1094 replies to this topic

[Hotthedd]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 09 February 2016 - 09:06 AM, said:

Just lots of damage means you are still making bad trades thus makes that route a bad idea. Not sure why you say that people die in one shot though, with the structure quirks and registration still a little off on lights, most things should be able to survive a single alpha from even the heaviest of hitters.


First, FTFY.
Second, so we have two extreme options and no in-between, sounds more boring than what we have currently. Definitely limits what you can do and what parts of the map you can do it on.

I would rather be at 60% health with damage spread out all over my 'mech than at 60% with full armor everywhere but my cherry red cored CT, but to each his own I guess.

Maybe I should have been clear: We have options ranging from one end of the described spectrum to the other. Right now we have: move as much or as little as you like, and spam all the weapons into one pixel whenever desired, just try not to go over 100% heat.

[KahnWongFuChung]

OK great now we are reaching tinfoil-quality argumentation. Great.


HAHAHA you don't believe it? What if I were to tell you I have played on a MWO server not owned by PGI ? and in its server side configuration files I could adjust the Server AI to only allow you to have a 20% HSR and no matter how many times you shot or alpha a player you would only do 20% of your total weapons damage per shot per battle ?

And I could set a variable rate on your account so no mater what you did the output damage ratio of your mechs would be lowered of raised depending on what I wanted your win/loss ratio to be which for MWO its set and a neutral win/loss ratio to balance matches?

How would your system work under this type of system control?

Edited by KahnWongFuChung, 09 February 2016 - 09:27 AM.

[Mystere]

Lockon StratosII, on 09 February 2016 - 05:18 AM, said:

Every new reticle point means that there will be a weapon attached to it and that server will need to calculate new flight path for said weapon(s), increasing the server load which is a commodity as it is right now

But isn't the server currently calculating exactly the same number of flight paths anyway, the only difference being there will be more than one end-point? If so, then your argument is invalid.

Maybe if your argument was that the X number of bytes of additional data that need to be transported via the network would be too much, then maybe you might have a valid argument.

Varvar86, on 09 February 2016 - 05:22 AM, said:

Too many pages to read. But, PLEASE DON'T!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You really want this?


I'm not against convergence but it shouldn't involve dice generator. Let it be no convergence in torso mounted weapons represented with separate crosshairs for RL and RT locked on preset distance. But at least we will exactly know where projectile will hit looking at crosshairs.

Ahem! The OP is about cone of fire, not convergence.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Hotthedd, on 09 February 2016 - 09:23 AM, said:

move as much or as little as you like, and spam all the weapons into one pixel whenever desired, just try not to go over 100% heat.

Yes, and currently that is the only thing keeping brawling from being THE meta. Sure you get rid of some quirks and ghost heat, but if you get rid of the ability to focus damage, brawling becomes very easy to do because the threat of being melted is no longer there, suddenly I can't start to shift positions as a long range mech and shoot on the move to delay the deathball reaching me, I just have to stand there and fire as much down wind as I possibly can before my inevitable death which is harder when heat plays into aiming as well.

This sort of suggestion is pulling a "PGI", a kneejerk reaction that ends up only shifting the meta to be about one thing (shallow and stale).

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 09 February 2016 - 09:37 AM.

[Mystere]

Dino Might, on 09 February 2016 - 05:34 AM, said:

Reread - it is a good MODEL. If you can create the deterministic calculations and run them in a game engine (and you'll have to develop your own decision mechanic for wind shifts and the like), then by all means. But CoF is a simplification of all of those factors.

Much like neutron transport - while the actual path of the neutron is probably deterministic, the model we use is probabilistic in nature, and it works really really well.

Take the data from comp target shooting, and compare it with the CoF MODEL, and you will see that the model works very very well.

Modeling is all about simplifying the complex multitude of factors in a deterministic environment and creating a predictive machine. That's what we're wanting to do here.

Competitive shooters will manage their natural point of aim, breathing, environmental factors, etc. to minimize their CoF, and then shoot. Call it praying to RNG or not, there is always some sight instability that you ignore while shooting. That is effectively modeled with CoF. The ones that can minimize that deviation, (modeled by CoF) are the ones that win, consistently.

What are you talking about? Modeling? People playing this game allegedly can't even handle two reticles and geometry, and you want to talk about some weird stuff like "simplifying the complex multitude of factors in a deterministic environment and creating a predictive machine".

.
.
.


See what I mean?

Hit the Deck, on 09 February 2016 - 05:35 AM, said:

Mister Blastman is also a proponent of this idea but your proposal still lacks an important detail - that the crosshairs offset from the center have to be constantly adjusted/redrawn according to the range you are aiming at. If you think that this could look bad in game when your point of aim change quickly from place to place (this is not World of Warships where you could hold a point of aim at certain range for a long time), consider how much mental calculation you have to do when you want to lead a shot at a moving Mech!

Edited by Mystere, 09 February 2016 - 09:40 AM.

[Mystere]

Wolfways, on 09 February 2016 - 05:36 AM, said:

In which case piloting still failed. Better piloting means getting the advantage.

I know what it is, and why I avoid it if at all possible.

People do not seem to realize that getting the drop on the enemy is much better than "trading".

tortuousGoddess, on 09 February 2016 - 05:50 AM, said:

Just so you know, chilling in the back refusing to help your team make trades isn't "better piloting". Piloting skill is also not a trump card that negates the need for aim, like you seem to think. Keep practicing, you'll get a grasp of what you should be doing soon enough.

Who said anything about "chilling in the back"? People were actually implying "stabbing in the back, or flank, or first".

Edited by Mystere, 09 February 2016 - 09:46 AM.

[Kuritaclan]

Mystere, on 09 February 2016 - 09:31 AM, said:

Maybe if your argument was that the X number of bytes of additional data that need to be transported via the network would be too much, then maybe you might have a valid argument.

It is not only the server problems to handle much vectors. It is also client pcs handle them. If all MWO Players would have a X99 i7 8 core cpu the game would be much more realistic. However this is not the case. So to speak the worst imaginable pc need also maintain the full load coming out of 12 mechs having a running vector, diretion of the torso vecort. direction of the arm vecor. This times two since player and enemy needs to be calculated hit area and now on top of this for every weapon you add in a specific vector to be calculated with own cof spread will add up to much data to be handeled every milli second at least (to give the feeling of "instant" reaction)

[Hotthedd]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 09 February 2016 - 09:37 AM, said:

Yes, and currently that is the only thing keeping brawling from being THE meta. Sure you get rid of some quirks and ghost heat, but if you get rid of the ability to focus damage, brawling becomes very easy to do because the threat of being melted is no longer there, suddenly I can't start to shift positions as a long range mech and shoot on the move to delay the deathball reaching me, I just have to stand there and fire as much down wind as I possibly can before my inevitable death which is harder when heat plays into aiming as well.

This sort of suggestion is pulling a "PGI", a kneejerk reaction that ends up only shifting the meta to be about one thing (shallow and stale).

Sniping, and peek-and-trade would still be as viable, the only difference would be more trigger pulls (and more consistent aim). You could not kill snipe as effectively, but that is not a BAD thing, IMO.

[Mystere]

Dakota1000, on 09 February 2016 - 06:26 AM, said:

Besides, its a mechwarrior game, and all of them so far have had pinpoint convergence ...

Just because previous games did it (arguably) terribly does not mean MWO should do the same. In all likelihood it was done due to CPU limitations at that time.

[Lockon StratosII]

Mystere, on 09 February 2016 - 09:31 AM, said:

But isn't the server currently calculating exactly the same number of flight paths anyway, the only difference being there will be more than one end-point? If so, then your argument is invalid.

Maybe if your argument was that the X number of bytes of additional data that need to be transported via the network would be too much, then maybe you might have a valid argument.

That was exactly what I wrote in follow up as a response. Number of calculations stays the same but the amount of memory you need to allocate for each mech grows not counting the resources that would be spent for running a code that will tighten-loosen those reticles depending on whether the mech is standing/jumping/running/damaged/etc

[Mystere]

DoctorDetroit, on 09 February 2016 - 05:52 AM, said:

This is seriously like 5 guys that are for this idea and they and they clearly do not care that the vast majority of players would be against it. The only reason a few of us need to keep posting is because PGI isn't always discerning enough about bad ideas. cough* (game mode voting).

I count at least 60.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Hotthedd, on 09 February 2016 - 09:53 AM, said:

Sniping, and peek-and-trade would still be as viable, the only difference would be more trigger pulls (and more consistent aim). You could not kill snipe as effectively, but that is not a BAD thing, IMO.

Actually it is, because the current meta is actually pretty short ranged compared to what it used to be. Being unable to melt brawlers fast enough is often the difference between a win and a loss. Successful deathballs inevitably end up with a significant portion of mechs within range of your team, being able to both spread out and melt brawlers is what can give you the win in the end. If you take away the ability to react well enough, you are just forcing the brawl.

[Hotthedd]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 09 February 2016 - 10:00 AM, said:

Actually it is, because the current meta is actually pretty short ranged compared to what it used to be. Being unable to melt brawlers fast enough is often the difference between a win and a loss. Successful deathballs inevitably end up with a significant portion of mechs within range of your team, being able to both spread out and melt brawlers is what can give you the win in the end. If you take away the ability to react well enough, you are just forcing the brawl.

But the ability to land consistent kill shots on relatively fresh 'mechs from across the map does not encourage teamwork, and leads to the "don't be the first 'mech to push" mentality that stagnates games in anything other than well organized groups. There are other things that can be done (by PGI) as far as game -modes to discourage deathballing.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Hotthedd, on 09 February 2016 - 10:08 AM, said:

and leads to the "don't be the first 'mech to push" mentality that stagnates games in anything other than well organized groups.

Considering this a team based game, and PGI should encourage organized group play, I would say keeping it so that brawling isn't the only thing to play in organized group play would be a good idea.

Pushing is hard sometimes in PUGs, provided you get a bunch of bad players, but get a bunch of players in a PUG who at least semi know what they are doing and getting people to push is less difficult. I have seen people actually push together in PUGs, it is not common, but it can and does happen. You also have to keep in mind that even in PUGs, ERLL mechs are not really good, LPL/LL spam mechs tend to work better because ERLL requires other ERLL mechs to really stop people from pushing.

[Kuritaclan]

Mystere, on 09 February 2016 - 09:59 AM, said:

DoctorDetroit, on 09 February 2016 - 05:52 AM, said:

This is seriously like 5 guys that are for this idea and they and they clearly do not care that the vast majority of players would be against it. The only reason a few of us need to keep posting is because PGI isn't always discerning enough about bad ideas. cough* (game mode voting).

I count at least 60.

Well 5, 50 or 500 doesn't be more wrong or wright. This count does not have any value.

I quote myself of of the old thread:

Quote

I knowe for sure the majority of those who wanna have a change are in this thread, but those are a little minority. Who enumerate possible changes and don't include the "no change need" option is clearly not someone i wanna trust to do the best solution, since he by himself exclude all solutions, what is not the way you solve problems. Why you ask. Because maybee the problem is on a other end of the game to search, in first place.

http://mwomercs.com/...ost__p__4357675

Edited by Kuritaclan, 09 February 2016 - 11:18 AM.

[Hotthedd]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 09 February 2016 - 10:15 AM, said:

Considering this a team based game, and PGI should encourage organized group play, I would say keeping it so that brawling isn't the only thing to play in organized group play would be a good idea.

Pushing is hard sometimes in PUGs, provided you get a bunch of bad players, but get a bunch of players in a PUG who at least semi know what they are doing and getting people to push is less difficult. I have seen people actually push together in PUGs, it is not common, but it can and does happen. You also have to keep in mind that even in PUGs, ERLL mechs are not really good, LPL/LL spam mechs tend to work better because ERLL requires other ERLL mechs to really stop people from pushing.

Yes PGI should do more to promote organized team play, and a REALLY good way to do that is to promote team play at ALL levels (which they don't). Lolpha snipers discourage team play on non-organized (TS and unit) teams. Of course sometimes PUGs work as a team, but I can attest that is a small percentage of the time.

[Dagorlad13]

Hotthedd, on 09 February 2016 - 10:08 AM, said:

But the ability to land consistent kill shots on relatively fresh 'mechs from across the map does not encourage teamwork, and leads to the "don't be the first 'mech to push" mentality that stagnates games in anything other than well organized groups. There are other things that can be done (by PGI) as far as game -modes to discourage deathballing.

The majority of maps in MWO have intervening terrain and you only get sniped or focus-fired on if you stand out in the open for too long. COF should not be put in the game to punish players who fire on other players who do not understand how to use cover effectively.

Edited by IronClaws, 09 February 2016 - 10:22 AM.

[Mystere]

Lockon StratosII, on 09 February 2016 - 08:16 AM, said:

How about this: assume perfect convergence we have now unless you try to shoot ____________ at the same time in which case your weapons fire paralel to each other. Revert to original state after 2 seconds

I'd rather have CoF than that. At least CoF as proposed gives a much smaller deviation.

[Mystere]

tortuousGoddess, on 09 February 2016 - 08:38 AM, said:

Incorrect, requiring me to chainfire requires me to maintain facetime, putting me at a significant defensive disadvantage.

Hold on a second! I thought you said RNGJesus will make shots go wildly. If that is indeed the case, then you're not in any disadvantage at all. Right?

[Lockon StratosII]

Mystere, on 09 February 2016 - 10:24 AM, said:

I'd rather have CoF than that. At least CoF as proposed gives a much smaller deviation.

Only if you choose to simultaneously fire the amount of guns that will put you into penalty, even then you could anticipate where will your shots end if you know where your weapons are mounted and compensate for it (like that nova example in the same post, wanna fire all weapons in your left arm knowing it will penalize you, aim a bit higher and to the right to compensate, increases skill cap). Alphas shouldn't be the go to modus operandi but last resort.