completely missing my point, and I'll try to draw up a diagram to show you how this whole thing works tonight. But seriously, take some time to think about what I am saying, and you will see that cone of fire systems actually require more aiming skill to win on a routine basis.

Edited by Dino Might, 08 April 2015 - 07:48 AM.

[LordBraxton]

Dimento, I agree with you once again, but I want to ask you specifically, would you like the idea of cone of fire coming into play at extreme heat levels, as a heat penalty? because that's what I'd like to see.

give us heat effects damnit!

[Dolph Hoskins]

Those calling for arm lock removal and a more sim like game are making conflicting requests. Since the earliest programmable machines and robotics one of the most essential functions is for a mechanism to return to and or maintain a determined X,Y, and sometimes Z axis.

Arm lock is just that. Removing it would mean things like printers, and CNC machines would have a technical one up on our futuristic space mechs.

[Dimento Graven]

Dino Might, on 08 April 2015 - 07:33 AM, said:

Riding the heat curve takes skill, and you're suggesting we nerf that...

I'm suggesting removing the free ride idiotic builds like laser vomit Fire Starters, Jenners, Battlemasters, Stalkers, Awesomes, etc. get to alpha'ing all the way up to 99%, WITH ZERO CONSEQUENCES.

That was NEVER, NEVER, part of ANY iteration of BattleTech ever implemented.

There should be significant repercussions at making your 'mech and yourself ride that much of the heat curve that long.

Currently there isn't AND THAT is what has got all these misguided, "Too much convergence", "Too much armor", "Too much ammo", "Ghost heat" idiocies we've had for expletive long in this game that they've almost lost all meaning.

Only the most egregious exploiters of this broken mechanic seriously defend it.

Quote

Are you against any type of weapon nerfs ever? Using weapons takes skill (not just aiming, but determining range relative to effective range).

Oh lord, you're on of those.

Ok you tell me, how much "skill" does it take to look at a little number next to the target reticule and compare it with the number next to the weapon?

Quote

How about ammo consumption?

Again, how much "skill" does it take to see if the ammo number is greater than zero?

Seriously, if you want your argument to be taken seriously, perhaps you should think about your arguments more seriously.

Quote

All of it factors into the battle. Should we never be allowed to change anything that has skill associated with it?

The change I'm recommending actually raises the skill cap. It provides a wider skill range to have more of an impact (what we'd call "dynamic range" in optics). If you want to continue with normalization of point-and-click performance, then you'll never really be able to tell the amazingly skilled aimers from those who are just pretty good.

I don't recall seeing anything specific from you on suggestions, I've either forgotten or missed it, but most of what I've read seems to want to implement "luck", the "cone of fire" where a random number generator determines whether or not the spot your reticule is on is going to actually be hit or not.

Adding an RNG component does NOT broaden skill at ALL, it just adds "luck", and that's stupid.

[Dimento Graven]

Dino Might, on 08 April 2015 - 07:46 AM, said:

So, the winners at Camp Perry every year are based on luck....okay...

The RNG is not uniform for all states of play. The RNG standard deviation depends on the factors that YOU control. That means you actually have to control things like movement in the horizontal and vertical, heat, acceleration/deceleration, inertial effects. That requires a heck of a lot more skill than point and click.

Machine mounted, human mounted, floating in space...weapons have tolerances, that means not 100% precise, that means cone of fire. Robot arms have tolerances, the joints have tolerances, the actuators, etc. That means that every time you point your reticle at something, there shouldn't be a 100% guarantee that the projectile/laser will travel right to that spot.

You are completely missing my point, and I'll try to draw up a diagram to show you how this whole thing works tonight. But seriously, take some time to think about what I am saying, and you will see that cone of fire systems actually require more aiming skill to win on a routine basis.

You're point is, you want luck. You apparently think that if I'm aiming at your red CT, some magic factor BEYOND MY CONTROL, which is what the RNG is WELL BEYOND THE PLAYER'S CONTROL, I should instead hit your foot, or arm, or whatever...

When speaking of machine mounted devices on appropriate mounts under mostly computer control, the tolerances should be inches, not meters. So yeah, if you're saying I can hit 5 inches to the left when I'm aiming at your cockpit, but it's still a cockpit hit, fine. "Tolerances" accepted, BUT, when you get right down to it, that's not what most people are asking for.

They're asking for a random event that dictates we some how magically missed the intended targeted component.

Luck.

This isn't a casino game, so 'luck' is stupid here.

[Dimento Graven]

LordBraxton, on 08 April 2015 - 07:47 AM, said:

Dimento, I agree with you once again, but I want to ask you specifically, would you like the idea of cone of fire coming into play at extreme heat levels, as a heat penalty? because that's what I'd like to see.

give us heat effects damnit!

That's just it, in the case of MWO we already have a 'CoF-esque' mechanism that can be deployed at certain levels of heat, it's called, cockpit shake.

Just add a moderate level of cockpit shake once heat gets above a certain point, increasing as the heat increases, and there you go, an inability to see clearly to effectively pin point aim, as well as increasing the difficulty in piloting (when not in open terrain).

No new mechanism required, and it's only activated once a 'mech gets to a certain heat level.

Seems to me it 'almost' qualifies as, in the parlance of the industry, "low hanging fruit."

Edited by Dimento Graven, 08 April 2015 - 08:00 AM.

[NocturnalBeast]

Bush Hopper, on 08 April 2015 - 07:35 AM, said:

Ironic considering the state of hitreg...

I am just talking about not changing the mechanics of "convergence" in MWO. Latency, throughput, server lag...whatever, are unavoidable byproducts of playing games over the internet, especially FPS games.

[Dino Might]

Dimento Graven, on 08 April 2015 - 07:53 AM, said:

You're point is, you want luck. You apparently think that if I'm aiming at your red CT, some magic factor BEYOND MY CONTROL, which is what the RNG is WELL BEYOND THE PLAYER'S CONTROL, I should instead hit your foot, or arm, or whatever...

When speaking of machine mounted devices on appropriate mounts under mostly computer control, the tolerances should be inches, not meters. So yeah, if you're saying I can hit 5 inches to the left when I'm aiming at your cockpit, but it's still a cockpit hit, fine. "Tolerances" accepted, BUT, when you get right down to it, that's not what most people are asking for.

They're asking for a random event that dictates we some how magically missed the intended targeted component.

Luck.

This isn't a casino game, so 'luck' is stupid here.

I'm not trying to be mean or caustic in this response. Truthfully, you are responding with nonsense born of ignorance.

Please look up some math, figure out how trigonometry works, and then talk to me about aiming. Firstly, a tiny angular delta between true and perceived position can result in a miss by meters at 1km range. I'm not advocating that RNG determines a uniformly random hit location.

The way it works: You aim at the CT (let's assume dead center of the CT). You have 4m up or down that the shot could go and still hit the CT, but 2m to the right or left where it could still hit the CT.

Now, you are stationary, low heat, not swinging your torso/arms rapidly and taking a snap shot, so your standard deviation for the cone of fire is approximately 0.3 meters. That means that ~67% of your shots will impact within 0.3 meters of the aiming point, 95% will impact within 0.6 meters, and 99% will impact within 1 meter.

Now, you are at the end of a jump, hitting the ground, swinging your arms up and taking a snap shot, while at 80% heat threshhold. Your standard deviation at the given range is 10 meters. ~67% of your shots will impact within 10 meters, ~95% will impact within 20 meters, and 99% will impact within 30 meters. That means you have a chance to miss the target completely, or hit a different component, all because you chose to shoot under a different set of circumstances based on your piloting choices.

Run this scenario 100 times. The law of averages will guarantee that you CT core the guy much more often in case 1 than case 2. So many more times, in fact, that it has less "randomness" than the "hit-reg" problems people complain about so often, which are suspected to be caused in part by massed pinpoint fire.

The better mechwarrior will manage his piloting to get within a particular range for his given movement, heat, and other effects to give the necessary accuracy to hit what he wants. That's skill.


If you don't understand how this works:
https://www.mathsisf...ution-large.gif

Then I guess I'm not going to convince you of anything.

The RNG is something that models what occurs naturally, that there will be normal variation. If you can come up with a deterministic approach that does things better, then by all means, let's hear it. But I can tell you this - we model radioactive decay with random elements, and you know that the most accurate clock in the world is an atomic clock, right? The clock isn't "lucky" all the time.

Edited by Dino Might, 08 April 2015 - 08:23 AM.

[Almond Brown]

Gas Guzzler, on 23 January 2015 - 08:53 AM, said:

Wow. Pat yourself on the back a little harder.

I don't think it is even about managing all that stuff its about specializing in 1 aspect of combat. With the described build (LRMs, SRMs, AC2, lasers) the mech will not excel at anything. If I am in a long distance standoff, my SRMs and medium lasers are a complete waste of tonnage. If I am in short range, LRMs, and AC2 is a bit meh because you have to stare down to get DPS out of it.

Also, how does a nerf to aiming address LRM boating? Please explain.

OK wise guy. If I was a good Stock Pilot I would indeed pat myself on the back. So I will guess your a masher in disguise as a "specialized" warrior. And if your build happens to be AC20 special, I guess Alpine would be a bad draw right? But of course you don't AC20 specialize right? Figures...

[Mystere]

Dimento Graven, on 07 April 2015 - 07:07 PM, said:

Only the bad players want to remove convergence.

I've yet to see a player I would consider "good" actually complain about convergence.

Yes, because singularly aiming at one point and firing is so much more skillful than aiming and firing six different things at that same point.

Oops! No it's not.

Edited by Mystere, 08 April 2015 - 08:38 AM.

[Dimento Graven]

Dino Might, on 08 April 2015 - 08:07 AM, said:

I'm not trying to be mean or caustic in this response. Truthfully, you are responding with nonsense born of ignorance.

No Dino, I am responding from an annoyance of having had this same damn argument ~150 times prior over the past 4 years, each with, at its core, the person on pro-COF just not wanting to be hit in his cockpit while standing still, or moving in a straight line, out in the open.

If you're picking up any 'ire' in my tone, it's from a, "Oh goddamn, not THIS **** again!" frame of mind.

Quote

Please look up some math, figure out how trigonometry works, and then talk to me about aiming. Firstly, a tiny angular delta between true and perceived position can result in a miss by meters at 1km range. I'm not advocating that RNG determines a uniformly random hit location.

Goddamn how f'ing pretentious do you have to be? Any moron can buy a deer rifle, practice for a few months, climb a clock tower and start one shotting the unsuspecting public at a few hundred meters WITHOUT bring tables of trigonometry, and a slide rule up with him.

Pretty goddamned sure that in the army they don't give you a math test before handing you a rifle, call me crazy, but I'm somewhat certain that for most recruiters the requirement of "must be breathing" is the most important one they factor in...

Quote

The way it works: You aim at the CT (let's assume dead center of the CT). You have 4m up or down that the shot could go and still hit the CT, but 2m to the right or left where it could still hit the CT.

Now, you are stationary, low heat, not swinging your torso/arms rapidly and taking a snap shot, so your standard deviation for the cone of fire is approximately 0.3 meters. That means that ~67% of your shots will impact within 0.3 meters of the aiming point, 95% will impact within 0.6 meters, and 99% will impact within 1 meter.

You're applying crap that does not matter. A laser travels in a straight line unless deviated via reflection or refraction (we'll ignore the video game's lack of application of the law of inverse squares, because, it's a video game), and with ballistics as far as I can tell, PGI doesn't factor gravity as a pull on the round, also considering the weight and velocity of most of these ballistic rounds, there isn't enough gravity, or atmosphere to deviate the round much at all, so having these items travel in straight lines isn't that much out of whack with expectations either. After all, the 30kph breeze pushing on a .25metric ton ballistic round traveling upwards 1000+ meters per second on a distance of ~2100 meters, AIN'T MUCH.

Of course, now when you're talking in game MG's, CoF already implemented, not even moot to this discussion, but we can assume the unrealistic short range given the MG is an attempt to factor in the light weight ammo being flung...

Quote

Now, you are at the end of a jump, hitting the ground, swinging your arms up and taking a snap shot, while at 80% heat threshhold. Your standard deviation at the given range is 10 meters. ~67% of your shots will impact within 10 meters, ~95% will impact within 20 meters, and 99% will impact within 30 meters. That means you have a chance to miss the target completely, or hit a different component, all because you chose to shoot under a different set of circumstances based on your piloting choices.

Except that with lasers where you fire the beam in that arm swing is where the beam goes. If you pull the trigger when your reticule is on the target, and if your arms have tracked to your reticule, which the assumption is they always do, then the beam goes where aimed, same for the ballistic round, unless of course, you're saying we should 'curve' our bullets?

Quote

Run this scenario 100 times. The law of averages will guarantee that you CT core the guy much more often in case 1 than case 2. So many more times, in fact, that it has less "randomness" than the "hit-reg" problems people complain about so often, which are suspected to be caused in part by massed pinpoint fire.

Except that we've taken the human component out of physically moving the weapon, that's all driven by computer driven precision machined components so that all the pilot has to do is decide WHAT to fire at and WHEN.

So a law of averages never factors into it.

Quote

The better mechwarrior will manage his piloting to get within a particular range for his given movement, heat, and other effects to give the necessary accuracy to hit what he wants. That's skill.

The better MechWarrior is already doing that, so I'm not sure what you're buying by tossing in an RNG.

Quote

If you don't understand how this works:
https://www.mathsisf...ution-large.gif

Then I guess I'm not going to convince you of anything.

The RNG is something that models what occurs naturally, that there will be normal variation. If you can come up with a deterministic approach that does things better, then by all means, let's hear it.

Again, what you're really angry at is the morons building laser/PPC/ballistic vomit builds alpha'ing upwards of 4 times, and not suffering ANY consequences.

Should PGI implement something like:

You'd get what you want, people playing their builds appropriate to circumstances, implementation of consequences for alpha'ing too often that directly results in a decreased ability to pin point aim.

Quote

But I can tell you this - we model radioactive decay with random elements, and you know that the most accurate clock in the world is an atomic clock, right? The clock isn't "lucky" all the time.

I'm not even going to touch that red herring... It's stupid, spurious, and c'mon man at least try and make it relevant.