143 replies to this topic

[blinkin]

Pht, on 17 July 2013 - 04:57 PM, said:

Aimbots require less interaction. Otherwise, whatever you're calling an aimbot is not an aimbot.

The gunnery skills required that I listed means more interaction.

Your conclusion that it would make the 'mechs into aimbots is not only wrong, it's ironic, because actually having the 'mechs handle the weapons like they do in the lore would make for more interaction in gunnery and reward for player skill and thinking.

and the mech or "bot" would be doing all of the "aiming" calculations for you. yes there is lots of irony in your threads.

[Aeolus Drift]

blinkin, on 18 July 2013 - 11:10 AM, said:

and the mech or "bot" would be doing all of the "aiming" calculations for you. yes there is lots of irony in your threads.

The mech isn't doing the aiming blinkin, you are. While the pilot is orientating the mech to shoot at the target, The mech attempts to calibrate its guns for a firing solution, and after factoring in all environmental and situational conditions (via accuracy modifiers) the mech can give an approximate estimate of the likelyhood of hitting the target. The pilot then has to assess and decide if the conditions of the situation are decisive enough to commit to firing off his weapon groups, or if he wishes to wait for a better opportunity. Your still the one pulling the trigger, your still the one aiming at the target, you still should pay attention to your heat and speed; what the mech gives you is the information needed to make a decisive decision before pulling the trigger, and the tools to act on it. That, I believe, is what Pht has been trying to get at.

Edit:

By the way Pht great write up. I'm suprised I had somehow skipped out on this read, but I am glad that I have read it at all. Easily one of the most well argued post I have read on convergence, and some of the most thorough research I have seen on the topic. I'm sure to be adding it to my signature for future reference in the near future.

Edited by Interceptor12, 18 July 2013 - 04:17 PM.

[Roland]

I'm honestly having a hard time seeing how this even applies to a video game. It looks like you just described a bunch of the tabletop rules.

[blinkin]

Interceptor12, on 18 July 2013 - 04:12 PM, said:

The mech isn't doing the aiming blinkin, you are. While the pilot is orientating the mech to shoot at the target, The mech attempts to calibrate its guns for a firing solution, and after factoring in all environmental and situational conditions (via accuracy modifiers) the mech can give an approximate estimate of the likelyhood of hitting the target. The pilot then has to assess and decide if the conditions of the situation are decisive enough to commit to firing off his weapon groups, or if he wishes to wait for a better opportunity. Your still the one pulling the trigger, your still the one aiming at the target, you still should pay attention to your heat and speed; what the mech gives you is the information needed to make a decisive decision before pulling the trigger, and the tools to act on it. That, I believe, is what Pht has been trying to get at.

Edit:

By the way Pht great write up. I'm suprised I had somehow skipped out on this read, but I am glad that I have read it at all. Easily one of the most well argued post I have read on convergence, and some of the most thorough research I have seen on the topic. I'm sure to be adding it to my signature for future reference in the near future.

except!

Pht, on 29 November 2011 - 04:43 PM, said:

Physically, the main skill is the use of a joystick to indicate and track the desired target that one wants their 'Mech to try and hit, and the ability to pull trigger(s) exactly when necessary without disturbing one's aim. The joystick controls a firing reticule which is displayed on the main HUD in the cockpit. BTU 'Mechs are, by design, not allowed to target or track anything with the reticule or choose to shoot any weapon! Minor physical skills consist of the use of mode switches and, for example, configuring Target Interlock Circuits on the fly.

The three most important Mental gunnery skills are:

Knowing how the internal heat levels in your 'Mech will affect it's ability to aim, knowing if your 'Mech can make the shot you're indicating to it, and if you think it can make the shot, how long to let your 'Mech's Targeting and Tracking (T&T) computers calculate lead (weapons convergence) in order to hit the target being indicated and tracked by you. The decision on when to shoot or not shoot and how long let your T&T work on "a fix" is affected by other factors, which a good MechWarrior will take into account.

These factors consist of:
Knowing how the varying environmental and terrain types your 'Mech or a target is in will affect your 'Mech's ability to make the shot;

Choosing when to shoot based upon the target's behavior, for example, waiting until the target is relatively "still" enough in relation to your 'Mech's firing arc so that your 'Mech has an easier time making the shot;

In case it's not already obvious, the 'Mech handles the calculation of how far to "lead" a target in order to hit the target that the MechWarrior is indicating with the reticule on his HUD.

do you see the recurring theme? i see lots and lots of repeated talk about the mech and the targeting computer calculating shots, and this tends to tell me that the player does nothing besides tell the mech which of the enemy mechs he wants everything lined up on. he is taking all aiming aspects away from the player.

the players basically locks anything he wants to hit like you would LRM or streaks and then you just pull the trigger. forgive me but i hate streaks and think they are generally an abomination within the gameplay. i definitely don't want the whole game replaced with that.


this would be why i use the term aim bot. the bot or computer is doing all of the aiming for you. you just pick which mech you want to die, which i suspect any decent aimbot in any other game would do as well.

yup total strawman.

Edited by blinkin, 18 July 2013 - 11:09 PM.

[Skyfaller]

Pht, on 29 November 2011 - 04:43 PM, said:

Edited for clarity and to add the stuff about advanced Targeting Computers and aimed shots.

Basically, (and I agree with you), this game should use the equivalent system to FALLOUT 2 series.

[Mackman]

blinkin, on 18 July 2013 - 06:55 PM, said:

except!

do you see the recurring theme? i see lots and lots of repeated talk about the mech and the targeting computer calculating shots, and this tends to tell me that the player does nothing besides tell the mech which of the enemy mechs he wants everything lined up on. he is taking all aiming aspects away from the player.

the players basically locks anything he wants to hit like you would LRM or streaks and then you just pull the trigger. forgive me but i hate streaks and think they are generally an abomination within the gameplay. i definitely don't want the whole game replaced with that.


this would be why i use the term aim bot. the bot or computer is doing all of the aiming for you. you just pick which mech you want to die, which i suspect any decent aimbot in any other game would do as well.

yup total strawman.

I agree with this. This sounds like the most boring, frustrating game ever.

Me: Alright, I'm piloting my mech, moving around.. this is pretty sweet! Oh, an enemy mech! I'ma shoot him!

Mech Comp: Ok, buddy! I see you want to shoot that guy: Just give me a sec while I... alright, yep, here ya go, dude! You have a 56.5% chance to hit him!

Me: What? But I'm aiming right at him!

Mech Comp: Yeah, but you're moving, he's moving, you're a little bit hot, the planets are in opposition... trust me, dude, I'm doing a really good job getting you 56.5%.

Me: Alright, whatever. Fire!

Mech Comp: Great news, dude! I was able to hit him with one medium laser on his right arm, and another medium laser on his left leg! Aren't you proud of me?

Me:.... <Alt-F4, Uninstall, Never play again>

And for every person who loves you doing this to the game, there are going to be more who are like me who hate it.

EDIT for clarity: And don't start in on your "Lol twitch gamers can't think beyond just aiming their mouse!" that a lot of people like you love to talk about. We can think about it: We perfectly understand the concept of playing like that, of playing to minimize failure rates and maximize success rates. It's just that the game you're describing sounds incredibly boring and not fun at all, which is why we're against it.

Edited by Mackman, 19 July 2013 - 09:14 AM.

[Roland]

Skyfaller, on 19 July 2013 - 06:32 AM, said:

Basically, (and I agree with you), this game should use the equivalent system to FALLOUT 2 series.

See, this is the worst idea of all time... but yes, what Pht seems to be describing is EXACTLY the PIP-Boy style combat system.

You know why that worked in Fallout? Because:
1) You didn't actually have to use it
2) The game was about more than just combat

Imagine a game where it's competitive against other players, and ALL you do is fight... that is, there's no storyline, there's no huge Fallout world to explore. There's nothing BUT the combat from Fallout 2.

Would you play that game? No. Of course you wouldn't. No one would.

Fallout's combat system was largely designed to enable the gameplay for folks who weren't really interested in the combat.

If you aren't interested in the combat, in a game entirely centered on the combat, then you need to go find another game.

[blinkin]

Roland, on 19 July 2013 - 08:44 AM, said:

See, this is the worst idea of all time... but yes, what Pht seems to be describing is EXACTLY the PIP-Boy style combat system.

You know why that worked in Fallout? Because:
1) You didn't actually have to use it
2) The game was about more than just combat

Imagine a game where it's competitive against other players, and ALL you do is fight... that is, there's no storyline, there's no huge Fallout world to explore. There's nothing BUT the combat from Fallout 2.

Would you play that game? No. Of course you wouldn't. No one would.

Fallout's combat system was largely designed to enable the gameplay for folks who weren't really interested in the combat.

If you aren't interested in the combat, in a game entirely centered on the combat, then you need to go find another game.

yeah actually the vats system is probably the best description i have ever seen for what Pht is trying to do. major problem with that is that every one of the fallout games PAUSED THE GAME when they used it. even fallout 3 didn't break that rule.

now lets look at something i just thought about today with respect to this system. LASERS it actually takes EXTRA effort to design a laser system that can aim AND miss occasionally. if they have any sort of computer that directly controls aim, then those lasers don't ever have to leave an inch by inch space that was chosen. this is why aimbots that appear in the game are so deadly. they get to plant that laser on the cockpit until the enemy pilot has a good solid tan.

real life isn't very much different. for all intents and purposes at these ranges lasers are instantaneous. lasers are very predictable. if you see the target and aim directly at what you see all of the refraction will take care of itself because the same effects had already been applied to the light source you were seeing. to actually make a laser miss you would need to ADD in a random number generator. basic movement is not going to be nearly enough. the only thing that MIGHT reduce the precision of the laser weapons would be shake from an impact.

any time you are stationary and using lasers your accuracy should be 100.000000% regardless of what they are doing and what range they are doing it at. if anything can fire from these mechs then the lasers are going to be able to fire with at least 100x more precision.

[Aeolus Drift]

blinkin, on 18 July 2013 - 06:55 PM, said:

except!

do you see the recurring theme? i see lots and lots of repeated talk about the mech and the targeting computer calculating shots, and this tends to tell me that the player does nothing besides tell the mech which of the enemy mechs he wants everything lined up on. he is taking all aiming aspects away from the player.

the players basically locks anything he wants to hit like you would LRM or streaks and then you just pull the trigger. forgive me but i hate streaks and think they are generally an abomination within the gameplay. i definitely don't want the whole game replaced with that.


this would be why i use the term aim bot. the bot or computer is doing all of the aiming for you. you just pick which mech you want to die, which i suspect any decent aimbot in any other game would do as well.

yup total strawman.

I don't know to much about the codes of ethics and conduct in having an arguement, but your declaration of my "total strawman" seems not only confusing, but also a bit presumptuous. If you are indeed attempting to address what I mean by calibration, I was referring to the calibration of the primary weapon group's convergence, not a direct calibration on the target. Which means you would still have to attempt Even if you did indeed hooked me on a strawman, an argument from outrage is not the most effective counter either. Look I am willing to discuss this civilly, but you got to meet me half way.
Hell, I'm willing to concede that my summary may not have been very accurate, and too vague on the details, especially on the "mech calibrating the guns" bit. However the way I perceived what I had read, Pht's suggestion is more or less an intricate version of Docbach's own reactive reticle solution. The difference between them however Pht's would shift in color based on a sum of accuracy modifiers, which could be derived from table top. The modifiers, as I understood it, would essentially be generalized abstractions for the sake of the targetting computer, and its up to the pilot to judge if the assessment is appropriate or accurate.

However There is of course the possibility we are both completely misunderstanding his position. in which case perhaps some picture diagrams might help us both better understand the hypothetical implementation.

Addendum: I was also very tired from school when I wrote that response, and was essentially trying to formulate a response based on how much I had understood and what few brain cells I still had functioning by that time of the day.

[blinkin]

Interceptor12, on 19 July 2013 - 01:48 PM, said:

I don't know to much about the codes of ethics and conduct in having an arguement, but your declaration of my "total strawman" seems not only confusing, but also a bit presumptuous. If you are indeed attempting to address what I mean by calibration, I was referring to the calibration of the primary weapon group's convergence, not a direct calibration on the target. Which means you would still have to attempt Even if you did indeed hooked me on a strawman, an argument from outrage is not the most effective counter either. Look I am willing to discuss this civilly, but you got to meet me half way.
Hell, I'm willing to concede that my summary may not have been very accurate, and too vague on the details, especially on the "mech calibrating the guns" bit. However the way I perceived what I had read, Pht's suggestion is more or less an intricate version of Docbach's own reactive reticle solution. The difference between them however Pht's would shift in color based on a sum of accuracy modifiers, which could be derived from table top. The modifiers, as I understood it, would essentially be generalized abstractions for the sake of the targetting computer, and its up to the pilot to judge if the assessment is appropriate or accurate.

However There is of course the possibility we are both completely misunderstanding his position. in which case perhaps some picture diagrams might help us both better understand the hypothetical implementation.

Addendum: I was also very tired from school when I wrote that response, and was essentially trying to formulate a response based on how much I had understood and what few brain cells I still had functioning by that time of the day.

the strawman was a quick jab at Pht. look through our arguments he keeps throwing that one at me when he wants to say i am wrong but knows he can't properly explain why. it was me sarcastically declaring MY argument to be a strawman. so far you seem reasonable and as a general rule i give people the benefit of the doubt until they prove to me they deserve otherwise.

a sizable portion of that post was also intended to draw the attention of Pht. you just got caught in the crossfire a little.

most of my response to you was in the form of that quote from Pht.

Edited by blinkin, 19 July 2013 - 02:07 PM.

[Pht]

Roland, on 18 July 2013 - 04:39 PM, said:

I'm honestly having a hard time seeing how this even applies to a video game. It looks like you just described a bunch of the tabletop rules.

And those rules describe the combat performance of the Battlemechs. Something that is what the MW video game genre is all about.

blinkin, on 18 July 2013 - 06:55 PM, said:

i see lots and lots of repeated talk about the mech and the targeting computer calculating shots,

Calculating shots in order to hit what the pilot ... is ... aiming at, with the reticule on his hud.

Quote

and this tends to tell me that the player does nothing besides tell the mech which of the enemy mechs he wants everything lined up on.

Selective reading? You've not even talked about the section of the post that directly points out that this would require more skill than the FPS mechanic, which specifically addresses your complaint.

Quote

..he is taking all aiming aspects away from the player.

You even contradict yourself here; because even you pointed out that the pilot actually has to aim at the part he wants his 'mech to hit.

Quote

the players basically locks anything he wants to hit like you would LRM or streaks and then you just pull the trigger.

Nope. The post quite clearly contradicts this.

Pht said:

Physically, the main skill is the use of a joystick to indicate and track the desired target that one wants their 'Mech to try and hit, and the ability to pull trigger(s) exactly when necessary without disturbing one's aim.

Notice the bold part... and the following parts below it that discuss the rest of the skills required.

Quote

forgive me but i hate streaks and think they are generally an abomination within the gameplay. i definitely don't want the whole game replaced with that.

Strawman.

Quote

this would be why i use the term aim bot. the bot or computer is doing all of the aiming for you.

Says the person who posted that the pilot has to aim at the part he wants his 'mech to try and hit who apparently missed, ignored, or refused to disucuss the entire section of the post specifically addressed to the exact complaint he's making.

Quote

you just pick which mech you want to die, ...

Nope.

Pht said:

BTU 'Mechs are, by design, not allowed to target or track anything with the reticule or choose to shoot any weapon!

[Pht]

Mackman, on 19 July 2013 - 08:20 AM, said:

I agree with this. This sounds like the most boring, frustrating game ever.

Me: Alright, I'm piloting my mech, moving around.. this is pretty sweet! Oh, an enemy mech! I'ma shoot him!

Mech Comp: Ok, buddy! I see you want to shoot that guy: Just give me a sec while I... alright, yep, here ya go, dude! You have a 56.5% chance to hit him!

Me: What? But I'm aiming right at him!

Mech Comp: Yeah, but you're moving, he's moving, you're a little bit hot, the planets are in opposition... trust me, dude, I'm doing a really good job getting you 56.5%.

Me: Alright, whatever. Fire!

Mech Comp: Great news, dude! I was able to hit him with one medium laser on his right arm, and another medium laser on his left leg! Aren't you proud of me?

Me:.... <Alt-F4, Uninstall, Never play again>

Ok, so, basically, you appear to be saying that if the battlemech takes ANY meaningful part in actually physically aligning it's weapons, and calculating where to align them, you won't play the game?

If this is so, that's fine, but as anyone who's ever read any of the BT novels or the rest of the lore can tell you, the 'mechs always matter. Even in the hands of the author-fiat characters.

Which would mean you simply think you don't like the armored combat genre, and the MW end of that genre in particular.

If so, why are you even here?

Quote

And for every person who loves you doing this to the game, there are going to be more who are like me who hate it.

All swans are wite, because every one you've seen is white, right?

Quote

EDIT for clarity: And don't start in on your "Lol twitch gamers can't think beyond just aiming their mouse!"

And you can validly accuse me of doing this because you've seen me tossing this insult ... where?

Roland, on 19 July 2013 - 08:44 AM, said:

If you aren't interested in the combat, in a game entirely centered on the combat, then you need to go find another game.

Wanting to have the battlemechs behave like battlemechs and actually matter in combat in no way means someone isn't interested in combat.

This would be like saying that people who want to play a tank or combat airplane simulator aren't interested in combat - totally irrational.

[Pht]

blinkin, on 19 July 2013 - 11:21 AM, said:

now lets look at something i just thought about today with respect to this system. LASERS it actually takes EXTRA effort to design a laser system that can aim AND miss occasionally.

No, it doesn't. Not unless you think a laser should somehow do all of it's damage in a true instant. They require an ON time in order to do their rated damage; and because of this they are roughly as accurate as most of the other weapons systems. Lasers in the lore aren't hitscan for just this reason.

Quote

any time you are stationary and using lasers your accuracy should be 100.000000% regardless of what they are doing and what range they are doing it at.

No. Target movement requries tracking, and because lasers have to hit the exact same spot in order to do their best damage, because they have to evaporate away the molten armor from the target in order to get any penetration. They actually have to have better tracking than ballistics and other weapons types.

blinkin, on 19 July 2013 - 01:58 PM, said:

look through our arguments he keeps throwing that one at me when he wants to say i am wrong but knows he can't properly explain why.

This is not true. Every time I have accused you of doing so has been because you've been erecting a different position than my own and than attacking it as if it were my position.

[Pht]

Speaking of vats and combat and the OP in this thread; in vats you can pause, as others have already mentioned, which removes reticule tracking skills; something else that the OP specifically contradicts.

As the OP clearly indicates, you still have to have every FPS/shooter aiming skill in controlling a mouse (or joystick) and tracking a target. The only difference being that the 'mech is actively calculating lead/convergence for all of the individual weapons and the 'mech is actually the one physically aligning those weapons; the result being that, just like in any good FPS/Shooter, you have to know your 'mech; in the same way you have to know your weapon in an FPS; and because a battlemech is more complex than a rifle, if you want to be a GOOD player at a higher level, you have to exercise more skill.

[Roland]

It's just not clear how it differs from a VAT's style system.

I mean, so I can choose to "aim" at a location... But then the game is what decides whether I hit, based on probability.

That's basically exactly what VATS does, right? How is this different? It's totally unclear what exactly "aiming" means in your proposal.

[Pht]

Roland, on 19 July 2013 - 04:21 PM, said:

It's just not clear how it differs from a VAT's style system.

I dont' have first-hand experience with the VAT's system. But from what I can see, it lets you pause, pick a part, and the game itself tries to do the shooting, based upon a percentage; and you don't need to control the reticule at all. Which is something that the OP in no way puts forth.

Quote

I mean, so I can choose to "aim" at a location... But then the game is what decides whether I hit, based on probability.

With said hit percentage being based off of how well or poorly a battlemech can handle whatever is happening when you pull the triggers.

For instance, if you overheat enough, your 'mech has a harder time aiming; or if you try and shoot at things while moving as fast as your 'mech can run, it will have less of a chance of hitting the target; or if the pilot of the mech you're targeting is evading, your mech has a harder time making the shot.

Quote

That's basically exactly what VATS does, right? How is this different? It's totally unclear what exactly "aiming" means in your proposal.

... Which is why I spent the time in the post to say exactly how the pilot aims; and what things he has to mentally track in order to up the chances of their target getting hit.

The pilot controls the reticule on the hud, he must track the target he wishes to be hit with the reticule, (and HAS to as the mech can't do this) via his joystick and the pilot has to pull the trigger on the joystick (or click his mouse, in RL terms); and the pilot has to know his 'mech well enough to know if it's capable of doing what the pilot is asking of it.

No pausing, no putting the reticule on a part and the 'mech does the rest, none of that utter nonsense.

Edited by Pht, 19 July 2013 - 05:44 PM.

[Pht]

Interceptor12, on 18 July 2013 - 04:12 PM, said:

By the way Pht great write up. I'm suprised I had somehow skipped out on this read, but I am glad that I have read it at all. Easily one of the most well argued post I have read on convergence, and some of the most thorough research I have seen on the topic. I'm sure to be adding it to my signature for future reference in the near future.

Thank you.

[Roland]

Quote

... Which is why I spent the time in the post to say exactly how the pilot aims; and what things he has to mentally track in order to up the chances of their target getting hit.

The pilot controls the reticule on the hud, he must track the target he wishes to be hit with the reticule, (and HAS to as the mech can't do this) via his joystick and the pilot has to pull the trigger on the joystick (or click his mouse, in RL terms); and the pilot has to know his 'mech well enough to know if it's capable of doing what the pilot is asking of it.
No pausing, no putting the reticule on a part and the 'mech does the rest, none of that utter nonsense.

You're basically describing what VATS does, but with the added step of moving the reticle over the mech.. but I'm not really sure exactly how that really works here. With VATS, based on what's happening, choosing different body parts to aim at give me different percentage chances of hitting.. but when I miss, it just whiffs completely.

In MW, when you miss, the shot still goes somewhere... So it's not like you can just roll the dice and decide whether it hits or misses, right? Aiming at the left torso, if I miss, has a chance to hit some other body part.

It just seems like your dice rolling system isn't going to translate well... Basically, VATS kind of does it, but by essentially just removing most of the actual shooting and replacing it with an RPG style system, for folks who want that.

[Pht]

Roland, on 19 July 2013 - 06:06 PM, said:

You're basically describing what VATS does, but with the added step of moving the reticle over the mech.. but I'm not really sure exactly how that really works here. With VATS, based on what's happening, choosing different body parts to aim at give me different percentage chances of hitting.. but when I miss, it just whiffs completely.

... and if you choose to aim at the cockpit, as the OP has it, your chances to hit the cockpit change, based upon the fact that the cockpit is harder to hit. Look at the "aim high" section of the post.

Or, if you aim low, your overall chances to hit will go down (because you're aiming at a smaller section), but your chances to hit the legs will skyrocket.

Quote

In MW, when you miss, the shot still goes somewhere... So it's not like you can just roll the dice and decide whether it hits or misses, right?

I'm less interested in how the previous games did it and more interested in modeling the lore.

Of course you can have a hit/no hit mechanic. In the OP, that's the cumulative "to hit" number.

Quote

Aiming at the left torso, if I miss, has a chance to hit some other body part.

Aiming for the left torso means you go on the center of mass hit-location table, unless you're aiming at the extreme edge of the left torso, which means you use the "called shot - left"mechanic.

Quote

It just seems like your dice rolling system isn't going to translate well... Basically, VATS kind of does it, but by essentially just removing most of the actual shooting and replacing it with an RPG style system, for folks who want that.

"seems" .. ? Either it will or it wont; and all the dice are is a math tool; and in a computer the dice rolls are predictable in the overall; hit percentages are known. They aren't actually unpredictable like they are in real life.

"Just removing the shooting" - no, it doesn't. Literally the only thing that's removed is the need to calculate lead and hands that off to the 'mech, as it happens in the lore. You still have to do everything you do now otherwise, except that you also have the added depth of having to know your 'mech. You're mis-characterizing the OP.

"RPG style" ... ? How does actually simulating the 'mech make the game "RPG" style? Besides, is there something wrong with RPGs?

[blinkin]

ok Pht you have been doing a lot of saying nope and that isn't how it works. it is pretty damned obvious that i am not the only one who does not see your special vision of this system. it also seems that most of us are "wrong" in pretty much the exact same way.

what i am saying here is that at some point you dropped the ball on the explanation. every time we ask you anything all we get is you telling us we are wrong and that it is a "mech simulator".

explain SOMETHING and we might not ridicule you quite so much.

i read your entire explanation and only stopped once you got into the numbers. EVERYTHING i have said has been based purely on your explanation. if my interpretations AND those of several other people are as off as you say they are, then you screwed up on the explanation at some point.

you keep throwing down the word "strawman" and then you never bother to clear anything up.

educate us.