231 replies to this topic

[Mudhutwarrior]

Whatever you try and do to mitigate the problem will be countered by the exploiters. Changing anything only gives a very short reprieve until it is countered.

I think Alphas are only an issue for mechs without the armor to withstand one. Then you need speed and the brains to just not peek a boo or just sit there.

The real issue is tryhards who stack the deck to lay combined alphas in matches. Having a lance of timbers usually dictates the outcome. You can't change that. Only create a new flavor of the month they will exploit to pad their K/D.

The discussion is ridiculous for that reason.

[Joseph Mallan]

Dark Jackal, on 08 April 2015 - 10:01 AM, said:

If we want to talk about historical inspiration, it's easy as BT took a lot of inspiration in the era it lived in. From the Mecha from various anime to real like C3 networks, Battletech is a vision of a future from the perspective of the 80s, at least initially. It's something that cannot be missed with the Jane's almanac style TROs that are some of the most popular items from BT along with it's fiction and lore.

Yet most combat in the novels took inspiration from Civil War and earlier battles.

[Joseph Mallan]

Mystere, on 08 April 2015 - 10:04 AM, said:

Really? What is the CEP of the tank's main weapon? And if you do not know what CEP means, then you have absolutely no clue with regard to your statement.

I don't even know what CEP refers to! But I found out that a GPS guided missiles can have up to +5.5 meter RADIUS margin of error. CoF!!!

Edited by Joseph Mallan, 09 April 2015 - 03:48 AM.

[Dino Might]

Joseph Mallan, on 09 April 2015 - 03:47 AM, said:

I don't even know what CEP refers to! But I found out that a GPS guided missiles can have up to +5.5 meter RADIUS margin of error. CoF!!!

In use here, CEP and COF are pretty much the same - take a normal (or close to normal) distribution curve, and put it in a cylindrical coordinate system, so as your distance from the center (point of aim) increases, the likelihood that the round will land there also decreases. CEP is circular error probable, based on a circle in which 50% of the rounds are expected to land. Commonly used as a metric for artillery accuracy.

I'd love a well thought out COF system that retains the necessity of aiming in combination with piloting considerations.

I would also love a reduced heat cap with various penalties (mostly related to the COF variation) at higher levels, but the effects should be based on a running 10 second average of heat. You can do the calculations easily and keep the visual display of your heat level based on those calculations. It's intuitive (we use this for operator readouts on a bunch of control systems), it has actual science behind it (heat transfer through tons of metal is not instantaneous), it would better match up with TT, and it would reduce the ability for doing extreme spike damage.

[Joseph Mallan]

Thanks for the explaination!

[Midax]

Why do people claim that their should be no COF in this because this is a FPS? There is two problems with that statement. First, COF is a standard for most FPS. COD has a cone of fire, CS has a COF, even ARMA has a cone of fire. Second, MWO is not a FPS it is a mech sim. It isn't a hardcore sim, but it is a sim.

[Joseph Mallan]

Midax, on 09 April 2015 - 04:20 AM, said:

Why do people claim that their should be no COF in this because this is a FPS? There is two problems with that statement. First, COF is a standard for most FPS. COD has a cone of fire, CS has a COF, even ARMA has a cone of fire. Second, MWO is not a FPS it is a mech sim. It isn't a hardcore sim, but it is a sim.

I figure if a player wants no CoF they need to go out to a shooting range and prove they can put 100 rounds through the first hole in the paper. Then they can tell me they are that good! Not a quarter sized hole, that is a CoF.

Edited by Joseph Mallan, 09 April 2015 - 04:25 AM.

[Metus regem]

Midax, on 09 April 2015 - 04:20 AM, said:

Why do people claim that their should be no COF in this because this is a FPS? There is two problems with that statement. First, COF is a standard for most FPS. COD has a cone of fire, CS has a COF, even ARMA has a cone of fire. Second, MWO is not a FPS it is a mech sim. It isn't a hardcore sim, but it is a sim.

Rather simply, a CoF would be much more simulation like, than what we have now... What we have now, has no bases in reality, no weapon system to date is as accurate as the ones on our mechs, that can instantly change between 0m and 1.5km to hit something the size of a flea....

[xImmortalx]

Joseph Mallan, on 09 April 2015 - 04:25 AM, said:

I figure if a player wants no CoF they need to go out to a shooting range and prove they can put 100 rounds through the first hole in the paper. Then they can tell me they are that good! Not a quarter sized hole, that is a CoF.

What in the blue hell does a person's ability to shoot a firearm accurately have to do with how accurate futuristic weapons on a futuristic piece of armor in a video game should be? You keep insisting on this point as if it's somehow relevant but honestly it's probably the dumbest analogy I've ever heard. The CEP argument on the other hand is very relevant and but it would only apply to conventional ballistics (ACs) because the projectiles are large and slow enough to be affected by environmental conditions.

But I'm gonna be charitable here, because as many others have mentioned CoF (or bullet spread) is a big part of pretty much every successful online shooter, it does add tactical depth and because I've played most of those shooters and totally understand why it's there.

In a conventional shooter, let's take CS for example, CoF gives you an option. You can move around and have a considerable CoF plus recoil but be able to avoid some incoming fire or stand still and risk getting killed very quickly but only have to compensate for recoil. Interestingly enough this doesn't decrease TTK by much because players will always gravitate towards the most efficient playstyle, but it does slow the pace of the game down and put much more of an emphasis on positioning and discipline.

MWO doesn't have recoil and CoF induced by movement would make lights and mediums pretty much useless so what would the tradeoff for CoF be? And instead of working backward from an answer, tell me what problem in current gameplay this would resolve? If the ability to fire too many weapons at once is the problem, how will this be any different from ghost heat and why wouldn't this be countered just as easily as ghost heat?

Edited by xImmortalx, 09 April 2015 - 08:17 AM.

[Almond Brown]

Bobzilla, on 08 April 2015 - 10:13 AM, said:

I'm pretty sure that is what it does now and why hitreg is messed up.

Nope. otherwise folks could not call it PPFLD and be fairly accurate in that assessment. You want your Hit reg to increase? Get a better Inet connection or fire less weapons per group volley. The HSR system handles smaller clusters better than large gaggles of simultaneous fire.

[Hotthedd]

xImmortalx, on 09 April 2015 - 08:16 AM, said:

MWO doesn't have recoil and CoF induced by movement would make lights and mediums pretty much useless

By that you mean "Lights will be less able to back-hug an assault and put 8 SPLs in a dime-sized hole on their Rear CT."

Remember that it would be the same for ALL players, that same light would be less likely to be one-shot as well.

[Almond Brown]

Escef, on 08 April 2015 - 04:12 PM, said:

If you are referring to the hardpoint system, table top does not use it. If you are referring to TT in general, well, yeah, translating from a turn-based, table top, tactical wargame to a FPS is going to require a lot of finagling, especially if it is to have any semblance of balance.

And when the term "Balance" comes in some 732 known versions, the best thing to do is to pick one and hope you get what you think "Balance" is, because, invariably, someone else will disagree about your version and may not be blatantly out of line either.

[Joseph Mallan]

xImmortalx, on 09 April 2015 - 08:16 AM, said:

What in the blue hell does a person's ability to shoot a firearm accurately have to do with how accurate futuristic weapons on a futuristic piece of armor in a video game should be? You keep insisting on this point as if it's somehow relevant but honestly it's probably the dumbest analogy I've ever heard. The CEP argument on the other hand is very relevant and but it would only apply to conventional ballistics (ACs) because the projectiles are large and slow enough to be affected by environmental conditions.

But I'm gonna be charitable here, because as many others have mentioned CoF (or bullet spread) is a big part of pretty much every successful online shooter, it does add tactical depth and because I've played most of those shooters and totally understand why it's there.

In a conventional shooter, let's take CS for example, CoF gives you an option. You can move around and have a considerable CoF plus recoil but be able to avoid some incoming fire or stand still and risk getting killed very quickly but only have to compensate for recoil. Interestingly enough this doesn't decrease TTK by much because players will always gravitate towards the most efficient playstyle, but it does slow the pace of the game down and put much more of an emphasis on positioning and discipline.

MWO doesn't have recoil and CoF induced by movement would make lights and mediums pretty much useless so what would the tradeoff for CoF be? And instead of working backward from an answer, tell me what problem in current gameplay this would resolve? If the ability to fire too many weapons at once is the problem, how will this be any different from ghost heat and why wouldn't this be countered just as easily as ghost heat?

It determines if you know how to shoot and actually hit what you are aiming at.

As to what CoF would solve. Pin point Alphas. Of course Lasers could be exempt cause laser accurate you know. The less weapons you fire the more accurate your fire.

[Dino Might]

xImmortalx, on 09 April 2015 - 08:16 AM, said:

What in the blue hell does a person's ability to shoot a firearm accurately have to do with how accurate futuristic weapons on a futuristic piece of armor in a video game should be? You keep insisting on this point as if it's somehow relevant but honestly it's probably the dumbest analogy I've ever heard. The CEP argument on the other hand is very relevant and but it would only apply to conventional ballistics (ACs) because the projectiles are large and slow enough to be affected by environmental conditions.

CEP is a specific COF. See above explanation or read it on Wikipedia. Let's talk about what shooting firearms has to do with this. Consider a benchrest setup, rifle is resting on a fixed object, what you would assume is "perfectly steady." Did you know that benchrest shooters still have groupings that aren't perfectly exact? Firearms testing where they physically mount the gun to a rest will still see COF in a grouping of multiple shots. COF actually comes from multiple different factors, one of which is the physical design of the weapon and it's repeatability. It's not just environmental factors.

So it makes perfect sense to have COF in this game, even with lasers. See the other thread where I have to pummel detractors with science to get them to admit it is realistic, but they still don't want it. Okay...that's just an argument on preference, and that's fine - but you can't argue that the COF model doesn't represent reality.

[Almond Brown]

Mystere, on 08 April 2015 - 07:38 PM, said:

stuff
Let me say that again: Physics!

Yup, as we HUMANS apply what little we know and understand about Physics on our one little planet called Earth, with our nice 1G atmosphere versus the entire population of planets of the I.S. 1000 years from now.

We may still have much to learn little Padawan.

Edited by Almond Brown, 09 April 2015 - 08:44 AM.

[Almond Brown]

Joseph Mallan, on 09 April 2015 - 03:47 AM, said:

I don't even know what CEP refers to! But I found out that a GPS guided missiles can have up to +5.5 meter RADIUS margin of error. CoF!!!

Now lets do relative distances traveled to get a true sense of accuracy then Joe. Those missiles travel up to what, 30-40 miles, or are they Cruise Missiles, then many 100's of miles. So we take 50 miles and do Maths and voila. The result? A pretty freaking accurate shot over said distance.

It is all relative really. An Ac5 is not as accurate at max. optimal range versus a moving target as when the target is a mere 250m out and standing still.

An A1-Abrams has no need for 2 Main guns. It can kill its comparative adversaries (enemy tanks) with just one, and do so from relatively safe distances. As always has been the case, a Tanks worst enemy is ground based troops. Thus the addition of the machine gun(s).

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

[Mystere]

Almond Brown, on 09 April 2015 - 08:43 AM, said:

Yup, as we HUMANS apply what little we know and understand about Physics on our one little planet called Earth, with our nice 1G atmosphere versus the entire population of planets of the I.S. 1000 years from now.

We may still have much to learn little Padawan.

Oh really? See below:

Joseph Mallan, on 08 April 2015 - 10:48 AM, said:

According to Lore the tech is not much better early 20th century when it comes to targeting ...

Edited by Mystere, 09 April 2015 - 09:00 AM.

[Joseph Mallan]

Almond Brown, on 09 April 2015 - 08:56 AM, said:

Now lets do relative distances traveled to get a true sense of accuracy then Joe. Those missiles travel up to what, 30-40 miles, or are they Cruise Missiles, then many 100's of miles. So we take 50 miles and do Maths and voila. The result? A pretty freaking accurate shot over said distance.

It is all relative really. An Ac5 is not as accurate at max. optimal range versus a moving target as when the target is 1 mere 250m out and standing still.

An A1-Abrams has no need for 2 Main guns. It can kill its comparative adversaries (enemy tanks) with just one, and do so from relatively safe distances. As always has been the case, a Tanks worst enemy is ground based troops. Thus the addition of the machine gun(s).

Pretty accurate isn't accurate.

[Almond Brown]

Midax, on 09 April 2015 - 04:20 AM, said:

Why do people claim that their should be no COF in this because this is a FPS? There is two problems with that statement. First, COF is a standard for most FPS. COD has a cone of fire, CS has a COF, even ARMA has a cone of fire. Second, MWO is not a FPS it is a mech sim. It isn't a hardcore sim, but it is a sim.

Well I guess if an exception is made to those things that have to use said CoF, then perhaps. I am pretty sure that Lasers, at the distances they are used in MWO, don't fit the criteria to be included in the CoF bundle.

Edited by Almond Brown, 09 April 2015 - 09:01 AM.

[Joseph Mallan]

Almond Brown, on 09 April 2015 - 09:00 AM, said:

Well I guess if an exception is made to those things that have to use said CoF, then perhaps. I am pretty sure that Lasers, at the distances they are used in MWO, don't fit the criteria to be included in the CoF bundle.

Laser accurate? There may or may not be a small amount of inaccuracy in the mechanics aiming the laser.