1094 replies to this topic

[Kuritaclan]

TexAce, on 10 February 2016 - 01:30 PM, said:

You should already be laughing that any computer weights 1 ton.

Oh no, wait, this is a game with walking robots. You must have already died from laughter when you launched this game.

See where I'm going?

I see your point.

TexAce, on 10 February 2016 - 01:30 PM, said:

Besides who says a mech like an Oxide would need any TCs?
Who says a TC is mendatory in my proposal?
I gave you a POOL of variables to pick from and you are puilling arguments out of your heads how it suits you.

Humm it suits me perfect. Well even without adding aditional equipment every mech has targeting systems included. Anyway decreasing weapon loadout by making this equipment mandatory to acutally get what a mech should do even without adding it in is somewhat fine to lower the fearsome alphas.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Livewyr, on 10 February 2016 - 01:39 PM, said:

Unless one is just being a troll, they could probably conclude that an alpha strike would have a minimum number of weapons... you know.. some qualifiers.

Quit wasting time.

Or maybe alpha strike has had a pretty specific meaning that all the sudden you want to change.....

This pretty much sums it up what it has meant to both TT and MW for years: http://www.sarna.net...ke_%28Tactic%29

[process]

It's semantics at this point. What we call alpha striking in MWO is group firing in previous games.

[Champion of Khorne Lord of Blood]

Livewyr, on 10 February 2016 - 01:39 PM, said:

Unless one is just being a troll, they could probably conclude that an alpha strike would have a minimum number of weapons... you know.. some qualifiers.

Quit wasting time.

We are asking the OP to quit wasting our time and define the specifics of his idea so it may be properly discussed in full in relation with all other things in the game.

[ChaiXuan]

"My proposal is a slight CoF which can be reduced with different items in the game and skill tree perks, but which can also increase if you push your heat too much or alpha your weapons"

I may be late to the conversation, but let me get this straight.

TexAce is proposing to nerf recticules if one decides to ride the line of overheating?

i am just wondering....

[TexAce]

Dakota1000, on 10 February 2016 - 01:44 PM, said:

We are asking the OP to quit wasting our time and define the specifics of his idea so it may be properly discussed in full in relation with all other things in the game.

So you guys can nitpick why I used the number 9 instead of the number 3?

I'm glad there are enough people to not have to have everything laid down in front of them to understand a CONCEPT.

[FupDup]

LordKnightFandragon, on 10 February 2016 - 01:38 PM, said:

I just dont understand why people find having these big *** battle mechs die just as fast as human shooters.

We have all this armor and ****, yet we just go around alphing everything, killing off even super quirked assaults in 3-4 shots.

Its why this game has such stupid *** quirks, what mech is it that has those assinine armor quirks on it? 300 some internal structure? What? The Blackjack was it?

I would use a CoF mechanic to lessen the output that we can put on each other, cuz really, it needs to come down. Melting assault mechs in like 3 hits is ********. I mean, I just ran the training grounds and my Stormcrow was dead in like 4 hits. I couldnt twist away or anything. I came around a corner and the AI Alphad me, I went from yellow to CT Critical damage, I was dead the next hit. That is boring as all ******* hell. If I wanted gameplay like that, I would stay in like Red Orchestra 2, where its OHK city.

were in these big *** mechs, they are supposed to be tanky, your supposed to shoot the **** out of each other for awhile.

>Implying that cones are the only way to accomplish that goal

[Champion of Khorne Lord of Blood]

TexAce, on 10 February 2016 - 01:48 PM, said:

So you guys can nitpick why I used the number 9 instead of the number 3?

I'm glad there are enough people to not have to have everything laid down in front of them to understand a CONCEPT.

We dislike the concept of CoF entirely, we are looking at you to give us any adequate reason why we shouldn't by making a case using real numbers.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

TexAce, on 10 February 2016 - 01:48 PM, said:

I'm glad there are enough people to not have to have everything laid down in front of them to understand a CONCEPT.

The problem is, the numbers matter greatly because as Krivvan pointed out, we could have a spread of 0.00001m and never know the difference.

Well, that and some of us disagree with intended goal of CoF in the first place.

[TexAce]

Dakota1000, on 10 February 2016 - 01:50 PM, said:

We dislike the concept of CoF entirely

If you do why should I bother at all? If you dont like the concept entirely, this is not the thread for you. You said everything you want to say.

[Champion of Khorne Lord of Blood]

TexAce, on 10 February 2016 - 01:52 PM, said:

If you do why should I bother at all? If you dont like the concept entirely, this is not the thread for you. You said everything you want to say.

Its a forum in which your goal with the OP would be to share your message and persuade others to your cause. However, you've instead resorted to calling anyone who brings up valid arguments delusional and have failed to give any solid responses.

Even now you are simply telling anyone who doesn't agree to leave.

[ChaiXuan]

riding the line of maximum heat and over heating is one of the things that i think make this game fun.

take away one's ability to aim as a result of running at maximum heat seems to harsh a punishment for pushing the limits of one's mech.....

or am i misreading the graphics?

[TexAce]

Dakota1000, on 10 February 2016 - 01:55 PM, said:

Its a forum in which your goal with the OP would be to share your message and persuade others to your cause. However, you've instead resorted to calling anyone who brings up valid arguments delusional and have failed to give any solid responses.

Even now you are simply telling anyone who doesn't agree to leave.

If you haven't understood it after 730 posts in this thread, there is no hope for you anyway.

ChaiXuan, on 10 February 2016 - 01:56 PM, said:

riding the line of maximum heat and over heating is one of the things that i think make this game fun.

take away one's ability to aim as a result of running at maximum heat seems to harsh a punishment for pushing the limits of one's mech.....

or am i misreading the graphics?

You are not. This is a fundamental part of the Batteltech universe: heat effects.
This game has practically none except shutdown when over 100 and blow up when over 150.

Many, if not all battletech fans here wait for proper heat effects for years now. This is a part of those heat effects.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

TexAce, on 10 February 2016 - 01:58 PM, said:

You are not. This is a fundamental part of the Batteltech universe: heat effects.

Not if you make or use heat neutral mechs, not that doesn't come up through engine crits and inferno srm-esque weapons, but it doesn't always come into play and you can often avoid it until you start getting beat up.

[Champion of Khorne Lord of Blood]

TexAce, on 10 February 2016 - 01:58 PM, said:

If you haven't understood it after 730 posts in this thread, there is no hope for you anyway.

Its simply hard to understand something when your responses are so defensive rather than educational anyway.

My understanding so far is that you want cone of fire in some way, but do not wish to state any specifics. I've found nothing to understand past that in the form of information. I do adequately understand what a cone of fire is already though, else I wouldn't come to the conversation or be against it.

[Livewyr]

What I think is happening:
They are latching onto an extreme definition of "Cone of Fire" as an area where every part of the cone has an equal chance of being hit. That concept scares them. Rightfully so, I wouldn't want that either.

However, the problem comes when they refuse to acknowledge that the above is not the case. They get stuck in the first thought and reaction. "I move, I miss."

They can't make it to the concept that the cone of fire creates a possibility (not to be confused with a probability) that a shot will miss the intended precise target- let alone that these possibilities are decreased or increased by the player.

--------------------------------------------------------------
If they cannot get beyond that knee-jerk reaction... there is no point in discussing with them; and we should just work on refining the concepts down.

LIke is the bloom for heat linear, or progressive/exponential? (Same for movement)

Edited by Livewyr, 10 February 2016 - 02:07 PM.

[Mystere]

process, on 10 February 2016 - 01:10 PM, said:

Because the OP shows movement as a contributing factor to a larger CoF. How else do I mitigate that? The only circle with the equivalent size as standing still is TC+module+skill unlock.

FupDup, on 10 February 2016 - 01:13 PM, said:

Take a look back at some of those mock-up pictures that Tex made. Specifically, look at the ones that deal with ranges of 400 meters or longer. Heck, even the pictures dealing with only 200 meters and no zoom can be pretty big in some cases.

Those are sure as heck larger than a single body panel even on a heavy like the Cataphract. If smaller targets are involved then it gets even dicier...

Dakota1000, on 10 February 2016 - 01:38 PM, said:

The OP had a picture of a Jenner entirely surrounded by one of the cone of fires at long range.

Do you realize those were just samples for illustrative purposes? They've not even gone through any balancing pass. <smh>

TexAce, on 10 February 2016 - 01:16 PM, said:

I seriously hoped people would have enough brainpower to leave any real numbers out of my proposal and just accept it as a base, a sctructure which is filled with the variables next.

Well, it's entirely your fault you used those big circles. Now almost everyone thinks those are the actual sizes and not that you did those "for illustrative purposes only".

Next time, bring a lawyer to check your caveats.

Edited by Mystere, 10 February 2016 - 02:33 PM.

[Hotthedd]

Dakota1000, on 10 February 2016 - 01:38 PM, said:

You can't put a cone that is larger than a component into a component. The OP had a picture of a Jenner entirely surrounded by one of the cone of fires at long range.

Also you exactly defined an example of random choice, unless you are using 4 and 6 exclusively, which leaves you with only 5, which is still, in essence, a randomness function.

A 33.3% chance is more like a probability curve than random, especially if 5 is more heavily weighted than both 4 and 6.

[ChaiXuan]

TexAce, on 10 February 2016 - 01:58 PM, said:

If you haven't understood it after 730 posts in this thread, there is no hope for you anyway.



You are not. This is a fundamental part of the Batteltech universe: heat effects.
This game has practically none except shutdown when over 100 and blow up when over 150.

Many, if not all battletech fans here wait for proper heat effects for years now. This is a part of those heat effects.

so why not just cut the heat threshhold in half? that would equal longer TTK, no?

Edited by ChaiXuan, 10 February 2016 - 02:09 PM.

[Champion of Khorne Lord of Blood]

Livewyr, on 10 February 2016 - 02:06 PM, said:

What I think is happening:
They are latching onto an extreme definition of "Cone of Fire" as an area where every part of the cone has an equal chance of being hit. That concept scares them. Rightfully so, I wouldn't want that either.

However, the problem comes when they refuse to acknowledge that the above is not the case. They get stuck in the first thought and reaction. "I move, I miss."

They can't make it to the concept that the cone of fire creates a possibility (not to be confused with a probability) that a shot will miss the intended precise target- let alone that these possibilities are decreased or increased by the player.

--------------------------------------------------------------
If they cannot get beyond that knee-jerk reaction... there is no point in discussing with them; and we should just work on refining the concepts down.

LIke is the bloom for heat linear, or progressive/exponential? (Same for movement)

I'm latching onto the concept that even if I am perfectly at an enemy there is still a 1% chance give or take that that shot will miss at no fault of my own and without my opponent being the one who caused it by dodging in any way.

I'm not looking at it in extremes at all, just that even in its smallest possible outcome I would hate the idea of that randomization being there and undermining aiming in general.

From the OP it looks like a much larger chance to miss the component I was aiming at than 1%.

Hotthedd, on 10 February 2016 - 02:07 PM, said:

A 33.3% chance is more like a probability curve than random, especially if 5 is more heavily weighted than both 4 and 6.

Probability is randomness, its weighted randomness, but still random in essence.

Edited by Dakota1000, 10 February 2016 - 02:11 PM.