1094 replies to this topic

[John80sk]

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. It doesn't raise the skill cap, it just shrinks a gap between those who can hit the CT 90% of the time and those who hit somewhere on the torso 90% of the time.

A fair point, but RNG risk management is part of pretty much every game. In the end a player who has his crosshairs dead center 90% of the time is going to hit the component he's aiming for far more often than someone you can at best hold on a torso.

Example: if someone is trying to hit CT, POA is outer ST he might hit ST or miss completely. Or if your POA is on the seem you have an equal chance of hitting ST/CT. I don't feel like doing math right now, but essentially benefit will go to the player with higher accuracy in terms of both targeted component destruction and overall damage. If someone aims completely off target yes, it's possible that they'll get a hit, but honestly outside of lights who misses a mech entirely in this game?

[Kin3ticX]

no thanks

[Saint Scarlett Johan]

adamts01, on 08 February 2016 - 02:35 PM, said:

You've obviously never fired a weapon while running, or even standing still for that matter.

Actually I have, I shoot competition where there is actually a fair bit of running.

The bullet still goes where you point it. Whether you squeeze the trigger over the target or not is entirely different. Running doesn't make my M4 go from 4MOA to suddenly 16MOA, it's still 4MOA. The only variable there is that I'm moving and no longer holding the point of aim over the target consistently, but I've shot enough that I can be running and still land rounds on target.

[Hotthedd]

Saint Scarlett Johan, on 08 February 2016 - 01:30 PM, said:

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.

That is like saying "pick a random number between 5 and 7". The very fact that it is so narrowly limited precludes it from being actually random.

[FupDup]

adamts01, on 08 February 2016 - 02:35 PM, said:

You couldn't see the tiny movement that could cause a 1 degree shift anyway.

In order to fulfill Tex's mock-up testing ranges of the effect, the shifting would have to look something similar to this:

[Saint Scarlett Johan]

Hotthedd, on 08 February 2016 - 02:43 PM, said:

That is like saying "pick a random number between 5 and 7". The very fact that it is so narrowly limited precludes it from being actually random.

If you make it an integer, yes. You make it float and you suddenly have a lot of numbers greater than 5 but less than 7.

[SQW]

Those in favor of CoF = those who play FPS post Counter Strike.

Those not in favor of CoF = those who didn't move from doom and quake days.

Seriously, MWO was made from a shooter game engine; just slap on CoF and we shall drink the salty tears of all the laser boat puppy warriors.

[John80sk]

Also for you "it's nooooot realistic" folks... movement actually does decrease the accuracy of any weapon system to a degree (a very small one usually) unless everything's perfectly seated.

[FupDup]

SQW, on 08 February 2016 - 02:48 PM, said:

Those in favor of CoF = those who play FPS post Counter Strike.

Those not in favor of CoF = those who didn't move from doom and quake days.

Seriously, MWO was made from a shooter game engine; just slap on CoF and we shall drink the salty tears of all the laser boat puppy warriors.

>Implying that only lasers are affected.

Also, just because "ADS" (aiming down sights) shooters are prevalent doesn't mean that it's automatically good for the game or that MWO has to jump on the bandwagon.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

adamts01, on 08 February 2016 - 02:35 PM, said:

but the Firestarter is still a top choice and better in many scenarios.

No, you are assuming that because it is popular it must be better and that is not always the case, especially here. The Firestarter is simply used more, that is about all you can say about it.

Hotthedd, on 08 February 2016 - 02:43 PM, said:

That is like saying "pick a random number between 5 and 7". The very fact that it is so narrowly limited precludes it from being actually random.

Wat.

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 08 February 2016 - 02:54 PM.

[Dino Might]

Khereg, on 08 February 2016 - 06:38 AM, said:

I'm not sure how you learn and adapt to a random number generator.

Ever done competitive target shooting? I'm guessing no. How do you learn to adapt to the natural sway you have in the off-hand position? You do whatever you can to mitigate it, and then you shoot through it, recognizing that the odds are in your favor, and over the course of a match, the better you are at mitigating the standard deviation, the better your scores are over those who are not as skilled.

Those who argue that CoF negates skill are completely ignorant of any kind of realistic shooting scenario. It baffles me, really. Please, go out and learn basic marksmanship. You will see why this system is not only good, but a much better simulation as well.

It allows for us to have snipers, because, we can enlarge the head hitbox! With CoF, it will be more difficult to reliably hit the head, so it can have an expanded hitbox, giving the skilled shooters a better chance to destroy the head (on purpose) and the less skilled shooters a worse chance to destroy the head than is currently implemented.

[Impyrium]

I say yes, we do really need something like this. Although I'm skeptical about having skills and modules affect to a large degree, to me that sort of stuff really shouldn't completely bring a 'mech from 'bad' to 'good'.

I find it ironic the majority of the players that don't want this are Tier 1 or comp. Although, I suppose that's to be expected. Those guys have dedicated themselves to being very good at the very particular game we have now and probably don't want something introduced that would throw them off or damage their l33t mouse aiming skills.

Even though MWO is really the only game that has pin-point aiming. Remember when MechWarrior actually was about piloting a giant 'mech?

Saint Scarlett Johan, on 08 February 2016 - 02:43 PM, said:

Actually I have, I shoot competition where there is actually a fair bit of running.

The bullet still goes where you point it. Whether you squeeze the trigger over the target or not is entirely different. Running doesn't make my M4 go from 4MOA to suddenly 16MOA, it's still 4MOA. The only variable there is that I'm moving and no longer holding the point of aim over the target consistently, but I've shot enough that I can be running and still land rounds on target.

You are not capable of landing rounds dead center on a target while running. It's physically impossible.

Bring the scale up to lumbering war machines notorious for being difficult to pilot and often unsteady, and there's no reason why that shouldn't translate.

Edited by Dingo Red, 08 February 2016 - 03:02 PM.

[Dino Might]

Saint Scarlett Johan, on 08 February 2016 - 02:43 PM, said:

Actually I have, I shoot competition where there is actually a fair bit of running.

The bullet still goes where you point it. Whether you squeeze the trigger over the target or not is entirely different. Running doesn't make my M4 go from 4MOA to suddenly 16MOA, it's still 4MOA. The only variable there is that I'm moving and no longer holding the point of aim over the target consistently, but I've shot enough that I can be running and still land rounds on target.

Yes, but your average spread over the course of 10 shots will go from 4MOA to 16MOA. You're arguing the accuracy of the weapon itself. We're arguing the accuracy of the system, that takes into account the entire mech. I don't doubt you can still put rounds on target, but I'll take my prone, sling supported position and beat your running offhand scores with less than half as many shots. CoF is a way to implement that sort of dynamic. CoF is great because piloting choices will affect more than just position.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Dino Might, on 08 February 2016 - 02:56 PM, said:

CoF is a lazy way to implement that sort of dynamic.

FTFY before Johan can.

[Saint Scarlett Johan]

Dino Might, on 08 February 2016 - 02:52 PM, said:

Ever done competitive target shooting? I'm guessing no. How do you learn to adapt to the natural sway you have in the off-hand position? You do whatever you can to mitigate it, and then you shoot through it, recognizing that the odds are in your favor, and over the course of a match, the better you are at mitigating the standard deviation, the better your scores are over those who are not as skilled.

Those who argue that CoF negates skill are completely ignorant of any kind of realistic shooting scenario. It baffles me, really. Please, go out and learn basic marksmanship. You will see why this system is not only good, but a much better simulation as well.

It allows for us to have snipers, because, we can enlarge the head hitbox! With CoF, it will be more difficult to reliably hit the head, so it can have an expanded hitbox, giving the skilled shooters a better chance to destroy the head (on purpose) and the less skilled shooters a worse chance to destroy the head than is currently implemented.

I do shoot competitive, and CoF a la CoD or WoT is not realistic. The system that Arma, AA, and DoD had was a fixed CoF relative to the MOA of their real world analog while having an accuracy penalty based on natural, fluid movements that are predictable to skilled, practiced marksmen.

I'm all in favor of that. I'm not in favor of a generic CoF ripped from popular Xbox FPS games.

[Hotthedd]

Saint Scarlett Johan, on 08 February 2016 - 02:45 PM, said:

If you make it an integer, yes. You make it float and you suddenly have a lot of numbers greater than 5 but less than 7.

Good point., but integers would be most appropriate since we are dealing with components. 5.2268493 would still be left torso, for example.

[Saint Scarlett Johan]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 08 February 2016 - 02:58 PM, said:

FTFY before Johan can.

I got Vindi'd

[wanderer]

Quote

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.

Is it worth mentioning here that thermal effects (ie, overheating a weapon) cause the equivalent of a CoF (higher dispersion)?

[Saint Scarlett Johan]

Hotthedd, on 08 February 2016 - 02:59 PM, said:

Good point., but integers would be most appropriate since we are dealing with components. 5.2268493 would still be left torso, for example.

You could still make it an int if you multiple the generated float by an int and simply passed the float to an int and end up with integers between a selected range.

So if we got 5.2268, multiplied that by 6, then passed it off to an Int we'd get 31. But if we got 5.9165 * 6 and passed it to an Int we'd get 35. Which could be landing that AC20 on the cherry CT or the armored LT.

I'd still rather we had a recoil/reticle sway system to just pure CoF.

wanderer, on 08 February 2016 - 03:02 PM, said:

Is it worth mentioning here that thermal effects (ie, overheating a weapon) cause the equivalent of a CoF (higher dispersion)?

On ballistic weapons, yeah. I don't know **** about lasers though. That's why artillery calculations done on a hot tube are different than those tubes shooting cold.

I don't see why lasers in torso mounts aren't simply locked in a limited convergence.

[Impyrium]

Saint Scarlett Johan, on 08 February 2016 - 02:58 PM, said:

I do shoot competitive, and CoF a la CoD or WoT is not realistic. The system that Arma, AA, and DoD had was a fixed CoF relative to the MOA of their real world analog while having an accuracy penalty based on natural, fluid movements that are predictable to skilled, practiced marksmen.

I'm all in favor of that. I'm not in favor of a generic CoF ripped from popular Xbox FPS games.

And how exactly does one implement such a system in a game like this? Doesn't seem possible to me. Would that be better? Yeah, probably, but the reality is that isn't likely with a game perspective that doesn't even model the 'mech's actual movement to the cockpit.

Why does a game like World Of Tanks have CoF? It's not because the gun magically shoots extremely inaccurately, it models the fact there's conditions outside pulling the trigger that affects aim. In this case, the gunner zero'ing in on the target, I suppose. In MWO, heat, movement, targeting data etc. The proposed system is conditional, thus controllable and manageable by the player.