1094 replies to this topic

[Barantor]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 08 February 2016 - 10:22 AM, said:

So we want this to be the case in MWO as well?

I don't this game to be all about static engagements.

They use WW2 tanks with a single HP pool like I said, so any hits hurt and they have tanks that can one shot others regardless of where hit. This isn't the case with MWO as we have component sections of the mech that get blown off first (unless CT) so that key change and the mobility of the mechs is where the games differ in that regard.

Some folks still sit in place anyway and lights flank and chew em up sometimes. Different gameplay in that regard.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Barantor, on 08 February 2016 - 10:24 AM, said:

They use WW2 tanks with a single HP pool like I said, so any hits hurt and they have tanks that can one shot others regardless of where hit. This isn't the case with MWO as we have component sections of the mech that get blown off first (unless CT) so that key change and the mobility of the mechs is where the games differ in that regard.

Mobility doesn't matter if you can't aim while moving, all you can do with that mobility is move to another static engagement area.

[Barantor]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 08 February 2016 - 10:27 AM, said:

Mobility doesn't matter if you can't aim while moving, all you can do with that mobility is move to another static engagement area.

Can't aim or 'Can't aim as well currently'? Because you can absolutely aim on the move, just not sniper shots.

OPs system you can still hit on the move too, you are just more accurate if standing still. Not everyone is going to like that I'm sure, I'm pretty much done with this conversation as I am having Deja Vu from more than 2 years ago.... Plenty on this forum already talking about this and plenty to compare to on the wiki or watch some folks play tanks on twitch. Not saying it has to use all of WoT, but leaning some in that direction probably wouldn't hurt this game at all.

[adamts01]

Gas Guzzler, on 08 February 2016 - 10:18 AM, said:

I now see proposals for cones varying dynamically based on:
* mech speed
* heat bar
* time without movement
* weapon type

All realistic and reasonable stuff

Khereg, on 08 February 2016 - 10:12 AM, said:

* Community desire and degree of unification
* Benefit or detriment to gaming experience, including unforeseen issues like FPS impacts from increased processor overhead
* Cost/effort to implement
* Potential for revenue increase, whether via direct sales or improved gaming experience leading to increase in customer base
* Relative importance compared to other items in the development pipeline

The better the game is, the more money it will make. I, as well as many others, think this will make the game better. There's your demand. Aside from PSR and MM, I think it's the most important thing. I'm a paying customer, so I'm a single example of how the game can make more money.

[LordKnightFandragon]

iLLcapitan, on 08 February 2016 - 05:29 AM, said:

No sorry, a CoF is no fun to shoot. Just think of the first teamkills by this mechanic and the following rivers of tears.

Honestly, the "TK cuz of COF" is just a result of some seriously lazy *** players who dont want to take 2 seconds to ID FF and actually pay attention to what they are shooting. It basically goes back to the "dont remove my90pt PPFLD alpha".

This game would be so much better with a CoF similar to what the OP mentions, just enough to deviate shots, but not enough to make it feel like WoT.

Players in this game have become actually so bad they cant actually aim, IDFF, its just place everything in 1 group and spam till one side stops wiggling....no actual skill, or any kind of strategy......this game has become about as bland, boring and pointless as World of Warships. That game is much the same, just pretty much alpha everything and stop when one side stops wiggling.....

Sure, you can twist and stuff, but really, its not any kind of skill, teamwork, coordination or anything, its just Lolpha.....

inb4 "but CoF removes skill", hardly......

Edited by LordKnightFandragon, 08 February 2016 - 10:38 AM.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Barantor, on 08 February 2016 - 10:30 AM, said:

Can't aim or 'Can't aim as well currently'? Because you can absolutely aim on the move, just not sniper shots.

Let me put it this way, if you can't reliably shoot while moving (ie hit anywhere near where you are aiming) you will see static engagements become the goto thing.

Find a good position, stand there, shoot mechs, win; -OR- on maps like Frozen City, it will just be a brawl, every time, there will be no poking or range, just srms for days.

[LordKnightFandragon]

Moomtazz, on 08 February 2016 - 05:46 AM, said:

Planetside 1 had CoF and it was pretty crappy. However, those players with good aim would still consistently beat those with bad aim.

If the goal is to increase TTK, why not simply reduce weapon damage? Unless you go with a system that randomly places shots or the cone is the size of a mech, the more skilled player will win. But who would want to play in a system like that?

BEcause the real issue is the ability to consistently and always put max damage in the same hole. A weapon spread, along with heat penalties, along wiht many other different mechanics would really make the game alot more enjoyable. When every time you meet a mech, your not greeted with 60 points of damage, it would make it possible to actually move around, break out of the deathball, and actually play some battletech.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

LordKnightFandragon, on 08 February 2016 - 10:36 AM, said:

Players in this game have become actually so bad they cant actually aim, IDFF, its just place everything in 1 group and spam till one side stops wiggling....no actual skill, or any kind of strategy......

I lol'd, sounds like someone is just salty more than anything, if you think there was no actual skill or strategy involved, the difference between tier 1 and 5 would be minimal if not non-existent, but we all know the truth regarding the large divide.

Just like how you think deathball is the only way this game is played successfully (though more valid than before the rebalance considering the power of mid-short range currently).

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 08 February 2016 - 10:45 AM.

[LordKnightFandragon]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 08 February 2016 - 10:44 AM, said:

I lol'd, sounds like someone is just salty more than anything, if you think there was no actual skill or strategy involved, the difference between tier 1 and 5 would be minimal if not non-existent, but we all know the truth regarding the large divide.

Just like how you think deathball is the only way this game is played successfully.

The large divide is people who do lolpha everything and play to the meta and those that dont. There is also those that choose to deathball and those that choose to play a more traditional kinda branch off in groups of 2 or 3 and hunt around....T1 players meta to the max, deathballing and lolphaing their asses off, the rest dont.....

Even CW, I rolled with CWI a few times, it was just exactly that, no real tactics or anything, just stack up!!! Break the gate!!! CHAAAARRRRGGGEEEE!!!!! And the side that lolphas better wins.......

Didnt seem real tactical or strategic to me....

[Mystere]

FupDup, on 08 February 2016 - 07:35 AM, said:

The method by which a "cone" of fire increases inaccuracy is by making the shot deviate off-course by some angle within the maximum cone limit, and the "tip" of the cone starts at the end of the weapon barrel. So in a way, it does actually make all weapons behave similar to LBX. Most weapons only have a single 'pellet' to fire instead of multiple pellets like LBX, but the spread effect is ultimately the same.

The LB 2-X is probably the closest comparison because it has only 2 pellets. So for example, firing 2 AC/5 might be like a giant LB 2-X with 5 damage per "pellet" instead of just 1.

Then don't use an even random distribution. Use a gaussian one.

[adamts01]

1453 R, on 08 February 2016 - 10:20 AM, said:

Then you'd best be prepared for other people to keep telling you that forcibly introducing MAAAS CoD-kiddie hipfire mechanics into MWO, without any of the numerous ways MAAAS's use to offset that randomized inaccuracy, is an awful idea.

I still don't know what MAAAS stands for. But OP listed numerous ways you can achiever perfect pinpoint accuracy. You're so dead set in your way of thinking that you can't even listen to someone else's argument. Listen to what he actually said, not to what you think he said.

pbiggz, on 08 February 2016 - 10:21 AM, said:

See this looks great on paper but at 800 meters you've already made accuracy so bad nobody will bother to even fire.

OP went so far as to show that you can easily hit CT on a Jenner when you play your cards right. Not if you're lucky, if you shoot at the right time.

I don't like all of OP's suggestions, I think TCs shouldn't carry as much weigh (as IS can't equip them), and standing still in a cold basic mech ffiring 1 weapon should hit your target, but overall it's a good, realistic system.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

LordKnightFandragon, on 08 February 2016 - 10:47 AM, said:

Even CW, I rolled with CWI a few times, it was just exactly that, no real tactics or anything, just stack up!!! Break the gate!!! CHAAAARRRRGGGEEEE!!!!!

That's because of two reasons:

• You were playing CW, which is a terrible game mode.
  
• CWI is not a good unit, so expecting good strategy from them is unfair.

I say that because there is more to this game than simply this:

LordKnightFandragon, on 08 February 2016 - 10:47 AM, said:

The large divide is people who do lolpha everything and play to the meta and those that dont.

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 08 February 2016 - 10:56 AM.

[LordKnightFandragon]

FupDup, on 08 February 2016 - 07:35 AM, said:

The method by which a "cone" of fire increases inaccuracy is by making the shot deviate off-course by some angle within the maximum cone limit, and the "tip" of the cone starts at the end of the weapon barrel. So in a way, it does actually make all weapons behave similar to LBX. Most weapons only have a single 'pellet' to fire instead of multiple pellets like LBX, but the spread effect is ultimately the same.

The LB 2-X is probably the closest comparison because it has only 2 pellets. So for example, firing 2 AC/5 might be like a giant LB 2-X with 5 damage per "pellet" instead of just 1.



By the way, the Inner Sphere doesn't even have Targeting Computers, and making it so you have to stand immobile to fire means that lights and fast mediums become useless because it gives their enemy a window of opportunity to alpha strike them in the face.

Where using a CoF system would not be nearly as lethal, since the CoF would ensure some of the shots would go off target. Where as now, you alpha, your target melts...

Where in big *** battlemechs with less durability then a Sdkfz 222 hit by a B17....

[Mystere]

1453 R, on 08 February 2016 - 08:22 AM, said:

Koniving, a long while back, introduced the perfect plan for defusing the whole pinpoint issue. The third-person camera's reticle bobs and sways with the natural movements of a 'Mech - simply introduce that reticle motion to the first-person cockpit view as well. Fire still goes exactly where it's aimed, as is only right and proper, but the aimpoint itself shifts with the motion of the machine - also right and proper. Players need to time their shots with the movements of their rides to hit precisely, and the motion of the reticle spreads laser damage naturally over the course of a shot. Clean, simple, does not invalidate HSR like randomized-cone-of-fire does, does not eliminate snipers from the game like randomized-cone-of-fire does, and is pretty much already in the system.

Here is the rub: why would all potentially 16(?) weapons of possibly varying weights (in TONS, mind you!) all still have pixel-perfect accuracy relative to a wildly swaying reticule?

I'd rather go for CoF than that.

[adamts01]

Mystere, on 08 February 2016 - 11:03 AM, said:

Here is the rub: why would all potentially 16(?) weapons of possibly varying weights (in TONS, mind you!) all still have pixel-perfect accuracy relative to a wildly swaying reticule?

I'd rather go for CoF than that.

Way to go and logic us all. This forum isn't about logic, you know that.

[LordBraxton]

I would love to see this just to mix up this incredibly stale game

[Mystere]

Gas Guzzler, on 08 February 2016 - 10:18 AM, said:

Except for the equally likely situation where your aim was off but RNG decided to bless you with a perfect shot to the CT.

How is that much different compared to those lucky and accidental head shot kills?

[1453 R]

adamts01, on 08 February 2016 - 10:52 AM, said:

I still don't know what MAAAS stands for. But OP listed numerous ways you can achiever perfect pinpoint accuracy. You're so dead set in your way of thinking that you can't even listen to someone else's argument. Listen to what he actually said, not to what you think he said.

"MAAAS": Modern triple-A Shooter. Basically, the Call of Duty formula that every other FPS out there slavishly adheres to.

And all right then - what can you do, in the match, to regain accuracy lost to this CoF system Tex is presenting? The vast majority of his CoF tighteners are things you do in the 'Mechlab - strap on a TCXVII, equip anti-CoF modules. Higher heat increases CoF - lower heat does not actually decrease it. Movement increases CoF; standing still does not actually decrease it. Alpha strikes/simultaneous weapon fire increases CoF; single-shot chainfiring does not actually decrease it.

Nothing he proposes decreases cone of fire other than hitting R or equipping multiple tons and modules of 'sniper' equipment. All you're doing is not aggravating your inaccuracy issues; you're not getting more accurate, you're getting less inaccurate, and if you figure those are the same thing you are drastically mistaken.

And even then: hitting 'R' and locking target supposedly decrease CoF but only against that target, correct? How does the game differentiate between me locking something, then shooting at another 'Mech slightly behind my locked target?

Until there's actually ways to actively eliminate CoF interference, in match, then the system is either arbitrarily eliminating combat over 400m from the game (CoF too wide) or is accomplishing absolutely nothing worthwhile (CoF too narrow). So...yeah. Not the best notion in my book.

Mystere, on 08 February 2016 - 11:03 AM, said:

Here is the rub: why would all potentially 16(?) weapons of possibly varying weights (in TONS, mind you!) all still have pixel-perfect accuracy relative to a wildly swaying reticule?

Because it's more fun that way.

Really all there is to it. Learning to ride the reticle, compensate for your chosen rides' movement patterns, and time your shots to land precisely where you want would be fun, and a good application of skill.

Configuring 'Mechs with a dozen SRM launchers to avoid spastic Mexican Hat Dance wildly divergent cone of fire issues that no amount of player aiming can compensate - or, alternatively, ignoring a too-narrow CoF mechanic altogether because it doesn't significantly impact damage spread, as Tex's system seems to propose - for is not 'fun'. 'Course, you and I've had that discussion more'n once before, haven't we?

[BigBenn]

Job well done on the presentation. I like the idea. Thing is though it would be a lot of work just to test it out considering all of the coding involved.

I do like the idea. I it certainly has merit.

[Mead]

I'm not sure what's more entertaining - a well-presented OP, or the few people reacting to it like he just set their dog on fire.