1126 replies to this topic

[Dimento Graven]

Boris The Spider, on 10 April 2015 - 03:42 AM, said:

Did it ever occur to you that many of the people asking for this since closed beta are regularly on the 'dishing out end' of six man firing lines, and genuinely believe that increasing TTK will create a better strategic environment? Or those that think removing the ability to graft all your weapons together to create singular super-weapons would improve variety in both builds and strategy and stop PGI from nerfing individual weapons to deal with specific builds? Rather than, all these people are bads who are but-hurt from getting owned all the time.

So... wait a minute... You honestly expect it to be 'reasonable' that someone can make a mistake walk out in front of 4 or more enemy 'mechs and still should be able to survive most of the time?

AND... to top it off, you're trying to insinuate that the people calling for more survivability in that circumstance are the members of the 4 or more enemy firing line, what... feeling sorry for their victims and/or are thinking it's "too easy" in that situation?

Wow...



Really?

REALLY?

KuroNyra, on 09 April 2015 - 11:58 PM, said:

Pretentious much?
Bad player in your opinion, yet some of them could kick your ass if you continue to underestimate others who disagree with you.
You have the attitude typical of a 15 years kid. "It's not me who is bad, it's the others. And all the ones who don't agree with me are bad! Na!"

I calls 'em likes I sees 'em.

The people who are spouting things like, "It's too easy for people to die when they get in front of 6 'mechs firing at him all at once, we need to deconverge all weapons..." and other such silly notions gives a pretty good indication of where they're coming from.

Plus a few the names I recognize from face shooting them...

[Bacl]

Bush Hopper, on 08 April 2015 - 05:58 AM, said:

I totally disagree. MWO has a thing called "hitreg". Take one of my fights today for example (note all shots were point blank at 80m at CT with no twisting involved) 3 * AC/20 + 3 * 3ML = 49 damage according to MWO's hitreg and not 105 dmg. Say again that there is no bounce effect grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

Well there is but its a random and unwanted effect due to bad programming lol, if it was because you manage to angle your mech to bounce the shot it would be another story.

[Almond Brown]

Dimento Graven, on 09 April 2015 - 11:50 AM, said:

If when they fired their first alpha, their 'mech slowed down significantly and their reticule started shaking like they were jumping or being hit by missiles, making the second shot not easily aimed, they would play differently.

Here is the crux issue with that argument. "They may STOP playing altogether!"

Now I realize you won;t miss anyone who would leave because you got what you wanted, but PGI does not have that luxury, well the Community as a whole doesn't either really.

Every one talks about fixing this or that and how this is better than that and how can we make playing MWO a debilitating exercise that in the end would result in just another META, as how can anyone be expected to fight when doing so turns your Mech in a slow moving POS on legs.

So No. Just No. Lets allow the game to maintain some form of fluidity (run and gun if you like) and determine other means to change the LOW TTK we all seem to hate so much.

One does have to wonder though, way back on day 12, PGI set a PUG Match time limit of 15 minutes. When was the last time you had a Match that lasted past 8??? (a rare few for sure) So why has PGI not taken notice and shortened the match time, so we can have more Matches per hour, thus more Loot, or made change to extend a Match to better meet their initial expectations of 15 minutes.

Match times that run at 50% of expected maximum, and do so very consistently, must say something about current death rates of Mechs to those who are Designing these things right?

What does it say to you (as in everyone)? To me, it says we are either short 50% of something, or have been allowed to have 50% to much of something else. The "true fix" is figuring out which 50% makes the most sense, while also being the easiest to alter, without screwing everything else in the doing.

Edited by Almond Brown, 10 April 2015 - 09:31 AM.

[Dimento Graven]

Joseph Mallan, on 10 April 2015 - 06:39 AM, said:

...

Now that being said. The more weapons I fire simultaneously the less accurate my shot should be!

...

Explain to me the thought process on that...

[Dimento Graven]

Joseph Mallan, on 10 April 2015 - 08:30 AM, said:

As someone who trained a lot to be both a Paid Professional Mass Murderer (Infantry Marine) and Martial Artist, if you are doing a bunch of thinking in a fight, you will lose.Thinking takes time. Time is precious when you are fighting.

So the more you do by the numbers in a tense situation the more likely you will be the last one standing.

I think the point is that even in the professional military, and in professional fighting, you're not using ALL your strength every time you attack. There is some use of tactics and strategy.

After all, were that the case, every single conflict the US ever entered would have been, "NUKE!" game over, and so on.

[PPMcBiggs]

Telmasa, on 10 April 2015 - 07:22 AM, said:

I'd imagine it as this:
- Torso Weapons have a fixed convergence set by the player in the mechlab. (How you would make this work with 3+SRM6 launchers on an Atlas seems pretty complicated to me - perhaps allowing greater torso pitch on all mechs? not sure how the reticule would look either - but I digress)
- Arm Weapons *that lack* lower arm actuators (jagermech, centurion) have a fixed parallel('infinity') convergence (with reticule to match)
- Arm Weapons with the lower arm actuators have 'dynamic' convergence - pretty much the way it is now with armlock disengaged

The big trouble with this, too, is that you would absolutely *need, need, need* a noob-friendly tutorial guide, complete with walkthrough and practice mission/run against dummy targets.



Well, if all the player-made custom reticules available for WoT are any example, there's plenty ways to try it.

Or, on a different angle, you could think of it it like Dead Space aiming methods - though first person rather than over the shoulder and lacking the light beams (akin to our tag laser); every single weapon in Dead Space comes with a unique, fitting, and intuitive reticule.

Image for reference: http://cdn.3news.co....d-space-3-3.jpg
- imagine dots (preferable tiny center-fade circles) at the end of those beams, and the beams not being visible, and I think you get the gist of what I mean

Missiles already have a CoF. No need to reconsider them.

The idea of infinite convergence is simply terrible. There is no reason for this at all. Even today battleships can bring multiple weapons (100s of feet apart) to bear on the same target. If I were a mech pilot in a Jaeger the first thing I would do would be to find a mountain to bang my guns on until there was some sort of convergence. Just because the Jaeger doesn't have "elbows" or "wrists" doesnt mean that it's "shoulders" cannot move in the horizontal.

The idea of somehow time-constraining convergence is interesting, I think most good pilots could adapt to a system like that. To just simply randomly apply a modifier to the aim (as in a CoF) kind of makes sense but, I think (in the case of a Mech), would really not amount to much difference in damage dealt over time per area. At least not with going so far that many would say the guns are broken. I like the idea of alphas being high risk.

My opinion is we should investigate slowing down convergence and somehow complicate alphas to require much more consideration by the pilot.

[Joseph Mallan]

Dimento Graven, on 09 April 2015 - 03:44 PM, said:

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

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.

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.

Actually with statistical perfection being 99.997% Yes Occasionally **** does happen!
Want proof:

Show me a vehicle or vessel that can fire a broadside and be 6 sigma accurate.

[Joseph Mallan]

Dimento Graven, on 10 April 2015 - 09:28 AM, said:

I think the point is that even in the professional military, and in professional fighting, you're not using ALL your strength every time you attack. There is some use of tactics and strategy.

After all, were that the case, every single conflict the US ever entered would have been, "NUKE!" game over, and so on.

Those tactics and strategies are practiced over and over before you engage. Yes as a Marine I was expected to improvise adapt and overcome but I still had a set of tactics that were drilled over and over and over so that if I heard the commands today I would still likely "snap to" without thinking.

[Dimento Graven]

Joseph Mallan, on 10 April 2015 - 09:29 AM, said:

Actually with statistical perfection being 99.997% Yes Occasionally **** does happen!

So you want a coin flip with a .003% failure probability then?

Quote

Show me a vehicle or vessel that can fire a broadside and be 6 sigma accurate.

Call me in the year 3050, we'll talk.

Joseph Mallan, on 10 April 2015 - 09:32 AM, said:

Those tactics and strategies are practiced over and over before you engage. Yes as a Marine I was expected to improvise adapt and overcome but I still had a set of tactics that were drilled over and over and over so that if I heard the commands today I would still likely "snap to" without thinking.

Yes, but the point is, you're not expending all your energy and resources with EVERY punch.

[PPMcBiggs]

KuroNyra, on 10 April 2015 - 08:24 AM, said:

Ho please, you clearly get the idea with theses pictures.

"Who cares"? Players maybe? One who are tired of that unrealistic pin-point convergence allowing you to hit with no problem something at the exact same spot at 500m while running at 80km/h?

To put a system like this would reduce the problem. Especially at long rang AND very short rang, you can't tell me that you are for THIS

An idea can be formed from those pictures. But it is an idea skewed wildly in favor of non-convergence because the scale is all wrong. Fix the scale and all of the sudden it becomes clear non-convergence becomes a much smaller issue especially when dealing with medium to long range.

Allow me to elaborate about "Who cares?" If, at 100m, I shoot 2x gauss at your RT and my convergence is perfect all that damage goes into the RT exactly where the reticle is. On the other hand if, at 100m I shoot 2x gauss at your RT and my convergence is "realistic" 1 gauss hits the left-ish side of your RT and the other hits the center of your RT what is the difference? Nothing. So who cares? Sure, sure _sometimes_ one might hit the RT and one might hit CT or RA but a good marks man would be able to make his shot more often than not. So again, who cares? I can think of 1 group that would care: new players who will already find the rest of the game quite challenging.

Nope, Not for that. Read the first post I made in the thread. A minimum range to convergence makes sense, beyond that range at least REALLY GOOD convergence ought to be possible out of a 31st century battle platform.

[Dimento Graven]

Almond Brown, on 10 April 2015 - 09:23 AM, said:

Here is the crux issue with that argument. "They may STOP playing altogether!"

Now I realize you won;t miss anyone who would leave because you got what you wanted, but PGI does not have that luxury, well the Community as a whole doesn't either really.

Of all the other extremely significant changes from weapon charge ups, ghost heat, ECM, 3rd person view, coolant pods, removal of HS's from fusion engines, etc. etc. etc. etc., over the years, are you trying to tell me this would be the proverbial 'straw' that breaks the camel's back?

Doubt it.

Especially as adding a hit full heat affects table still allows for EVERYTHING ELSE to be left alone as is.

Quote

Every one talks about fixing this or that and how this is better than that and how can we make playing MWO a debilitating exercise that in the end would result in just another META, as how can anyone be expected to fight when doing so turns your Mech in a slow moving POS on legs.

So you believe that it's reasonable to have 'mechs fire multiple alphas in a row without any repercussion?

Quote

So No. Just No. Lets allow the game to maintain some form of fluidity (run and gun if you like) and determine other means to change the LOW TTK we all seem to hate so much.

I don't hate low TTK, there should be low TTK under certain circumstances. It's not unreasonable for an Atlas to die in seconds if its pilot makes a mistake and walks it front of a bunch of the enemy.

Adding a heat affects table doesn't change that, all the enemy could STILL fire alphas into the Atlas, there'd just be some potential consequences for repeatedly firing alphas into the Atlas.

Quote

One does have to wonder though, way back on day 12, PGI set a PUG Match time limit of 15 minutes. When was the last time you had a Match that lasted past 8??? (a rare few for sure) So why has PGI not taken notice and shortened the match time, so we can have more Matches per hour, thus more Loot, or made change to extend a Match to better meet their initial expectations of 15 minutes.

I play pretty much every day, and pretty much every day I have at least one match that lasts nearly the entire 15 minutes. Either a battle that lasts 10 minutes and then 4 minutes of search for some shut down, DC'd ********, or 8 minutes of battle and 6 minutes of cat and mouse between 2 and 4 of the remaining stragglers. The first instance, counter to the health of the game, the second totally in line with the spirit of the game and a GOOD THING that it can happen.

Quote

Match times that run at 50% of expected maximum, and do so very consistently, must say something about current death rates of Mechs to those who are Designing these things right?

What does it say to you (as in everyone)? To me, it says we are either short 50% of something, or have been allowed to have 50% to much of something else. The "true fix" is figuring out which 50% makes the most sense, while also being the easiest to alter, without screwing everything else in the doing.

Actually to me it seems like you're advocating for 8 minute match times...

[Max Liao]

Dimento Graven, on 10 April 2015 - 09:34 AM, said:

Call me in the year 3050, we'll talk.

3050 BattleTech universe? If so, that's already been defined with a lot of RNG and lore; however, bad or not, that lore is still canon for the BT/MW universe.

3050 in the real world? Well, moot point as we're supposed to be playing in the BT/MW universe, not the real universe; and 3050 is a little ways away. If that were the case 80%+ of the rules and canon for the BT/MW universe would simply not exist, because they don’t fit what is known about physics, sociology, engineering, etc.

BattleTech could be argued to be almost “fantasy,” just like Star Wars: things that could never happen, but make a great game/genre. By injecting more and more “reality” it becomes less Battletech. By injecting more FPS pewpew rules, it becomes less Battletech.

I’ve said it since closed beta, too many people want Giant Stompy Robots Online, not Battletech/MechWarrior.

[Edit: Formatting]

Edited by Max Liao, 10 April 2015 - 09:51 AM.

[Boris The Spider]

Dimento Graven, on 10 April 2015 - 09:15 AM, said:

So... wait a minute... You honestly expect it to be 'reasonable' that someone can make a mistake walk out in front of 4 or more enemy 'mechs and still should be able to survive most of the time?

Nope, never said that. You honestly think that 4 mechs, even without pinpoint convergence arent going to shred someone who 'walks out in front' of them?

Dimento Graven, on 10 April 2015 - 09:15 AM, said:

AND... to top it off, you're trying to insinuate that the people calling for more survivability in that circumstance are the members of the 4 or more enemy firing line, what... feeling sorry for their victims and/or are thinking it's "too easy" in that situation?

Wow...

Really?

REALLY?

Yes really, not everybody in the world is a sociopath. Some people post ideas on the forum because they genuinely want to see a better game, as difficult as that may be to see.

[ROSS-128]

You don't need to be 6 sigma accurate to reliably hit a 12mx6m ish target (don't have an exact height:width ratio of course) from just 300m out. I could probably hit a target that size at that distance with a bow, and I suck at archery.

Again, hitting a mech is nowhere near as difficult as hitting an ant. Pixel-pinpoint accuracy isn't nearly as much of a stretch at this scale, when one pixel could represent a target area of a couple square feet.

[Dimento Graven]

Max Liao, on 10 April 2015 - 09:46 AM, said:

3050 BattleTech universe? If so, that's already been defined with a lot of RNG and lore; however, bad or not, that lore is still canon for the BT/MW universe.

3050 in the real world? Well, moot point as we're supposed to be playing in the BT/MW universe, not the real universe; and 3050 is a little ways away. If that were the case 80%+ of the rules and canon for the BT/MW universe would simply not exist, because they don';t fit what is known about physics, sociology, engineering, etc.

BattleTech could be argued to by almost "fantasy," just like Star Wars: things that could never happen, but make a great game/genre. By injecting more and more "reality" it becomes less Battletech. By injecting more FPS pewpew rules, it becomes less Battletech.

I've said it since closed beta, too many people want Giant Stompy Robots Online, not Battletech/MechWarrior.

[Edit: Formatting]

But that's just it, the people advocating for a change to convergence are playing for what they think will let them live longer in each match.

Some are trying to justify it in terms of "reality", some are trying to justify it in terms of "lore" (about the ONLY argument that should hold any ground in this discussion, though the "lore" of the TT game play, and the "lore" of all the fiction behind it do conflict just a bit, screw all you anti-Stackpolers, you're just f'ing jealous you haven't been paid to write fiction), others are just in a blatant "I'm tired of getting shot and dying instantly" mode.

[Dimento Graven]

Boris The Spider, on 10 April 2015 - 09:49 AM, said:

Nope, never said that. You honestly think that 4 mechs, even without pinpoint convergence arent going to shred someone who 'walks out in front' of them?

Ok "YOU" never said that, though what you did state seemed to indicate you think there are people on this forum who do think that way.

Quote

Yes really, not everybody in the world is a sociopath. Some people post ideas on the forum because they genuinely want to see a better game, as difficult as that may be to see.

Wait... So you think that people who find an enemy walking in front of them their team members out in the open and kill them quickly are sociopathic?

And you think that allowing enemy 'mechs who walk out in the open in front of 6 other 'mechs to live longer through means of artificial missing makes a "better game"?

[Joseph Mallan]

E Rommel, on 10 April 2015 - 09:52 AM, said:

You don't need to be 6 sigma accurate to reliably hit a 12mx6m ish target (don't have an exact height:width ratio of course) from just 300m out. I could probably hit a target that size at that distance with a bow, and I suck at archery.

Again, hitting a mech is nowhere near as difficult as hitting an ant. Pixel-pinpoint accuracy isn't nearly as much of a stretch at this scale, when one pixel could represent a target area of a couple square feet.

You do if you want to put more than 3 simo weapons within a dinner plate you do.

Edited by Joseph Mallan, 10 April 2015 - 10:01 AM.

[Max Liao]

Stackpole admitted that in the Warrior trilogy he rolled dice to simulate the battles. Of course he used artistic license to add action and to put us in the story, but he rolled dice nonetheless.

[Dimento Graven]

E Rommel, on 10 April 2015 - 09:52 AM, said:

You don't need to be 6 sigma accurate to reliably hit a 12mx6m ish target (don't have an exact height:width ratio of course) from just 300m out. I could probably hit a target that size at that distance with a bow, and I suck at archery.

Again, hitting a mech is nowhere near as difficult as hitting an ant. Pixel-pinpoint accuracy isn't nearly as much of a stretch at this scale, when one pixel could represent a target area of a couple square feet.

I can tell you for a fact there's enough randomness in the game already that pixel perfect accuracy is already VERY difficult in this game.

Otherwise, I'd have LOOOOOOOOOOOOONG ago had my Guillotine award...

[Joseph Mallan]

Dimento Graven, on 10 April 2015 - 09:34 AM, said:

So you want a coin flip with a .003% failure probability then?

It would fit the story of the Nova Cat who lost a world on a coin toss.
She Called "Edge"

That is your 0.003%

Max Liao, on 10 April 2015 - 09:56 AM, said:

Stackpole admitted that in the Warrior trilogy he rolled dice to simulate the battles. Of course he used artistic license to add action and to put us in the story, but he rolled dice nonetheless.

I did the same for my BattleCorps FanFic submissions. It sounded cooler written down than the dice made it look.