1126 replies to this topic

[PPMcBiggs]

Dimento Graven, on 09 April 2015 - 12:19 PM, said:

GOOD NEWS!!! That's actually how it works now, though I think it's like 30 meters.

Anything underneath 30 meters and you can't reliably count on "both" your weapons hitting the target. It's why lights can run up RIGHT ON YOU, and you miss them even though you had your target reticule squarely on their CT. When fighting lights up close count on one weapon hitting if you lead them 'just' enough.

Cool. So how did we get to 32 pages? Seems like everything is how it should be.

3 cheers for logic!

[Weeny Machine]

Dimento Graven, on 09 April 2015 - 12:16 PM, said:

Are you so worried that someone doesn't agree that your 'idea' is the next thing to sliced bread that you can't see the very valid point.
IT DOES NOT MATTER WHAT YOU DO TO CONVERGENCE WHEN THE REAL PROBLEM IS THAT PEOPLE CAN SPAM ALPHAS!

You are right and wrong.Right: alphas are a part of the problemWrong: that alphas are the whole problem. Instant convergence is also the problem.Personally I like the idea that up to a certain range or when you move or turn your mech has some degree of having not perfect gun alignment. It is also realistic

[Boris The Spider]

Bush Hopper, on 09 April 2015 - 12:40 PM, said:

Personally I like the idea that up to a certain range or when you move or turn your mech has some degree of having not perfect gun alignment. It is also realistic

Which is a direct nerf to brawling, whatever you do has to have at least, if not greater effect on field artillery (I'm not calling them snipers, I reject the idea of 20 meter tall metal snipers).

Back in closed beta when we had the pronounced convergence effect or arm weapons, brawling was much more prevalent, more drawn out and much more fun. What should have happened was, fixing the convergence on torso weapons, what happened instead was the opposite.

[Dimento Graven]

TheCobra, on 09 April 2015 - 12:30 PM, said:

Sigh... You think I'm here because I'm dying too much? No.

There are people here, who came because they believe they are dying too much from people actually aiming at them.

These people don't want to die as often as they are, their first excuse is "too much convergence".

Quote

I'm here because the game feels like a twitch shooter (repeating myself here, since you don't care to fully read other people's post). For that I have dozens of games, I don't want another twitch shooter, I want a battletech shooter.

If you have any game that shoots, that is "REAL TIME" (ie: not turn based) and "FIRST PERSON", sorry, there's ALWAYS going to be some level of 'twitch' to it.

It can't be avoided. Of course, the cinematic old west duels in the center of main street at high noon are the quintessential 'twitch' shooter too and really, MWO is nothing like that.

Other twitch shooters I've played, BF series, CoD series, TF2, et al, feel nothing like MWO, but yeah there's some level of twitch, you can't escape it unless you move from MWO to MWTactics.

Quote

Calling people bad players only discredit yourself, since it is very obvious that you are not tackling the subject, but the person.

I've attacked the subject repeatedly, the person(s) I'm calling bad are bad, not subjectively but through repeated testing and through their own words.

Quote

And I have said earlier that I LIKE your heat suggestion, with the exception of random ammo explosions (You said it yourself that laser are already a problem, I don't want ballistics or missiles to get gimped even more).

We have random ammo explosions now, only it happens after your 'mech has gone beyond 100% heat capacity. And while a lot of my responses have been laser specific, it's not just lasers, it's the ability to spam alpha ANY weapon system repeatedly without repercussion that's the issue.

Be it laser, ballistic, or missile, the fact that I can load upwards of 12 lasers, or 8 ballistics, or 8(not sure if that's the maximum number of missile racks on a mech) missile racks and fire them all at a fast enough and consistent enough rate that my 'mech's heat can stay at 99% for 90 percent of the match time is the issue.

We are shooting too much.

Quote

But still the cirgical precision that people have at the moment feels very twitchy and I don't thank that is what the players or the devs want. I also have stated before that I despise cone of fire, since that is actually what would make the game very silly.

See I don't see that surgical precision makes a game feel 'twitchy' and if that's your basis of 'twitch' we have VERY different ideas of what a 'twitch' shooter is.

My definition is currently: Any game where 'aim' is a secondary concern as to how fast you can fire your weapons.

From the words you just used it seems your definition is: "Any game where a person can 'aim' to kill me."

Obviously that's not your intended message, so what actually is your definition of 'twitch shooter'?

Quote

I will say it again. In my opinion the best solution is a large increase in convergence time. Maybe 2~3 seconds if you are stationary, 5 seconds if running. Alphas completly reset convergence, as well as heat.

I disagree with this for several of what should be extremely obvious reasons:

1. That puts pre-eminence on computer guided weaponry. Ok I have to sit there for upwards of 3 seconds before I can be garunteed a hit? Fine, I'll bring missiles, lots less effort on my part.

2. Feels VERY artificial, why 2-3 seconds, and movement? What's that got to do with anything since even a 1980's IBM XT can process variables faster than my 'mech can move....

Quote

Try reading the other peoples ideas, they might be good.

EDIT: Typo.

I have, a few have been good, most have been born from an ignorance as to how the game actually works, the actual limitations of the engine its based on, and how the game can be played within those known parameters.

Not every idea is worth considering, nor worth discussing politely.

Take the crap ideas and get out of here, stop wasting everyone's time with something that only makes the game easy for people who don't even want to TRY and get better at it, with the way it works NOW.

Bush Hopper, on 09 April 2015 - 12:40 PM, said:

You are right and wrong.Right: alphas are a part of the problemWrong: that alphas are the whole problem. Instant convergence is also the problem.Personally I like the idea that up to a certain range or when you move or turn your mech has some degree of having not perfect gun alignment. It is also realistic

GOOD NEWS!!!

I didn't say that alphas are "the whole problem", I am saying that being able to spam MULTIPLE alphas with little regards to heat IS the problem.

Also, GOOD NEWS!!!! There is no such thing as "instant" convergence in this game. It is FAST, but it ain't "instant".

[Marmon Rzohr]

KraftySOT, on 09 April 2015 - 10:14 AM, said:

People still perpetuating the myth that WoT uses an RNG in aiming.


Dudes. The RNG in WoT adds to your penetration value. Thats what people are complaining about.

No one is complaining about "aiming with dice" in WoT.

Go to their freaking forums people. War thunder has the same game devices in aiming as WoT, but no RNG dictating penetration values for your weapons, theyre fixed.

Theres so many lies in this thread its mind blowing. People who perpetuate this stuff should be banned.



Read this again.

Read it again.

Now read it again.

So youre saying, that convergence, which ultimately makes all your weapons into a single weapon, IE boating, which is the meta, wont be helped, by the lack of convergence, forcing you to NOT fire all your weapons at the same time, or to specialize in a weapon system other than "as many of the same thing as I can bring".

If all 8 of your small pulse lasers, dont hit the same location, why shoot them all the same time.

RIGHT NOW we have no multiple weapon management unless youre bad at MWO. If youre good, you have one, MAYBE a second weapon system.

2 Guass and 2 PPC is the same single weapon, its fired as such and acts as such. 3 LPL and 5 MPL is one weapon system. 6 LL is one weapon system.

Read what you wrote again, because you spelled it out, and then dont see it.

I think you kinda missed my point. Under "multiple weapons" I meant "several different weapon systems".

Yes, removing convergence would remove alpha strike spamming and would remove the ability to, as you said, turn your mech into effectively one giant laser. It would not, however encourage varied weapon loadouts. You would have the same or very similar builds like those that are in use today, but they would not alpha, they would fire weapons in multiple groups, left arm, then right arm for example, instead of both arms at the same time.

The Meta Dire Wolf would not change much for instance, only fire one of it's arms at a time instead of both. Same with the Gauss Jager for instance. Or the Boomjager. Timber Wolves could proabably run that awfully boring 4xERLL build. And so on. I think you see my point.


I'm not saying removing convergence wouldn't lower TTK or curb alpha spam. I'm saying it would do that, but not much else and it would achieve this by making the game more clunky to play.

You could lower TTK with half a dozen different solutions which are:
- much easier to implement
- not as frustrating to learn
- more intuitive
and which could also solve some of the problems I have outlined above. Like add more build vairety. And on top of that they would control alpha damage much better.

In other words, what I find silly is that people are fixated on removing convergence as if it's a good solution, when it's cleary a lackluster idea at best and gamebrakingly bad at worst (imagine fighting good light pilots with no convergence for instance).

THERE ARE BETTER IDEAS

Edited by Marmon Rzohr, 09 April 2015 - 01:11 PM.

[Dimento Graven]

PPMcBiggs, on 09 April 2015 - 12:30 PM, said:

Cool. So how did we get to 32 pages? Seems like everything is how it should be.

3 cheers for logic!

Because there's a vocal minority of people who don't want to have to TRY to be better at this game, or expend EFFORT at LEARNING how to play this game more intelligently.

They'd rather find a scapegoat: convergence

And blame all their woes on it.

When do "I" have a problem with convergence, you ask?

1. When it's not working 'fast' enough and my shots past on either side of the intended target, or partially miss a target and it survives longer than it should have.
2. When someone, unbeknownst to me, is aiming at my 'mech and destroys something vital I was planning on using later.

Issue 1 - That's how it should be, sometimes I need to take more time switching between targets.
Issue 2 - I have to try harder at being a more difficult target.

[Shae Starfyre]

It's been 3 years or so, have we come to a conclusion yet?

[PPMcBiggs]

Dimento Graven, on 09 April 2015 - 01:06 PM, said:

Because there's a vocal minority of people who don't want to have to TRY to be better at this game, or expend EFFORT at LEARNING how to play this game more intelligently.

They'd rather find a scapegoat: convergence

And blame all their woes on it.

When do "I" have a problem with convergence, you ask?

1. When it's not working 'fast' enough and my shots past on either side of the intended target, or partially miss a target and it survives longer than it should have.
2. When someone, unbeknownst to me, is aiming at my 'mech and destroys something vital I was planning on using later.

Issue 1 - That's how it should be, sometimes I need to take more time switching between targets.
Issue 2 - I have to try harder at being a more difficult target.

Hmmm... I like it.

There is a poll in the feature suggestions forum that has a really neat diagram of a proposed solution to the convergence "problem".

Looking at this diagram makes me chuckle. Just by looking at it it seems to me that if one was to modify convergence to something close to the capabilities of modern (2015) weapons and the abilities of humans unaided by targeting computers only very seldom would convergence make an appreciable difference to the damage done. In most cases imperfectly converged weapons would almost always be hitting the same hit box. These projectiles/beams are quite small relative to the areas they are aimed at: there is lots of room to not perfectly converge but still be on the same hit box. So what difference does imperfect convergence make?

We need to look elsewhere to fix any issues with alphas.

[KuroNyra]

Kuritaclan, on 09 April 2015 - 12:09 PM, said:

They don't use tubes like a zuze did to make the equations, so stop to think in redicouls scales that those computers are big as houses. And if they are and they have to be semiconductor or something advanced to have enough computepower, it will be even more small things. Since a calaculator were invented before the computer not the other way around, as you suggests and some like you and yell: "lore lore lore".

To use something and to understand how it worked are differents things.
Copy something with plans doesn't necessaraly mean you know how it work. You just follow a plan.


I give you tools and the plans to build a tank and the instructions to assemble it.
Will you know how each component work with the rest? No. Unless your called Einstein or you are one big liar.

Same goes for dropships, jumpships. And it is by the books& by what is canon that we know for sur that Mechs weren't able to achieve perfect pinpoint accuracy like we currently have.
Heck, most of the fights in the books are for example guys having trouble aiming at there opponent.

Same goes for Jumpships battles, they missed there shots multiples times. It was never a 100% perfect aim point'n'click like in the game.

But noooo, you seem unable to get that.

Edited by KuroNyra, 09 April 2015 - 01:39 PM.

[Dino Might]

PPMcBiggs, on 09 April 2015 - 01:23 PM, said:

Hmmm... I like it.

There is a poll in the feature suggestions forum that has a really neat diagram of a proposed solution to the convergence "problem".

Looking at this diagram makes me chuckle. Just by looking at it it seems to me that if one was to modify convergence to something close to the capabilities of modern (2015) weapons and the abilities of humans unaided by targeting computers only very seldom would convergence make an appreciable difference to the damage done. In most cases imperfectly converged weapons would almost always be hitting the same hit box. These projectiles/beams are quite small relative to the areas they are aimed at: there is lots of room to not perfectly converge but still be on the same hit box. So what difference does imperfect convergence make?

We need to look elsewhere to fix any issues with alphas.

It's not a beam width or projectile width issue.

Dimento is fixated on some assumption that anyone who disagrees with him must be a bad player. He refuses to learn about probability, statistics, and actual real world shooting and why aim is so important in real world shooting (which gets modeled very well with COF). He wants less reality, not more, but argues that his way is more realistic somehow.

You are missing the idea of how angular deviation affects point of impact at various ranges.

Quote

These projectiles/beams are quite small relative to the areas they are aimed at

I totally agree with you that this is not relevant to the point of aim vs. point of impact discussion. And that is not at all what we've been talking about.

Edited by Dino Might, 09 April 2015 - 02:09 PM.

[Boris The Spider]

PPMcBiggs, on 09 April 2015 - 01:23 PM, said:

Hmmm... I like it.

There is a poll in the feature suggestions forum that has a really neat diagram of a proposed solution to the convergence "problem".

Looking at this diagram makes me chuckle. Just by looking at it it seems to me that if one was to modify convergence to something close to the capabilities of modern (2015) weapons and the abilities of humans unaided by targeting computers only very seldom would convergence make an appreciable difference to the damage done. In most cases imperfectly converged weapons would almost always be hitting the same hit box. These projectiles/beams are quite small relative to the areas they are aimed at: there is lots of room to not perfectly converge but still be on the same hit box. So what difference does imperfect convergence make?

We need to look elsewhere to fix any issues with alphas.

I agree, that suggestion again plays into the hands of the long range peek shooting mechs, which let us not forget have been the cause of every single, bar none I can think of, direct weapon or equipment nerf since closed beta.

I would totally remove all convergence on torso mounted weapon and have them fire straight forward, and drastically slow convergence on unarticulated arms. If you want your weapons to track and compensate near instantly for distance, you put them on articluated arms.

Why? Because it minimises the possible combination of weapons that can be glued together to make super weapons, the mechs that can do it are hampered by low slug arms, hence balanced, encourages component targeting, and it makes all the mechs in the game suddenly unique.

Once you do this, roll back every single nerf since closed beta, including ghost heat, the gauss rifle charge and restore jump jets back to where they should be.

[Event Horizon]

I think you should have the option to link them or unlink them. Keep convergence but give us the option to unlink them.

[Kuritaclan]

KuroNyra, on 09 April 2015 - 01:38 PM, said:

To use something and to understand how it worked are differents things.
Copy something with plans doesn't necessaraly mean you know how it work. You just follow a plan.


I give you tools and the plans to build a tank and the instructions to assemble it.
Will you know how each component work with the rest? No. Unless your called Einstein or you are one big liar.

Inventing something needs an idea - reengeniering doesnt need an idea or a clew how it works, only that in works when it assambled in a specif way, what is by nature of series production a non issue, since you have a BOM at there is no additional wire or screw. It just works the way it needs to do. That is no magic, as you try to tell. For example it took the germans around one decade to figure out how brits did mold their canons, after that it just toke a second decade to make it better. Easy peasy when you can learn it directly from first hand by copy paste. Just a bit more difficult to do if you don't have the reciep. But that is like saying a third generation miller does not know how to maintain his mile, the family owend 3 gens long and he was raised in the mindset he become the 4th gen miller. Anyhow it is probally to hard for someone like you that reinventing is another thing than reengeniering. You be aware of the tech described for the normal population by the books, like smart tvs, holo projetors, communication terminals and so on. Telling people you have planetwide com system but you don't build tech that have sensors to make some iterations to stabalize a mechanical device with simple motors that will then aim a weapon at a specific point is behind any justification.

KuroNyra, on 09 April 2015 - 01:38 PM, said:

Same goes for dropships, jumpships. And it is by the books& by what is canon that we know for sur that Mechs weren't able to achieve perfect pinpoint accuracy like we currently have.
Heck, most of the fights in the books are for example guys having trouble aiming at there opponent.

They are forced by the mech to no stable aim, e.g. destab because of uneaqual balance (riped parts of the mech) or the heat, or things like sweat in the eyes. This were the comon problems of no stable aim. Maintaining the mech in running with the neuro support was something to be trained and even the best had problems to achive a stable movment under pressure in combat.

KuroNyra, on 09 April 2015 - 01:38 PM, said:

Same goes for Jumpships battles, they missed there shots multiples times. It was never a 100% perfect aim point'n'click like in the game.

Guns of the Dropships to handle other drop ships and of Jumpchips for space fight were on a larger scale. Also the speeds are relativly others so that a guidesystem couldn't handle at all time a steady hit zone. It is the same problem you have shooting a clay pigon with a shotgun and trying to shot a sonic jet with the same tech. Might not work. However in WWI for example airplanes were that slow that with luck you could hit the pilot with a normal rifle, now try this with a sonic jet to bring it down.

Edited by Kuritaclan, 09 April 2015 - 02:16 PM.

[Y E O N N E]

Dimento, your definition of twitch is off. Twitch is used to refer to the impact of how much time you have to act and react has on play. Loosely, the graver the consequences for slower and less accurate reaction, the more twitchy the game. Unreal Tournament and Counter-Strike are "twitchy" because minute variations in how fast you can accurately change positions, draw a bead on the target, and fire all make the difference between life and death in a one-second-sized unit of a fixed time scale. In MWO, in the same time frame on that same time scale, you would merely lose some armor or, at worst, be maimed. You are still alive and you are still combat-capable.

So, MWO is not really on the twitchy side of the twitch-spectrum. Shooting all the time is a result of being unable to aim or having no incentive to not be doing it and has nothing to do with a game being super twitchy.

Fixed, user-configurable convergence would only impact your ability to fight outside the ranges that are optimum for your build. It increases the imperative of making a judgement call on a target's load-out. He's got laser vomit? He's likely configured that convergence for around 450 meters. Get in close with a convergence set for 50-100 meters, and he'll have to be very skilled indeed to land the full volley in a concentrated pattern, allowing your close-range build to surgically remove parts while his shots are absorbed by various armor locations. Basically, it creates and enforces a sort of role warfare, because long-range weapons need long-range convergence to take advantage of their range.

I think it would be fun, personally, and I'd be willing to try it. Doesn't work? Roll it back.

[KuroNyra]

Kuritaclan, on 09 April 2015 - 02:09 PM, said:

They are forced by the mech to no stable aim, e.g. destab because of uneaqual balance (riped parts of the mech) or the heat, or things like sweat in the eyes. This were the comon problems of no stable aim. Maintaining the mech in running with the neuro support was something to be trained and even the best had problems to achive a stable movment under pressure in combat.

They are forced because of the battles currently going on.
Because they are fighting, they can't have a perfect accuracy, and even when having lock on system for all there guns, it required time for them to get all on the same point and fire.
EVEN when not under fire they couldn't make instant pin-point convergence for there weapons and had to aim for a few short seconds, and even in that case, it was NOT guarantee all the weapons were going to hit the exact same place



Here? You just move a cursor and all the weapons follow with no kind of trouble. That's something that need to be done

Either your are doing this on purpose, or your a troll, or your... Well, stupid?

[Dimento Graven]

Hotthedd, on 09 April 2015 - 11:09 AM, said:

Random. You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

If you know your convergence is set at 500m, and you weapons are on your right side, and your target is 400m away, moving laterally at a constant speed, A GOOD pilot will STILL hit the target.

With asingle "set" convergence, and no 'probability to hit' table yes, there's no "random" beyond the circumstances of game play (ping differences, dropped packets, etc.), however, when advocating for a 'single set' convergence (one convergence at a particular range) and then prior to that range/after that range you implement "cone of fire" we're back to RNG.

Any time you implement a CoF affect in a shooter, you are activating an RNG cycle, again, regardless of how the hit/miss is determined.

[Mystere]

Dimento Graven, on 09 April 2015 - 10:56 AM, said:

BECAUSE THE ULTIMATE EFFECT OF IMPLEMENTING ANY FORUMULAS TO DECIDE WHETHER OR NOT THE UNMOVING PINPOINT LOCATION I HAVE UNDER MY TARGETING PIXEL IS ACTUALLY HIT, EFFECTIVELY BECOMES AN RNG.

Sigh! See below:

Mystere, on 09 April 2015 - 10:26 AM, said:

Let me try to put an end to this ingenious association of CoF to RNGs and dice rolls:

• CEP <> RNG
  
• CEP <> dice rolls

• Mechanical Slop <> RNG
  
• Mechanical Slop <> dice rolls

• CEP + Mechanical Slop ≈ CoF (i.e. good enough )

Dimento Graven, on 09 April 2015 - 10:56 AM, said:

And what's the basis of YOUR arguments? Ultimately you're tired of getting headshot by playing stupid.

<more personal attacks>

How very sad. You're so devoid of arguments beyond the "RNG is the Devil incarnate!" you're reduced to resorting to personal attacks.

Oh, by the way, your butthurt raging is missing one small but relevant detail. I am not here to promote CoF. I'm just explaining how it can be justified using similar math and physics used by weapons manufacturers and analysts themselves.

I'm actually here for fixed convergence.

Not that I would object to some form of physics-based CoF being added. I'm not in any way going to get butthurt or fall into a rage, unlike you apparently. I guess Mathematics and Physics aren't your thing.

Or are you one of those fanatical disciples of the "Church of Skill".

<See I can dish it too!>

Edited by Mystere, 09 April 2015 - 05:44 PM.

[Dimento Graven]

Dino Might, on 09 April 2015 - 02:06 PM, said:

It's not a beam width or projectile width issue.

Dimento is fixated on some assumption that anyone who disagrees with him must be a bad player.

That's because quite a few of you who are disagreeing with me ARE bad players.

Quote

He refuses to learn about probability, statistics, and actual real world shooting and why aim is so important in real world shooting (which gets modeled very well with COF). He wants less reality, not more, but argues that his way is more realistic somehow.

I understand all that bullshit you're trying to use to buy yourself a few less deaths with, yes. "Oh the spot that he's been aiming at for 5 seconds, and hasn't moved, has no interference, LAWS OF PROBABILITY STILL SAY HE SHOULD MISS OCCASSIONALLY FOR.... REASONS." Nah, ain't buyin' it and I'll fight to the death any attempts at trying to screw over the players who have taken the time and put in the effort to get good at aiming.

Quote

You are missing the idea of how angular deviation affects point of impact at various ranges. I totally agree with you that this is not relevant to the point of aim vs. point of impact discussion. And that is not at all what we've been talking about.

Except it still sounds like you're advocating for a random miss every now and then because the "law of probability" says so, and again, I'll not allow actual skilled play to be ********* like that.

[Dimento Graven]

Mystere, on 09 April 2015 - 03:43 PM, said:

Sigh! See below:

How very sad. You're so devoid of arguments beyond the &quot;RNG is the Devil incarnate!&quot; you're reduced to resorting to personal attacks.

Oh, by the way, your butthurt raging is missing one small but relevant detail. I am not here to promote CoF. I'm just explaining how it can be justified using similar math and physics used by weapons manufacturers and analysts themselves.

I'm actually here for fixed convergence.

Not that I would object to some form of physics-based CoF being added. I'm not in any way going to get butthurt or fall into a rage, unlike you apparently. I guess Mathematics and Physics aren't your thing.

&lt;See I can dish it too!&gt;

Ok, let me pin you down:

HOW DO YOU IMPLEMENT A CoF AFFECT TO APPROXIMATE YOUR "•CEP + Mechanical Slop ≈ CoF" EFFECT, TO WHERE THE EFFECT IS NOT A RANDOM EVENT?!?!

One of out of HOW MANY shots needs to suddenly veer off in a random direction for "reasons" will it take to make you happy? 1 out of 5? Or maybe just the ones headed towards your 'mech?

All your passive aggressive "oh I'm just justifying blah blah blah" doesn't cover the "miniscule fact" you can't implement ANY OF THIS in a computer game without an RNG.

Because as far as the computer is concerned a beam of energy will go in a straight line until interrupted.

As far as this engine is concerned, all 'mech gimbals are perfect, all ammo rounds are perfect, and there's not enough gravity or windage at the distances involved to appreciably affect physical round travel.

So how do you do it WITHOUT an RNG?

Answer please.

[Telmasa]

KraftySOT, on 09 April 2015 - 10:14 AM, said:

People still perpetuating the myth that WoT uses an RNG in aiming.

Dudes. The RNG in WoT adds to your penetration value. Thats what people are complaining about.

No one is complaining about "aiming with dice" in WoT.

Go to their freaking forums people. War thunder has the same game devices in aiming as WoT, but no RNG dictating penetration values for your weapons, theyre fixed.

Wow, you are completely wrong. Either you are a very casual beginner in WoT or you've been playing too much War Thunder and confusing the two.

WoT force-incjects the RNG into every possible aspect involved with firing your weapon - and definitely not just the penetration value.

It does, in fact, affect your accuracy - there's a +/-25 number that affects where your shot will land inside (and sometimes still outside) of the "cone of fire".

It affects your damage rolls.

It affects the chances of whether your modules will be critted or not.

And as you mentioned, it affects the penetration value.

ALL by a hardcoded +/-25%.

Go look at the WoT forums, type in "RNG" in the search box - you will find hundreds if not thousands of threads that have been complaining about it since the days of closed beta & beyond.

I specifically quit playing WoT after two years because I was fed up with the RNG, especially because it seems to be tailored to punish tryhard players & reward bad ones. There's been many threads that've gone to great lengths to prove it too.


The only piece of "truth" I will grant you, is that War Thunder happens to have a pretty damn good aiming system without any gimmicky like RNG being involved. The down side to War Thunder, in my view, is that it's simply a bit too realistic.

Mystere, on 09 April 2015 - 10:30 AM, said:

Because there are those who believe that if you associate two hated things together (e.g. WoT and RNG) to describe something, people will also hate that "something".

It's not my fault that WoT and RNG are hated...or that it's true that WoT is largely hated directly because of the RNG involved in the game...those are actual facts that can be backed up with evidence pulled from basic web searches and forum surfing.



On a side note I'd be willing to try 'fixed convergence' for torso weaponry (i.e. shows up as multiple crosshairs on the HUD) & arms without lower actuators - IF and only IF we are given an way to change our HUD's transparency.

The amount of clutter on the HUD already bugs me, if you add more reticules to that & none of it is opaque so I can 'see' through them, that'd just make another problem.

Edited by Telmasa, 09 April 2015 - 03:58 PM.