1094 replies to this topic

[Brandarr Gunnarson]

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

Firstly, it's allegedly too difficult for people to understand.

Secondly, your reticle assumes the weapons hardpoints all form a line on the horizontal (). I'd rather have a dispersal pattern relative to reticle center or know enough details of the hardpoint locations that I will not even need the extra dots and just mentally imagine their relative position to center.

Well, the main point of it isn't to create some illusion of reality or even to accurately correspond with every weapon on you're 'Mech.

That could be done, I suppose; perhaps by making the reticle a "box" with each hardpoint on the 'Mech corresponding to a point inside that box.

The major purpose of my suggestion was to preserve "skillz" (that is, pinpoint accuracy) while preventing pinpoint alpha in a way that doesn't bother with HSR (dynamic convergence) and is NOT CoF.

From a "realism" standpoint, it is no different than what we have currently.

From a game play stand point, it solves a problem that many take issue with (the super-alpha) without causing the problems that others take issue with (loss of "skillz").

[Krivvan]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 09 February 2016 - 02:29 PM, said:

At best, with CoF requires equal skill, at worst it requires you to get as much of the target within your reticle as possible which is less skillful than being able to pick out slivers of hitboxes and hit something the enemy was trying to twist away.

I'd argue that it does in fact require equal skill. What CoF does change in the end is the result, where the same amount of skill has a higher chance of leading to a bad result.

[Kuritaclan]

Krivvan, on 09 February 2016 - 07:16 PM, said:

I'd argue that it does in fact require equal skill. What CoF does change in the end is the result, where the same amount of skill has a higher chance of leading to a bad result.

Or unpredictable overly good ones. It's a coin flip. Remember. In worse situations however murphy's law always kicks in.

[Imperius]

TexAce, on 09 February 2016 - 04:24 PM, said:

550 comments and 3 threads about basically the same topic and no sight of PGI whatsoever.....tells enough.

I'm sure they have read it. Reading and agreeing with it are two different things.

I myself will never agree to have COF added to the game.

Edited by Imperius, 09 February 2016 - 07:28 PM.

[Dino Might]

To finally end the "no skills for aiming anymore" parade:


^ requires better aim to guarantee hits on the locations you are trying to shoot. The skill ceiling is higher.

Edited by Dino Might, 10 February 2016 - 03:23 AM.

[Ratpoison]

Dino Might, on 10 February 2016 - 03:22 AM, said:

To finally end the "no skills for aiming anymore" parade:


^ requires better aim to guarantee hits on the locations you are trying to shoot. The skill ceiling is higher.

You have GOT to be joking.

[oldradagast]

tortuousGoddess, on 10 February 2016 - 04:00 AM, said:

You have GOT to be joking.

I forget - is this proposal bad because:

• It is too hard on "skilled" players and would remove all skill in the game, because we're to believe convergence is skill, and removal of pinpoint instance convergence would make all good players terrible because aiming is the only skill required in this game and somehow poor skill players benefit from having some accuracy reduction at long ranges, while skilled players are hurt by it.
  
• It is too hard on new players, because somehow we're to believe that skilled players don't benefit from instant, perfect convergence, and only unskilled ones do.
  
• You don't like it because it is different and would make your laser-vomit builds a hair less effective in absolute terms - though not in relative terms - at ranges.
  
• It's bad because it is different and you didn't even read or understand what is written, so you decide to rail against a "60-degree cone of fire on all weapons," or whatever you think was said.

It's hard to keep track of all the laughable replies given by the pro instant, perfect convergence crowd - including conflicting replies from the same individuals over and over again - so perhaps just picking an illogical response off the above list would make things easier on all of us.

Edited by oldradagast, 10 February 2016 - 04:28 AM.

[Ratpoison]

I know you like to latch onto anything, but are you seriously implying the above picture makes any sense? With it's miracle one-size-fits-all-ranges CoF? I'm not interested in debating jokes.

[oldradagast]

tortuousGoddess, on 10 February 2016 - 04:27 AM, said:

I know you like to latch onto anything, but are you seriously implying the above picture makes any sense? With it's miracle one-size-fits-all-ranges CoF? I'm not interested in debating jokes.

Then leave. You don't understand what anyone here has proposed anyway.

[Dino Might]

tortuousGoddess, on 10 February 2016 - 04:27 AM, said:

I know you like to latch onto anything, but are you seriously implying the above picture makes any sense? With it's miracle one-size-fits-all-ranges CoF? I'm not interested in debating jokes.

Please, quote where I said any of what you stated above. The "one-size fits all CoF" idea was just introduced by you, for no reason, other than to argue with...yourself?

I drew a simple picture in MS Paint to illustrate why CoF does not make the shooting aspect of this game require less skill. I couldn't use a more complicated picture to illustrate a simple point because you weren't understanding my discussion earlier. So I dumbed it down to a simple case that shows the general behavior or how a CoF impacts play.

Here's a thought - if that CoF circle gets larger, what happens to the hitbox required to guarantee a hit in the CT? Hint: It gets smaller (requiring even more aiming skill).

No matter how large or small your CoF is, it will always result in a hitbox for guaranteed hit to be smaller than it is now. That requires more skill. If you are running and at high heat, you need to make up for that with better aim. You can still do it, but now you have to balance multiple factors instead of just pointing and clicking.

Here I am, muddy again. Sigh*

Edited by Dino Might, 10 February 2016 - 04:49 AM.

[Dino Might]

oldradagast, on 10 February 2016 - 04:28 AM, said:

Then leave. You don't understand what anyone here has proposed anyway.

Why should that person leave when that person can argue with strawmen and [implied] ad hominem tactics? It's the only way to win a debate!

Edited by Dino Might, 10 February 2016 - 04:52 AM.

[Ratpoison]

Dino Might, on 10 February 2016 - 04:47 AM, said:

Please, quote where I said any of what you stated above. The "one-size fits all CoF" idea was just introduced by you, for no reason, other than to argue with...yourself?

I drew a simple picture in MS Paint to illustrate why CoF does not make the shooting aspect of this game require less skill. I couldn't use a more complicated picture to illustrate a simple point because you weren't understanding my discussion earlier. So I dumbed it down to a simple case that shows the general behavior or how a CoF impacts play.

Here I am, muddy again. Sigh*

And conveniently left out what it would look like if the target backed up a bit...

I'm not dignifying this hamfisted attempt to legitimize CoF. Come up with a real concept that actually considers its full impact on the game balance, instead of trying to make excuses for bad ideas using bad logic.

Edited by tortuousGoddess, 10 February 2016 - 04:54 AM.

[LordKnightFandragon]

oldradagast, on 10 February 2016 - 04:22 AM, said:

I forget - is this proposal bad because:

• It is too hard on "skilled" players and would remove all skill in the game, because we're to believe convergence is skill, and removal of pinpoint instance convergence would make all good players terrible because aiming is the only skill required in this game and somehow poor skill players benefit from having some accuracy reduction at long ranges, while skilled players are hurt by it.
  
• It is too hard on new players, because somehow we're to believe that skilled players don't benefit from instant, perfect convergence, and only unskilled ones do.
  
• You don't like it because it is different and would make your laser-vomit builds a hair less effective in absolute terms - though not in relative terms - at ranges.
  
• It's bad because it is different and you didn't even read or understand what is written, so you decide to rail against a "60-degree cone of fire on all weapons," or whatever you think was said.

It's hard to keep track of all the laughable replies given by the pro instant, perfect convergence crowd - including conflicting replies from the same individuals over and over again - so perhaps just picking an illogical response off the above list would make things easier on all of us.

Lol, what I dont get is why every game ever uses a COF, but somehow you even think of adding it to MWO and suddenly it would destroy the game. That is what I cant get, why does everyone think the game would suddenly be destroyed and unplayable because we have some sort of deviate/RNG and CoF!?

Is everyone that stuck in their metamechs?

[Livewyr]

tortuousGoddess, on 10 February 2016 - 04:53 AM, said:

And conveniently left out what it would look like if the target backed up a bit...

I'm not dignifying this hamfisted attempt to legitimize CoF. Come up with a real concept that actually considers its full impact on the game balance, instead of trying to make excuses for bad ideas using bad logic.

It's clear that you didn't read the OP then.

Let me make it perfectly clear, so you have an absolutely perfect understanding of the proposal.

If you have an elited mech that is sitting still (or not moving too quickly) then you have perfect convergence like what we have now. The "Center point" would adjust perfectly, like what we have now. It would still, in effect, be perfect convergence.

Here is what changes:
That center point ceases to be the only place the shot lands, as you do more things.
As you move faster, the circle within which your shot would land increases. (Still generally towards the middle, but the odds of it missing the perfect center increase as the circle gets larger.)
As your mech gets hotter, the circle within which your shot would land increases.

Therefore, if you're trying to make a long range accurate shot, you need to slow down (and/or cool off) before taking said long range accurate shot. (You can still shoot while moving/hot, but the accuracy of your shot is no longer guaranteed.)
At close range, the target is bigger so decreased accuracy due to heat/movement is less of a concern.


TL;DR?
The perfect convergence centerpoint doesn't change. Only the chance of the player hitting that perfect convergence centerpoint will change, according to the player's actions.

I don't think that could be any clearer.

Edited by Livewyr, 10 February 2016 - 06:08 AM.

[Livewyr]

-----------------------DIFFERENT POINT------------------------
I also like that this will cripple jumpsnipers, but not jump shooting altogether.

Jumping/shooting such as in a brawl or attacking a level above you would be arguably better than it is now, since this would replace the current (very strange) mechanic they have now.

Jumpsniping would be possible, but extremely chancy.

[ComradeHavoc]

You can hear the metamech pilots scream for stagnation when MWO desperately needs to add variety or some skill. This proposal is a go.

[Shredhead]

Livewyr, on 10 February 2016 - 06:07 AM, said:

It's clear that you didn't read the OP then.

Let me make it perfectly clear, so you have an absolutely perfect understanding of the proposal.

If you have an elited mech that is sitting still (or not moving too quickly) then you have perfect convergence like what we have now. The "Center point" would adjust perfectly, like what we have now. It would still, in effect, be perfect convergence.

Here is what changes:
That center point ceases to be the only place the shot lands, as you do more things.
As you move faster, the circle within which your shot would land increases. (Still generally towards the middle, but the odds of it missing the perfect center increase as the circle gets larger.)
As your mech gets hotter, the circle within which your shot would land increases.

Therefore, if you're trying to make a long range accurate shot, you need to slow down (and/or cool off) before taking said long range accurate shot. (You can still shoot while moving/hot, but the accuracy of your shot is no longer guaranteed.)
At close range, the target is bigger so decreased accuracy due to heat/movement is less of a concern.


TL;DR?
The perfect convergence centerpoint doesn't change. Only the chance of the player hitting that perfect convergence centerpoint will change, according to the player's actions.

I don't think that could be any clearer.

Yeah, this BS idea is clear as hell. Punish people who are moving, encourage stale long range gameplay with low heat weapons.
Basically, reward people who can't be arsed to learn to aim by dragging down people who can to their level. Full on SJW/tumblrFeminist reasoning with no thought on the impact this would have on gameplay.

ComradeHavoc, on 10 February 2016 - 06:34 AM, said:

You can hear the metamech pilots scream for stagnation when MWO desperately needs to add variety or some skill. This proposal is a go.

What has CoF to do with skill? How would it add any need for more skill, when it evens out the odds between skilled and unskilled shooters? What does meta have to do with the whole thing?
Why are you guys all strawmanning so hard? Why can't you just admit you're bad and want to pull everyone else down to your level? You're so dishonest it's disgusting!

This would be a depiction of what a CoF in this case would do, and only up close. Mid to long range would be way worse:

My gimp skills are simply amazing. Deal with it!
***30%, not 10.

Edited by Shredhead, 10 February 2016 - 07:21 AM.

[LordKnightFandragon]

Livewyr, on 10 February 2016 - 06:10 AM, said:

-----------------------DIFFERENT POINT------------------------
I also like that this will cripple jumpsnipers, but not jump shooting altogether.

Jumping/shooting such as in a brawl or attacking a level above you would be arguably better than it is now, since this would replace the current (very strange) mechanic they have now.

Jumpsniping would be possible, but extremely chancy.

Why do we think it would cripple jump sniping? Cripple? no, make it a little less effective? Sure.

Some COF actually makes games alot more enjoyable overall. I have played in my Men of war mod, I set CoF to practically 0 on all my guns, from tank guns, to LMGs to tank heavy cannons to artillery, honestly, it made the TTK so high you honestly couldnt even play the game.

I have since then dialed back the CoF to where it deviates the shells and can make fire fights go on for a bit, but its not so crippling that nothing dies, and that is how it should be. Fights should go on for the full 15 minutes. There should be some back and forth in the fight. The maps are what? 2km x 2km? Yet we only play on the same 100x100m square of every map due to feeling the need to deathball for protection from the deathball and PPD. Some CoF, some deviation, some degree of notlanding every ounce of firepower in one little section would simply make it where players could move around, play the game, try different strategies, it might even validate PPCs when Lasers are being fired 1 or 2 at a time for more accuracy, over 6 at a time for 60 damage. Acutocannons and LRMs might even find validity, since every weapon is being fired in smaller numbers.

[MW Waldorf Statler]

realistic ...with a Long Range Black powder Sharprifle from 1874 (Replica) sitting by firing ,95% of the Hits in a range of 656 yard (600meters) all in a 60cm x 60 cm Hitzone

and a Mech nothing hit a Hitzone from 400cm x 400cm in 400m ???? and in theBaord game not aiming and Hit a Hitzone like a cockpit by a still standing mech in 30m ?????

Edited by Old MW4 Ranger, 10 February 2016 - 08:02 AM.

[Mystere]

Dino Might, on 10 February 2016 - 03:22 AM, said:

To finally end the "no skills for aiming anymore" parade:


^ requires better aim to guarantee hits on the locations you are trying to shoot. The skill ceiling is higher.

It's always been a red herring argument following this logic:

CoF --> Random Numbers --> 100% wild misses --> The Devil/Lucifer/Satan

oldradagast, on 10 February 2016 - 04:28 AM, said:

Then leave. You don't understand what anyone here has proposed anyway.

Dino Might, on 10 February 2016 - 04:47 AM, said:

Please, quote where I said any of what you stated above. The "one-size fits all CoF" idea was just introduced by you, for no reason, other than to argue with...yourself?

Forget it, he does not even understand what a normal distribution is.

Edited by Mystere, 10 February 2016 - 08:00 AM.