42 replies to this topic

[MoonUnitBeta]

Mystere, on 11 July 2015 - 10:58 PM, said:

What's stopping those stabilizers from working while airborne as opposed to running at full speed via rough terrain?

I'm not seeing it as a matter of working/not working.
More like working well/not as well.

Modern camera lenses have OS/IS/VR (optical stabilization, image stabilization, vibration reduction - depending on which brand you go by). They do what they say, stabilize the image and reduce vibration, but it doesn't eliminate it. And some lenses have different ratings for different types of motion. With my Nikon lens, I have VR and VR II options. One is for hand held, one is for when your in a bumpy vehicle for example.

In terms of mech, it makes sense having a bumpy ride both on the ground and in the air make. But I'm thinking it would be a different kind of bumpiness between the two:
- Air time you would have long/wide swaying due to lack of thrusters keeping you stable.
- Movement would almost be like a vibration. If possible, and preferably, to the step or sway of the mech's locomotion.

Edited by MoonUnitBeta, 11 July 2015 - 11:12 PM.

[One Medic Army]

So here's my question, to everyone who hates the very idea of a CoF.

If it's such a bad thing, why has it existed in FPS games (which MWO is, face facts) for about 20 years at this point? Name the last major FPS that didn't have a CoF system to prevent people from heads hotting everyone with auto rifles.

[Xetelian]

CoF while jumping and moving would really hurt lights a lot more but I'm all for adding to the TTK and if we really need it I'll still play.

[MoonUnitBeta]

One Medic Army, on 11 July 2015 - 11:12 PM, said:

So here's my question, to everyone who hates the very idea of a CoF.

If it's such a bad thing, why has it existed in FPS games (which MWO is, face facts) for about 20 years at this point? Name the last major FPS that didn't have a CoF system to prevent people from heads hotting everyone with auto rifles.

Because their auto rifles with ridiculous rate of fire and we have auto canons?
Because their small weak humans and we have multi-tonne mechs?
Because their movement is twitchier?
Because we have lots of armor and they don't?

Seriously, did you not read my last paragraph of the post that you quoted earlier?

Edited by MoonUnitBeta, 11 July 2015 - 11:15 PM.

[One Medic Army]

MoonUnitBeta, on 11 July 2015 - 11:14 PM, said:

Because their auto rifles with ridiculous rate of fire and we have auto canons?
Because their small weak humans and we have multi-tonne mechs?
Because their movement is twitchier?
Because we have lots of armor and they don't?

Seriously, did you not read my last paragraph of the post that you quoted earlier?

Perhaps because people realized that perfect accuracy is both not realistic and detrimental to gameplay?

And FYI, even an Abrams tank isn't pinpoint accurate, it's just that the spread of it's gun is smaller than the target.

[MoonUnitBeta]

Xetelian, on 11 July 2015 - 11:14 PM, said:

CoF while jumping and moving would really hurt lights a lot more but I'm all for adding to the TTK and if we really need it I'll still play.

Aye, this is why it would be beneficial to have a reticle sway that is tuned to the mech's steps, rather than COF based on speed.
Light mechs take a few more steps, but the sway can be tightened because they're lighter. Heavier mechs have more weight and momentum, and would be rocking and adjusting the distribution of mass.

One Medic Army, on 11 July 2015 - 11:16 PM, said:

Perhaps because people realized that perfect accuracy is both not realistic and detrimental to gameplay?

And FYI, even an Abrams tank isn't pinpoint accurate, it's just that the spread of it's gun is smaller than the target.

Fact: I'm for reticle sway, NOT CoF's randomness that you seem to have a hard-on for.
Fact: Reticle sway would still move your arms, but you are still made aware of where your mech's current aim would be.
Fact: Reticle sway offers a deeper feature that can be tuned and controlled in many ways, much more so than expanding a uncontrollable cone of fire (a circle on your hud, really).
I feel like I need to reiterate this as it seems the points in my lengthier posts have made a whooshing sound over your head. Either that or you're blind folded.

I didn't mention the tank, but this is why I draw the line at using current technology as an argumentative point. We have it, sure. But Battletech might not have it, and it's also a video game, in the same breathe, however, a little realism as an anchor point to relate to and enhance believability isn't something I would turn down.

Edit: consolidated multiple posts.
And I threw it another Fact point because it's true.

Edited by MoonUnitBeta, 11 July 2015 - 11:29 PM.

[One Medic Army]

MoonUnitBeta, on 11 July 2015 - 11:18 PM, said:

Aye, this is why it would be beneficial to have a reticle sway that is tuned to the mech's steps, rather than COF based on speed.
Light mechs take a few more steps, but the sway can be tightened because they're lighter. Heavier mechs have more weight and momentum, and would be rocking and adjusting the distribution of mass.



Fact: I'm for reticle sway, NOT CoF's randomness that you seem to have a hard-on for.
Fact: Reticle sway would still move your arms, but you are still made aware of where your mech's current aim would be.
I feel like I need to reiterate this as it seems the points in my lengthier posts have made a whooshing sound over your head. Either that or you're blind folded.

I didn't mention the tank, but this is why I draw the line at using current technology as an argumentative point. We have it, sure. But Battletech might not have it, and it's also a video game, in the same breathe, however, a little realism as an anchor point to relate to and enhance believability isn't something I would turn down.

Edit: consolidated multiple posts.

So, here's the problem with sway, you have 2 options:

• The reticule sways, all weapons hit the reticule. This negates none of our current issues, just makes taking aimed shots need another half-second. Anyone who's used a sniper rifle in an FPS with scope sway can still hit perfectly fine. This also encourages alpha-strikes even more than the current system.
  
• The reticule sways, and every single gun (or each mech section) has it's own reticule. This is hideously busy from a HUD standpoint.

[MoonUnitBeta]

One Medic Army, on 11 July 2015 - 11:29 PM, said:

So, here's the problem with sway, you have 2 options:

• The reticule sways, all weapons hit the reticule. This negates none of our current issues, just makes taking aimed shots need another half-second. Anyone who's used a sniper rifle in an FPS with scope sway can still hit perfectly fine. This also encourages alpha-strikes even more than the current system.
  
• The reticule sways, and every single gun (or each mech section) has it's own reticule. This is hideously busy from a HUD standpoint.

#1) True, but you do have torso and arms, arms would be more true to center, as torso is swayed more noticeably. Coupled with ghost heat, a higher chance to miss, and the time it would take to make corrective adjusts to line up a wonky shot, should point towards a higher TTK as players make more intentional shots. If you want to blast off an alpha with your reticle darting around then go ahead and do so, but you'll be paying for it in high heat, cooldown, and not to mention a possible miss.
Simply splitting the arms from the torso will also lend a hand to less "alphas". *
But at least in this case players can actually work towards lining up a shot, rather than shooting and seeing their PPC UNCONTROLLABLY sail into the sky, and the ONLY thing they can do stop that from happening is slow down? BORING.
#2) That's absurd and you know that. I don't know why you even put this as an option because that's ridiculous. However it does make me understand why you're in favor for COF as this is a wildly short sighted "option".

* It would make mechs with fixed arms more stationary, it would make mechs without certain actuators operate differently. Some mechs can correct horizontal movement, but not vertical (Cent, and Victor I think?). Some mechs can control vertical arm movement, but not horizontal (Stalker, Catapult). You can use these factors in reticle sway, giving these mechs a combative feel of their own.
You see how deep reticle sway can go? Much better than random circle of magical aiming.
Isn't this game supposed to be a sim?

Edited by MoonUnitBeta, 11 July 2015 - 11:44 PM.

[One Medic Army]

MoonUnitBeta, on 11 July 2015 - 11:34 PM, said:

#1) True, but you do have torso and arms, arms would be more true to center, as torso is swayed more noticeably. Coupled with ghost heat, a higher chance to miss, and the time it would take to make corrective adjusts to line up a wonky shot, should point towards a higher TTK as players make more intentional shots. If you want to blast off an alpha with your reticle darting around then go ahead and do so, but you'll be paying for it in high heat, cooldown, and not to mention a possible miss.
But at least in this case players can actually work towards lining up a shot, rather than shooting and seeing their PPC UNCONTROLLABLY sail into the sky, and the ONLY thing they can do stop that from happening is slow down? BORING.
#2) That's absurd and you know that. I don't know why you even put this as an option because that's ridiculous. However it does make me understand why you're in favor for COF as this is a wildly short sighted "option".

I'm in favor of a reasonable CoF, where the bloom size is smaller than the target (unless suffering a large number of penalties), thus the only effect is to hamper long-ranged section-specific fire. Nobody said anything about a PPC sailing off into the sky, and as a long-range weapon PPCs should have one of the smallest cones. The cones in general should be small enough that you're unlikely to miss entirely, so long as firing inside optimal weapon range.

Look at WarThunder for an example of a reasonable cone. You can reliably hit an enemy tank at well over a kilometer, and can pinpoint weak spots out to at least 500m (depending on the gun). The only times when a shot veers significantly off course is using a low-velocity (short range) howitzer at longer ranges, or if your gun is damaged.

As to why I mentioned #2, some people have suggested it previously as a solution, it's laughable, but someone always brings it up without realizing how terrible the HUD would be.

[edit] To be clear, I think problem #1 is every weapon, when fired at the same time, hitting the same spot. Problem #2 is that the spot is too easy to put where you want it. Sway only fixes problem #2, not #1.

Edited by One Medic Army, 11 July 2015 - 11:58 PM.

[Mystere]

MoonUnitBeta, on 11 July 2015 - 11:34 PM, said:

Isn't this game supposed to be a sim?

And ballistics have CEP. So why not also use it in a sim?

Or in other words, why not have both reticule bloom and sway?

And people are asking for this:



and not this:

Edited by Mystere, 11 July 2015 - 11:50 PM.

[MoonUnitBeta]

One Medic Army, on 11 July 2015 - 11:43 PM, said:

I'm in favor of a reasonable CoF, where the bloom size is smaller than the target (unless suffering a large number of penalties), thus the only effect is to hamper long-ranged section-specific fire. Nobody said anything about a PPC sailing off into the sky, and as a long-range weapon PPCs should have one of the smallest cones. The cones in general should be small enough that you're unlikely to miss entirely, so long as firing inside optimal weapon range.

Look at WarThunder for an example of a reasonable cone. You can reliably hit an enemy tank at well over a kilometer, and can pinpoint weak spots out to at least 500m (depending on the gun). The only times when a shot veers significantly off course is using a low-velocity (short range) howitzer at longer ranges, or if your gun is damaged.

As to why I mentioned #2, some people have suggested it previously as a solution, it's laughable, but someone always brings it up without realizing how terrible the HUD would be.

Oh, that is a lot smaller than I had in mind... So this is only about affecting snipers? I didn't think they were much of an issue...?

One Medic Army, on 11 July 2015 - 11:29 PM, said:

So, here's the problem with sway, you have 2 options:

• This also encourages alpha-strikes even more than the current system.

So you brought this point up. (which is false, which I clarified in my response)
But this teeny tiny COF then literally does nothing at all about pinpoint alpha <800m...Which is something you seem to be concerned about...
You're talking about still hitting a mech at 800m (or w/e range you have in mind), but just not the component you're aiming at. You do realize how small of a COF that is on mechs within the 400m range - which is the range most players battle currently? That's like firing an LBX-20 that has a spread of an LBX-2. Unless you expand the COF; but now you know what I mean about seeing PPC's going off into the sky if it starts getting too big.

I guess I just see people going to treat COF the same way as people treated the SRM flight path back in 2011. There's the optimal range, and people are just going to fight within it.
Works for a tank game I guess, but we have so many different weapon systems...

#2: Gotcha

[Squirg]

Cone of Fire is a hideous game mechanic.

[Mystere]

Squirg, on 12 July 2015 - 12:00 AM, said:

Cone of Fire is a hideous game mechanic.

Says the highly successful and highly paid game developer with several recent AAA projects under his/her hat?

Edited by Mystere, 12 July 2015 - 12:04 AM.

[One Medic Army]

MoonUnitBeta, on 11 July 2015 - 11:58 PM, said:

Oh, that is a lot smaller than I had in mind... So this is only about affecting snipers? I didn't think they were much of an issue...?

So you brought this point up. (which is false, which I clarified in my response)
But this teeny tiny COF then literally does nothing at all about pinpoint alpha <800m...Which is something you seem to be concerned about...
You're talking about still hitting a mech at 800m (or w/e range you have in mind), but just not the component you're aiming at. You do realize how small of a COF that is on mechs within the 400m range - which is the range most players battle currently? That's like firing an LBX-20 that has a spread of an LBX-2. Unless you expand the COF; but now you know what I mean about seeing PPC's going off into the sky if it starts getting too big.

I guess I just see people going to treat COF the same way as people treated the SRM flight path back in 2011. There's the optimal range, and people are just going to fight within it.
Works for a tank game I guess, but we have so many different weapon systems...

#2: Gotcha

My main goal was that when people are properly managing their heat, and moving at maybe 70% speed (analogous to TT walk speeds), it's still easy to hit when inside the range of the gun. So you'd start to have issues hitting someone at 500m with a medium laser, or at 400m with an AC/20. Also if you were firing at an exceptionally small target (like a light). Then we add some stacking penalties, say you're running full out, and at 80% heat: the cones increase in size, to where you have to be inside optimum range to reliably hit, possibly at the range where a lower heat mech could start singling out components. Add a penalty to bloom for not being on the ground as well, and suddenly you can de-nerf jumpjets without worrying about poptarts.

Also I see the issue has 2 sections:

• All weapons hit the same spot
  
• Putting the spot in the desired location on the enemy is super-easy

Sway fixes the second, but to fix the first is harder, and CoF seems like the easiest method.

Edited by One Medic Army, 12 July 2015 - 12:18 AM.

[MoonUnitBeta]

Mystere, on 11 July 2015 - 11:48 PM, said:

And ballistics have CEP. So why not also use it in a sim?

Or in other words, why not have both reticule bloom and sway?

And people are asking for this:



and not this:

Sure, why not, but how noticeable is that error?
Is it just going to be a tax on servers to simulate something so minute/unnecessary(assumption)?
Is it only going to affect snipers who are moving and be moot for "brawlers" (see pinpoint accuracy)?
Whats the point then, really, if snipers aren't an issue and it's not going to affect brawls?
Unless you want to force snipers to remain stationary (which pretty much happens already, except it's intentional and not forced), and give brawlers a time of their life, and totally bork light mechs (if COF is going off speed)?

Edited by MoonUnitBeta, 12 July 2015 - 12:11 AM.

[Mystere]

MoonUnitBeta, on 12 July 2015 - 12:10 AM, said:

Sure, why not, but how noticeable is that error?
Is it just going to be a tax on servers to simulate something so minute/unnecessary(assumption)?
Is it only going to affect snipers who are moving and be moot for "brawlers" (see pinpoint accuracy)?
Whats the point then, really, if snipers aren't an issue and it's not going to affect brawls?
Unless you want to force snipers to remain stationary (which pretty much happens already, except it's intentional and not forced), and give brawlers a time of their life, and totally bork light mechs (if COF is going off speed)?

Isn't that where game balance design comes in?

Also, the issue with reticule sway is still near instant and pinpoint convergence, unless each weapon has it's own sway and dependent on factors like mass, location, actuation.

One Medic Army, on 12 July 2015 - 12:04 AM, said:

Also I see the issue has 2 sections:

• All weapons hit the same spot
  
• Putting the spot in the desired location on the enemy is super-easy

Sway fixes 2, but to fix 1 is harder, and CoF seems like the easiest method.

Fixed (or manually-adjusted) convergence has often been presented as a potential solution.

[LordKnightFandragon]

One Medic Army, on 11 July 2015 - 11:43 PM, said:

Look at WarThunder for an example of a reasonable cone. You can reliably hit an enemy tank at well over a kilometer, and can pinpoint weak spots out to at least 500m (depending on the gun). The only times when a shot veers significantly off course is using a low-velocity (short range) howitzer at longer ranges, or if your gun is damaged.

Or planetside 2. IT to has a COF, but even on LMGs its not so bad unless you out right just dakka like mad w/o any gun control. But, if you control fire, its pretty accurate. We need a CoF of that sort just to kinda deviate high alphas.

[Squirg]

Mystere, on 12 July 2015 - 12:04 AM, said:

Says the highly successful and highly paid game developer with several recent AAA projects under his/her hat?

I'm curious as to why you would respond with such drivel when before you took this stance.

Mystere, on 11 July 2015 - 07:53 PM, said:

Should astronauts be the only ones qualified to design and build space ships?
Should generals be the only ones qualified to design and build weapons?
Should Formula 1 drivers be the only ones qualified to design and build race cars?
Should politicians (gasp!) be the only ones qualified to run a country?

But on the topic at hand, Cone of Fire has no place in a Mechwarrior game and is not the fix we should be looking at for any perceived balance issues.

[Mystere]

Squirg, on 12 July 2015 - 12:43 AM, said:

I'm curious as to why you would respond with such drivel when before you took this stance.

Because, in the absence of any logical rationale from you, your stance is nothing more than a simple "Because I don't like it!".

Squirg, on 12 July 2015 - 12:43 AM, said:

But on the topic at hand, Cone of Fire has no place in a Mechwarrior game and is not the fix we should be looking at for any perceived balance issues.

And still you do not say why.

[Squirg]

CoF has always been a lazy way to implement proper recoil. It cannot be controlled in a skilled fashion as compared to recoil compensation. CoF also has never appeared in any previous Mechwarrior title, thus it has no place in this game. Even the stabilizers we have today would be more than enough to keep our weapons pointed accurately under the conditions in MWO. It is illogical for our weapons not to be pointed down our sights so to speak.

As for jump sniping, it doesn't need any more checks to keep it's power. Gauss rifles already have a charge up mechanic, and PPCs don't have the DPS to fight skirmisher builds in close. Also, jump sniping is a situational tactic that is no safer than proper corner peeking. CoF doesn't need to be added wihle in the air or on the ground to curb jump sniping's usefulness.

As for increasing TTK, I will always advocate for proper heat scale penalties above CoF. Heat scale penalties and recoil. CoF is a lazy fix and a hideous game mechanic. There.