1094 replies to this topic

[adamts01]

1453 R, on 08 February 2016 - 11:22 AM, said:

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.

In this, we 100% agree. I don't like that a still, cold mech can't hit what he's aiming at with a single weapon.

1453 R, on 08 February 2016 - 11:22 AM, said:

Because it's more fun that way.

I hate my alpha boat. I play it only when it's one of those nights when I need to carry harder than normal. It's not more fun, just more effective. If this game started leaning towards simulator instead of arena shooter, I'd buy every mech pack and start my own unit and buy a TS server. Probably learn to computer more gooder and volunteer for PGI.

[Mystere]

1453 R, on 08 February 2016 - 11:22 AM, said:

Because it's more fun that way.

Again, "fun" is relative.

And in that vein, I'm going to have more fun with Tex's CoF idea. And that is because a wildly swaying reticule that still somehow manages to give pixel-perfect accuracy to potentially 16(?) weapons of possibly varying weights in TONS really just offends my sensibilities.

Edited by Mystere, 08 February 2016 - 12:09 PM.

[pbiggz]

Mead, on 08 February 2016 - 11:36 AM, said:

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.

Its certainly well presented, and I appreciate what he's trying to get across, but im not sure he's understanding the whole implications of such a broad design change, and beyond that, no good designer throws in their designs without letting other minds take aim and throwing the system against the wall to see what sticks. Its an iterative, collaborative process that lets you boil ideas down to their barest essence and cut out what wont work as best you can.

[Khereg]

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

Factors that affect PGI's decision include:
* 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

So, ticking through those, where do you honestly think this stands?

We got one hand-waved response that essentially said, "It improves the game and that should be all that matters - go ahead and do it".

I'll throw in my assessment:

* Community desire and degree of unification

Community is substantially divided. Support may be as high as 50% Favorable, 35% Neutral, 15% Opposed (and that's crazy generous), but the 15% Opposed contingent may comprise up to 40% of game revenue (being those metagame tryhard whales, and all). In short, this will be a divisive move if it happens.

* Benefit or detriment to gaming experience, including unforeseen issues like FPS impacts from increased processor overhead

Gaming experience change is difficult to determine, largely owing to the disparate skill among the player base. There will certainly be a lot more math involved in resolving shots. FPS issues have arisen in the past from less intrusive changes. Tread carefully here.

* Cost/effort to implement

Changes core game mechanics and introduces significant new features. Estimated coding and testing time will be high, necessitating community involvement.

* Potential for revenue increase, whether via direct sales or improved gaming experience leading to increase in customer base

Virtually no opportunity for increased sales and likely will not affect new player attraction. May have some impact on player retention, but hard to predict if significant.

* Relative importance compared to other items in the development pipeline

Does not deliver new in-game content or saleable items, which take priority with development resources. Will likely always fall behind those types of projects. Likely puts it in the "when we have time we'll look at it" category.

So, I wouldn't hold my breath. There doesn't seem to be a huge impetus to move off the status quo, doing so may adversely affect revenue if the whales disproportionately don't like it (which seems likely), and there's limited upside to revenue to offset the risk.

Magic 8-ball says, "Working as intended."

Edited by Khereg, 08 February 2016 - 11:52 AM.

[Dawnstealer]

Yep. This is good.

[Herr Vorragend]

I´m not sure about this. At least it would give more weight to brawling and other shortrange engagements.

Maybe OP is a little over the top. It has to be an easy system to gain overall acceptance. And it needs to be somewhat noob-friendly. It´s no problem for longterm-players to unlock everything they need. Cbills aren´t a problem, too. But a "I´m playing for two months"-steamer might have some frustration.

[adamts01]

pbiggz, on 08 February 2016 - 11:43 AM, said:

Its certainly well presented, and I appreciate what he's trying to get across, but im not sure he's understanding the whole implications of such a broad design change, and beyond that, no good designer throws in their designs without letting other minds take aim and throwing the system against the wall to see what sticks. Its an iterative, collaborative process that lets you boil ideas down to their barest essence and cut out what wont work as best you can.

Well that's the whole purpose of this debate, and all this constructive criticism being thrown around, make the game better.

[Bishop Steiner]

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

You. Cannot. Remove. A. Player's. Ability. To. Aim. And. Hit. Their. Target. In. An. FPS.

ah the usual hyperbole. Because reducing accuracy on units jumping, running full speed etc is taking away ability to aim, got it.

Video Games, the new Special Olympics.

[pbiggz]

Bishop Steiner, on 08 February 2016 - 12:49 PM, said:

ah the usual hyperbole. Because reducing accuracy on units jumping, running full speed etc is taking away ability to aim, got it.

Video Games, the new Special Olympics.

Pointless snark aside, he's right in alot more ways then I expect you'll admit. Making shots not go where you aimed them in a shooter is pretty much game design heresy.

[Saint Scarlett Johan]

The only three games I've ever played that didn't follow the MAAAS principle of a hip-fire RNG, blooming recoil that's mitigated by ADS are:
-America's Army
-ArmA
-DoD

Those games have an MOA cone of fire predicated on the real world analogs. As well as a recoil system also predicated on their real analogs. The real M16A2 has 2 to 4 MOA accuracy and the one in AA does too. The recoil of the burst of an M16A2 is also very predictable, in that a shooter squeezing off a three round burst from the kneeling position on a 50m target will have the second round hit 2in above and 1/2in to the right of the first and the third round will hit 4in above and 1in to the right of the first, assuming a right-handed shooter. And in AA, the rifle does just that. The bullets go in an increasing arc up and to right predictably, just like with the real one. They don't just start going willy-nilly all over the place. Guns don't do that except in CoD clones.

DoD follows the same pattern, as did ArmA 2.

Having the reticle bloom while firing to simulate inaccuracies by having them go where-the-****-ever is actually highly unrealistic and of very lazy design.

If you want to fix the Lolpha, lock heat capacity at 50 for a mech with no basics (which means a mastered mech has a heat cap of 60), give us TruDubs, introduce heat penalties that scale up from 50%, increase the heat generated on the IS Large class lasers, do away with heat gen quirks and suddenly sh!tting a 50+ damage, 40+ heat alpha sounds like a bad idea.

Edited by Saint Scarlett Johan, 08 February 2016 - 01:07 PM.

[Metus regem]

Mead, on 08 February 2016 - 11:36 AM, said:

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.

Or you know, when someone with real world experience with the way mounted weapon systems act in live fire situations supports it, and provides examples of it happening....

[1453 R]

Bishop Steiner, on 08 February 2016 - 12:49 PM, said:

ah the usual hyperbole. Because reducing accuracy on units jumping, running full speed etc is taking away ability to aim, got it.

Video Games, the new Special Olympics.

A'ight.

So explain to me, Bishop, how my JIIC(O), with six SRM-4s and enough ammo to keep them fed, doesn't rule the roost with these changes. I'm a small, maneuverable light 'Mech - people have trouble hitting me when they get pinpoint aim. Now, the proposed CoF changes require players to stand still, bottom out their heat bar, and sacrifice significant tonnage to sniper equipment to have any remote chance of hitting a moving, evading light beyond 400m.

So, I basically get free run of the battlefield outside 400m, provided I don't make myself into Lurmbait.

The effective range of my SRMs is, for the purpose of clean arguments, about 300m. I don't get a lot of tightly clustered hits there, of course, but SRM-4s can land damage out to ~300m with range module. Since I'm using SRMs I don't give a whack for CoF-reduction modules which are now otherwise mandatory for all direct-fire 'Mechs and can freely equip cSRM-4 range and refire.

Enemies have roughly a hundred meters in which they could hope to accurately hit me before I can hit them. My particular JIIC(O) is unusually slow (255cXL), so only hits ~126kph. Do some basic conversion math, that Jenner hits 'bout 35 meters a second footspeed if my brain is working today. So...just about three seconds of engagement time for my enemies, where they can reliably hit me before I can hit them (provided the game reports speed accurately. personally, I'm pretty sure I actually cover 100 meters a lot quicker than three seconds, but still. Math for the Math God).

Once inside that 300m range, of course, I have a quick-cycling 48-point salvo that does not give a rat for your CoF nonsense. My JIIC(O) has more brawling power than a number of heavy 'Mechs and a handful of assault designs. If your direct-fire platform suffers the same degree of spread/inaccuracy as my SRM launchers...well. We all know exactly who's going to win that engagement unless I manage to blow it beyond comprehension.

This is, of course, assuming the enemy is aware of my attack and is specifically targeting me as I close in. They have three seconds in which to try and land a hit and discourage my run, which translates to precisely one shot given most MWO weapons' cycle times. They don't get time for a follow-up before I'm ramming missiles up their robo-rectums.

Do you feel like you can disable an evading JIIC(O), reliably, with one singular shot, in whatever you pilot, Bishop?

How many Bulltrue medals did you get, back in the Halo days?

Anyways. Even exempting concerns over the iron-fisted dominance of the SRM Shotgun Meta, should a CoF thing go through...it's just not good game design. Not in a game where every single individual shell in a weapon, or bolt fired from an energy gun, has to count. One single miss in a close-fought duel can decide the fate of an entire match in MWO and we all know it.

Is it really fair for that one shot to be decided by RNGsus, and not the player making the shot?

[Hotthedd]

It amazes me how many people think a Cone of Fire is random.

People, please. Look up the ACTUAL definitions of words so that we are not all speaking like we were in the movie 'Idiocracy' in a few years.

[Khereg]

They nerfed jump-sniping by adding the bouncy reticule while actively jumping (although it still snaps right back when the jump key is released, so skilled players still snipe). I understand the desire for CoF, but if the objective is just to reduce accuracy even further while moving, why not just add a bouncing reticule that gets increasingly erratic at higher speeds?

That would seem a lot simpler than the convoluted mechanic discussed here.

[adamts01]

1453 R, on 08 February 2016 - 01:11 PM, said:

A'ight.

So explain to me, Bishop, how my JIIC(O), with six SRM-4s and enough ammo to keep them fed, doesn't rule the roost with these changes. I'm a small, maneuverable light 'Mech - people have trouble hitting me when they get pinpoint aim. Now, the proposed CoF changes require players to stand still, bottom out their heat bar, and sacrifice significant tonnage to sniper equipment to have any remote chance of hitting a moving, evading light beyond 400m.

Your Oxide is, and will continue to be, a very situational mech.

Saint Scarlett Johan, on 08 February 2016 - 01:04 PM, said:

The real M16A2 has 2 to 4 MOA accuracy and the one in AA does too.

Having the reticle bloom while firing to simulate inaccuracies by having them go where-the-****-ever is actually highly unrealistic and of very lazy design.

By USMC standards, I'm an "expert" with the M16-A2. Within that 2-4 MOA the shots do go "where-the-****-ever." OP, and myself, are asking for less than that. We're proposing pinpoint accuracy is OK, under certain circumstances (not while running, firing everything at once, jumping or overheating.) That really isn't too much to ask for.

[Damocles]

I like it.
But would need a major decrease to laser burn times, more like MW3.
Then add a TIC and one button trigger one button switch grouping another button cycle singlefire/chain/group.

But none of this will ever happen until a supportive community makes it on their own.

[Mead]

Metus regem, on 08 February 2016 - 01:08 PM, said:

Or you know, when someone with real world experience with the way mounted weapon systems act in live fire situations supports it, and provides examples of it happening....

I'm poking fun at the delivery, not the content. Did you get hysterical or hyperbolic about it? No? Then I'm not smirking at your posts. Relax.

[Saint Scarlett Johan]

Hotthedd, on 08 February 2016 - 01:22 PM, said:

It amazes me how many people think a Cone of Fire is random.

People, please. Look up the ACTUAL definitions of words so that we are not all speaking like we were in the movie 'Idiocracy' in a few years.

A CoF is random. It's simply a limiter along the x and y axes for a field of data points, and are them programmatically selected by a coded RNG function.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

adamts01, on 08 February 2016 - 01:30 PM, said:

Your Oxide is, and will continue to be, a very situational mech.

The Oxide, or the IIC? Because the actual Oxide is currently one of the best lights in the game.

[Damocles]

Saint Scarlett Johan, on 08 February 2016 - 01:04 PM, said:

DoD follows the same pattern, as did ArmA 2.

DoD (Day of Defeat, and source) didn't have a blooming reticle a la COD. But it definitely had a COF just like CS. fwiw.