1094 replies to this topic

[adamts01]

DarthPeanut, on 08 February 2016 - 07:22 PM, said:

Since I keep seeing simulation thrown around. I cannot help but thing if we are realistically talking about what it would be like to simulate these future prestigious war machines of awesome (no pun intended) power and destruction they would most certainly be more or less pinpoint accurate when firing.

Lets simply look at a current day Abrams tank, which would be an artifact by comparison, which can shoot precisely while on the move at speeds thanks to firing control system and stabilized gun they have been using for some time now.

Something like 1000 years later and that is somehow lost on more advanced future generation of war machines. Did they somehow overlook the ancient technology of the past or forget the one of the most basic function of using beam or projectile weapons in battle... the ability to hit a target accurately with them.

So should we bump missiles up to supersonic speed and have realistic range on all weapons that could easily hit mechs from across all of Polar?

As for current technology, we've already had an Apache combat pilot on this thread say how a COF introduced on all ballistic weapons would be realistic.

[SQW]

tortuousGoddess, on 08 February 2016 - 07:08 PM, said:

Noted that you only talked about on foot shooters, where you can stop on a dime and use hand held weapons, because it invalidates everything else you said. You're comparing this game, where you have to shoot an enemy dozens of times to kill with weapons that can only fire every 4-5 seconds and are restricted by heat, to games where you have to shoot an enemy 2-3 times with a weapon that fires 10-15 rounds per second. Missing a couple rounds to CoF in typical shooters, not a big deal. Landing a couple shots on the enemy's arm instead of the side torso due to CoF, you're pretty much dead with nothing gained.

It baffles me that people still accept this logic.

Because you can't afford to miss in MWO you want pinpoint accuracy? And you think that's more skill based? Listen to yourself man!

Battletech has always been about tactic and landing slow, carefully placed shots BECAUSE there's heat, reload is long and missed shots are costly. What you want is easy mode where there's less chance of misses. So giving you aiming aid that don't miss is more skill based? Huh? I know you think your K/D is due to your skill but same could be said about someone using a machine gun that has perfect accuracy and zero recoil. Hey, he still has to 'aim' right?

Most competitive shooter games would call that machine gun a lame weapon.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

no one, on 08 February 2016 - 07:22 PM, said:

B33f joke videos

Using joke builds as an example of problems is what got us ghost heat in the first place. The 6 PPC Stalker was never a good mech, it was just funny.

[adamts01]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 08 February 2016 - 07:32 PM, said:

Using joke builds as an example of problems is what got us ghost heat in the first place. The 6 PPC Stalker was never a good mech, it was just funny.

We got ghost heat because those "joke builds" were 1 shotting assaults. People run 14 flamer Novas as joke builds, but they don't get nerfed because they're just a joke.

[Ratpoison]

SQW, on 08 February 2016 - 07:30 PM, said:

What you want is easy mode where there's less chance of misses.

No, what YOU want is to ADD an arbitrary chance to miss, in order to shorten the skill gap between you and people who can aim. What you want is easy mode where skilled pilots might miss you at random. It's just hilarious how you say Battletech is all about "carefully placed shots" while advocating a shot randomizer.

[DarthPeanut]

adamts01, on 08 February 2016 - 07:30 PM, said:

So should we bump missiles up to supersonic speed and have realistic range on all weapons that could easily hit mechs from across all of Polar?

As for current technology, we've already had an Apache combat pilot on this thread say how a COF introduced on all ballistic weapons would be realistic.

Did I say that? Points for flair though.

I am simply pointing out that when people use COF anywhere near the word simulator it seems a bit strange considering current technology already is pinpoint accurate (relative to scale) on a well proven ground based system.

Edited by DarthPeanut, 08 February 2016 - 07:41 PM.

[BearFlag]

TL;DR

While I believe that COF is superior and more likely than convergence approaches, I'm not convinced it's the only and necessary solution to high laser damage, pin point laser damage, long range laser damage.

-----

The OP did a great job of making his case. But even within the COF discussion, elaborate schemes need not be invoked. COF can be mimicked by splashing some damage to adjacent components based on some condition. No fancy mechanics, no trajectory calcs, no graphics programming.

Among the conditions often raised are heat, movement, range. If we were using heat, for example, some small percentage of damage would spread to connected components beyond a certain heat threshold. As the heat goes up, so too the percentage of splash. Eezy peezy.

But there are numerous parameters already in the game that can be tweaked in addition to, or instead of, COF. Some say the heat model alone is enough to reign in lasers. Range, duration, cooldown and damage are there too.

I would suggest that COF, while it would certainly work, may be a complex solution to a problem which can be addressed by simpler means. Personally, I'd like to see "optimal range" removed and replaced with strict linear damage fall off ...

but who's listening to us any way?

[Quicksilver Aberration]

adamts01, on 08 February 2016 - 07:38 PM, said:

We got ghost heat because those "joke builds" were 1 shotting assaults. People run 14 flamer Novas as joke builds, but they don't get nerfed because they're just a joke.

60 damage isn't enough to 1 shot any assault at best it could kill and XL Dragon if it didn't distribute armor well enough but that is about it, and even then, it ran a 250 STD engine and could be pushed, it was a joke build that no serious player took other than because it was funny. Just because it isn't worthless like the 14 Flamer Nova doesn't mean it wasn't a joke build.

The Dire Star and Giga Laser is in the similar vein, but even worse with heat management making it even more of a joke build.

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 08 February 2016 - 07:44 PM.

[adamts01]

tortuousGoddess, on 08 February 2016 - 07:38 PM, said:

What you want is easy mode where skilled pilots might miss you at random. It's just hilarious how you say Battletech is all about "carefully placed shots" while advocating a shot randomizer.

COF has nothing to do with skilled pilots becoming disadvantaged. The more skilled pilot will always win.

DarthPeanut, on 08 February 2016 - 07:38 PM, said:

Did I say that? Points for flair though.

I am simply stating that when people use COF anywhere near the word simulator it seems a bit strange considering current technology already is pinpoint accurate on a well proven ground based system.

No current weapon is pinpoint accurate. Everything has error. And like I said, we had a gunship pilot on this very thread who actually used one of our state of the art vehicles in combat arguing against the point you're making.

[SQW]

DarthPeanut, on 08 February 2016 - 07:22 PM, said:

Since I keep seeing simulation thrown around. I cannot help but think if we are realistically talking about what it would be like to simulate these future prestigious war machines of awesome (no pun intended) power and destruction they would most certainly be more or less pinpoint accurate when firing.

Lets simply look at a current day Abrams tank, which would be an artifact by comparison, which can shoot precisely while on the move at speeds thanks to its firing control system and stabilized gun they have been using for some time now.

Something like 1000 years later and that is somehow lost on more advanced future generation of war machines. Did they somehow overlook the ancient technology of the past or forget the one of the most basic function of using beam or projectile weapons in combat... the ability to hit a target accurately with them.

Target lock isn't magic. Radar signal isn't pinpoint accurate and the computer makes a best guess estimate of where the target is and tries to aim with the mechanical parts of the system. That's why the best AM system on an aircraft carrier throw out a wall of lead in the general direction instead of trying to aim directly for the missile.

On the defensive side, you can have jammers and other passive defense to scramble the signals or just moving at high speed to through off the mechanical component of the shooter's system as is the case in MW lore.

M1A1's accuracy is part war propaganda, part canned test scenario. Don't believe everything you hear. The accurate while moving spill is always against a stationary test targets. When the enemy is moving, it's far harder for the radar to determine its speed in order to make an accurate long distance prediction.

For example, it's easy to make a machine that can toss a basketball through the hoop at 200m because of low variables, even if you are moving. Having the hoop move at the same time at a random speed makes thing an order of magnitude harder.

[carl kerensky]

AdamBaines, on 08 February 2016 - 05:52 AM, said:

I think its an interesting concept. I does bring a more lifelike aspect to it. I agree it would add a larger skill component rather then actually being a detriment to it. It would be frustrating going from the insta-kill pinpoint system we have now to this for most players. And yes as you pointed out, the torso cone of fire would need to be addressed.

Id like to see how it would practically work. This is the sort of thing I wish PGI would do more of and allow us to play test it on the PTS servers.

I guess my only reservation is, this is great for beam weapons, but for PPC, and ACs, I'm already leading a target at distance, this would make it even more difficult.

Overall I like the idea. Let get something like this in to PTS, at a basic level, and see how it really acts.

In agreement here. Something should done. BTW Texace my hats off to you for your effort in explaining the new concept.
Great job.

[DarthPeanut]

adamts01, on 08 February 2016 - 07:43 PM, said:

No current weapon is pinpoint accurate. Everything has error. And like I said, we had a gunship pilot on this very thread who actually used one of our state of the art vehicles in combat arguing against the point you're making.

The machines are accurate, the humans using them are not... kind of like what we have in this game ironically.

I didn't make up the fact that the Abrams is able to shoot on the move extremely accurate. As I said relative to scale, not an actual pinpoint but if you want to get hung up on semantics of the wording that is fine.

[adamts01]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 08 February 2016 - 07:41 PM, said:

60 damage isn't enough to 1 shot any assault at best it could kill and XL Dragon if it didn't distribute armor well enough but that is about it, and even then, it ran a 250 STD engine and could be pushed, it was a joke build that no serious player took other than because it was funny. Just because it isn't worthless like the 14 Flamer Nova doesn't mean it wasn't a joke build.

The Dire Star and Giga Laser is in the similar vein, but even worse with heat management making it even more of a joke build.

Then consider a 14 small laser Nova. Without ghost heat that would be a very manageable 70 point alpha out of a 50 ton mech. I feel like ghost heat was a terrible bandaid but it was an effective solution.

[Ratpoison]

adamts01, on 08 February 2016 - 07:43 PM, said:

COF has nothing to do with skilled pilots becoming disadvantaged. The more skilled pilot will always win.

Yes, the competitive players will still stomp you(until they quit from the boredom of CoF), but you're wrong. If the CoF radomization goes in favor of one player hitting what they want more than the other, the field has been skewed and the other player has been disadvantaged regardless of skill level. That's what CoF systems often do in effect, and why they are awful.

[no one]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 08 February 2016 - 07:32 PM, said:

Using joke builds as an example of problems is what got us ghost heat in the first place. The 6 PPC Stalker was never a good mech, it was just funny.

And the 6ppc stalker is an even worse 'Mech now, and has been replaced by the large laser stalker. The videos demonstrate the mechanics of massed pinpoint damage in execution so they're relevant regardless. Yes, I don't like ghost heat either, and I'd much rather have a well designed low capacity heats system. My point is that having a weapon's effectiveness correlate positively with how many you can fire at once leads to poor balancing of that weapon on an individual level. Hell you don't even need to be talking about convergence to see that in action; LRM5s are positively useless because AMS doesn't scale in effectiveness against LRM volley size.

adamts01, on 08 February 2016 - 07:43 PM, said:

COF has nothing to do with skilled pilots becoming disadvantaged. The more skilled pilot will always win.

But then why would you want a random CoF over something like long range convergence where you CAN predict where your shots land? They still won't converge on the same point, and the more skilled pilot will still win.

[Livewyr]

All these people talking about how Cone of Fire will kill the game...

Yeah, like all those other games that died because of a Cone of Fire, like:




Hmm. Point to me a game that died due to the addition of a Cone of Fire?

[Ratpoison]

Livewyr, on 08 February 2016 - 07:53 PM, said:

All these people talking about how Cone of Fire will kill the game...

Yeah, like all those other games that died because of a Cone of Fire, like:




Hmm. Point to me a game that died due to the addition of a Cone of Fire?

How about you point me to a game that ADDED cone of fire in at least a couple years after the game's release, without it damaging the game? One that has a time to kill and fire rate comparable to MWO? There's a lot of space in between "the game dying" and "the game being playable", and CoF definitely lands in there somewhere for this game.

Edited by tortuousGoddess, 08 February 2016 - 07:59 PM.

[adamts01]

DarthPeanut, on 08 February 2016 - 07:48 PM, said:

The machines are accurate, the humans using them are not... kind of like what we have in this game ironically.

I didn't make up the fact that the Abrams is able to shoot on the move extremely accurate. As I said relative to scale, not an actual pinpoint but if you want to get hung up on semantics of the wording that is fine.

I'm told of our tank that can hit another tank from 5 miles away while jumping over a sand dune at 80mph. But, an experienced gunship pilot has a different opinion about how those weapon systems actually perform in combat. See below. and read the rest of his posts, starting around page 7.

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....

tortuousGoddess, on 08 February 2016 - 07:49 PM, said:

Yes, the competitive players will still stomp you(until they quit from the boredom of CoF), but you're wrong. If the CoF radomization goes in favor of one player hitting what they want more than the other, the field has been skewed and the other player has been disadvantaged regardless of skill level. That's what CoF systems often do in effect, and why they are awful.

You take the inaccuracy of the weapon in to consideration when using it, exactly like in real life.

no one, on 08 February 2016 - 07:52 PM, said:

But then why would you want a random CoF over something like long range convergence where you CAN predict where your shots land? They still won't converge on the same point, and the more skilled pilot will still win.

The most skilled pilot should always win. The same people winning today would be the same people winning if every lore nerd got their way. I want realism, this is a step in that direction.

[no one]

Livewyr, on 08 February 2016 - 07:53 PM, said:

Hmm. Point to me a game that died due to the addition of a Cone of Fire?

The problem with that argument is you'd first need to point me to a number of game where you ever had cone of fire WITH multiple simultaneously active weapon systems, many of which have burn time.

adamts01, on 08 February 2016 - 08:00 PM, said:

The most skilled pilot should always win. The same people winning today would be the same people winning if every lore nerd got their way. I want realism, this is a step in that direction.

That's not an answer to the question I posed, though.

Realism jumps ship when the lasers fired from a 'Mech's arm are cross-crossing in the air in front of a target because you aren't chain firing. Using the heat system to incentivize chain firing or implementing some form of non randomized spaced fire towards a defined point x distance behind the target, then okay. But Cof would not look realistic, and to visualize that you have to understand that you're applying a separate random offset to multiple weapons that are firing at the same or roughly the same time.

Here, this is how you firing lasers would look in

Current
(guy)>(otherguy)

CoF
(guy)X(otherguy)

longrange/nonconvergence
(guy)=(otherguy)

Edited by no one, 08 February 2016 - 08:22 PM.

[adamts01]

Livewyr, on 08 February 2016 - 07:53 PM, said:

All these people talking about how Cone of Fire will kill the game...

Yeah, like all those other games that died because of a Cone of Fire, like:




Hmm. Point to me a game that died due to the addition of a Cone of Fire?

no one, on 08 February 2016 - 08:00 PM, said:

The problem with that argument is you'd first need to point me to a number of game where you ever had cone of fire WITH multiple simultaneously active weapon systems, many of which have burn time.

None of that matters because Mechwarrior is, and should be different.