1094 replies to this topic

[oldradagast]

IronClaws, on 10 February 2016 - 06:19 PM, said:

Exactly. The COF crowd just wants another crutch for bad players.

Lol - assumptions much?

Anyone who's actually skilled at this game doesn't need the crutch of instant, perfect convergence to win matches.

And anyone who's actually READ what's been written on the topic and thought about it before showcasing their ignorance with sweeping rants against "bads" would realize that convergence is NOT skill, and - since everyone would be affected by the cone of fire in the same way - good players will still beat poor ones.

The idiocy... We've been over it a billion times, explaining everything from the problems of pinpoint instant convergence to the fact that Battltech requires damage scatter for the system to work, and all we hear back are the blathering of dullards about how, somehow, removing instant, perfect convergence is going to make it "impossible" to kill all those "stupid bads" who they so hate and yet who clearly are just as "skilled" as they are.

Edited by oldradagast, 10 February 2016 - 07:13 PM.

[Dagorlad13]

oldradagast, on 10 February 2016 - 07:10 PM, said:

Lol - assumptions much?

Anyone who's actually skilled at this game doesn't need the crutch of instant, perfect convergence to win matches.

And anyone who's actually READ what's been written on the topic and thought about it before showcasing their ignorance with sweeping rants against "bads" would realize that convergence is NOT skill, and - since everyone would be affected by the cone of fire in the same way - good players will still beat poor ones.

The idiocy... We've been over it a billion times, explaining everything from the problems of pinpoint instant convergence to the fact that Battltech requires damage scatter for the system to work, and all we hear back are the blathering of dullards about how, somehow, removing instant, perfect convergence is going to make it "impossible" to kill all those "stupid bads" who they so hate and yet who clearly are just as "skilled" as they are.

It is "idiocy" if people do not agree with the opinions you support? Yes, assuming RNG COF is good for this game is indeed an opinion and not a fact, regardless of how loudly you or anyone else proclaims it.

Edited by IronClaws, 10 February 2016 - 07:20 PM.

[SQW]

lex conway, on 10 February 2016 - 06:12 PM, said:

Weapons have a range component that needs to be factored in, penalties for firing while moving, burn times, all this makes one shot difficult enough. Sometimes I only get one shot from a position, then I have to flee. After all the effort to set myself up for that one good shot, to have it miss while my reticule was on target would be disheartening.

And that's why COF will make you play smart instead of play quick. If you've really set yourself up for a good shot with a good location, on the flank, not running at 120km/hr, you wouldn't miss due to low COF. If your 'good setup' is just popping out of the cover for 1 sec in order to alpha 6 lasers onto a pixel thanks to magic computer aiming for you, then you are just relying on twitch reflex (a skill yes, but a low level skill).

Current MWO: Have to worry about aiming. 2 Alpha kills target. Move on to next target.

MWO with COF: Have to worry about aiming. Have to worry about what happens when your 2 alphas didn't kill the mech immediately. Can I take the return fire? Do I have a retreat ready? Are there covering fire from team mates to kill that mech quickly because my 2 alphas may not do the job?

[MW Waldorf Statler]

give away the "I´m here arrows" in MWO ,like the Battlefield Bad Company 2 Arrows , an give MWO a Targetsystem like War Thunder ...COF is evry a bad system ...





which matches the weapon muzzle with the eye.

Edited by Old MW4 Ranger, 10 February 2016 - 07:40 PM.

[MW Waldorf Statler]

ice trey, on 10 February 2016 - 04:47 PM, said:

40 pages? Holy crapstacks.

But as for me, totally for it. As someone who's been playing the game for over a decade, and reading the novels for twice that, I can say for sure that a cone-of-fire mechanic better recreates the Battletech setting in a game, and there's absolutely nothing wrong with doing so. Some people tend to think that "Skill" can only be achieved through pinpoint accuracy, but I'm pretty sure that Counterstrike's following would have other things to say about that.

I also made a thread about it during the early open/closed beta days. Again, people seem to have a very narrow perception of what skill is. "Skill isn't conscious but subconscious. It's not about positioning or balancing stability versus mobility, but how quick your nerves are and how accurately and quickly you can put that crosshair over something". But this is Battletech - MechWarriors in giant, cobbled-together but near-invincible Battlemechs that are barely understood - not Area 51 or house of the Dead, where it's point, trigger, dead.

Most of the issues that PGI has faced in making this game balanced stems from the fact that they've set it up that most every shot is pinpoint accurate on the reticule. Having to make lasers slow and drawn out, having to boost the armor to twice it's canon rates... it pretty well all stems from the fact that they're putting all the power in the players' abilities - but those abilities are all in reflex, less in critical thinking.

Cone of fire would give players a reason to consider whether approaching at top speed or a walking pace. It would also better show the difference of why 4 medium lasers aren't as effective as an AC20. When the damage is spread out, the mechs survive much longer. We can see a whole lot less pinpoint 60 damage mechs. Spread damage means every mech lasts a little longer on the field. Harassing lights have to expose themselves longer. Assaults can lead the charge longer, and the game really starts to live true to the name "The thinking mans' shooter", rather than a twitch-clicky dead in two alphas game.

As for arguments that "Modern tanks can hit a target while moving at 6 billion miles away", sure, whatever, but the Battletech setting is really more of a glorified World War 2 with giant robots. Accuracy isn't great, Mechs are far from comfortable, and you don't have the best the world has to offer. Most machines aren't running on modern targeting computers, but rather glorified hundred-year-old 286es with amber-screen monitors overheating and struggling to keep all the weapons systems pointing in the same direction. This is not a high tech setting. It's a setting of failing tech. You consider yourself lucky that you've found a 300 year old dell laptop in an abandoned bunker somewhere in a forgotten corner of space that has instructions on how to build a hydroponic farm.

nonsense ...the mechs in the tabletop are worse shooters as a musketeer in the American Revolution War
over other strategical Boardgames, BT has really a very simple abstract system, and the Novels most very poor Trash ...10m Warmachines fight like giant Wrestling Stars

Edited by Old MW4 Ranger, 10 February 2016 - 09:08 PM.

[SQW]

IronClaws, on 10 February 2016 - 07:20 PM, said:

It is "idiocy" if people do not agree with the opinions you support? Yes, assuming RNG COF is good for this game is indeed an opinion and not a fact, regardless of how loudly you or anyone else proclaims it.

Maybe not idiocy but definitely stubborn.

Did Counter Strike break FPS when recoil was introduced? Did the previous generation of LEET shooters suddenly become overwhelmed by a sea of noobs surviving perfectly aimed shots?

COF vs no COF has been settled in FPS genre a decade ago. Go to ARMA or Battlefield forum and argue that COF is making things too easy and watch the response. We are only having this argument here because PGI, for some unknown reason, decided to bring back hit-scan weapon with perfect converging accuracy leading to this whole boating fiasco. Those of you who have spent the last 2 years polishing the art of twitch aiming and pop tarting just don't want to step into the deeper end of the pool.

[MW Waldorf Statler]

SQW, on 10 February 2016 - 07:37 PM, said:

Maybe not idiocy but definitely stubborn.

Did Counter Strike break FPS when recoil was introduced? Did the previous generation of LEET shooters suddenly become overwhelmed by a sea of noobs surviving perfectly aimed shots?

COF vs no COF has been settled in FPS genre a decade ago. Go to ARMA or Battlefield forum and argue that COF is making things too easy and watch the response. We are only having this argument here because PGI, for some unknown reason, decided to bring back hit-scan weapon with perfect converging accuracy leading to this whole boating fiasco. Those of you who have spent the last 2 years polishing the art of twitch aiming and pop tarting just don't want to step into the deeper end of the pool.

a Battlemech is nothing a Gigant Infantrymen, is a Weapons Platform, nothing Hold the Weapons with Muscles, not aiming with the eye over the Weapons sight...a infantryman have nothing a Target system in the brain ,and not biological Sightsystem,thats the difference from MW to all Shooters with infantrymen....the system of the board game is very old,unrealistic and abstract ...the only ,was can make a player in the TT, move, select weapons, the rest of the dice decides .

Edited by Old MW4 Ranger, 10 February 2016 - 07:48 PM.

[SQW]

Old MW4 Ranger, on 10 February 2016 - 07:41 PM, said:

a Battlemech is nothing a Gigant Infantrymen, is a Weapons Platform, nothing Hold the Weapons with Muscles, not aiming with the eye over the Weapons sight...a infantryman have nothing a Target system in the brain ,and not biological Sightsystem,thats the difference from MW to all Shooters with infantrymen

And a multi ton, moving, vibrating machinery trying to hit another moving object will have perfect accuracy just because the artificial reticule on your HUD is pointing at your target? I'd like to say it's not a video game but there's too much irony in that statement. =P

Battletech is what it is because of it's rich lore and history and everything says perfect convergence is wrong. Not just lore wise but gameplay wise for a supposedly 'thinking man's shooter'. We are not arguing about the sci-fi tech here. We are talking about whether COF is more fun for MWO. The opponents' arguments are 1. It's less skilled because RNG takes away skill (somehow) and 2. noobs will able to compete with leets thanks to the previous point (somehow).

[LordKnightFandragon]

IronClaws, on 10 February 2016 - 07:20 PM, said:

It is "idiocy" if people do not agree with the opinions you support? Yes, assuming RNG COF is good for this game is indeed an opinion and not a fact, regardless of how loudly you or anyone else proclaims it.

WHy is PPFLD instant convergeance good for the game?

Were in big *** heavily armored robots dying just as fast as the human shooters....and twisting is a joke, half the time you cant twist away fast enough, and you wont twist away enough damage to even matter, unless the guy is not alphaing you.

Edited by LordKnightFandragon, 10 February 2016 - 08:00 PM.

[LordKnightFandragon]

TexAce, on 10 February 2016 - 03:22 PM, said:

[Off-Topic] I remember proposing another idea how to lower TTK but keep it nearly the same as of now. Unlimit max armor per location. So basically you would have a max armor you could put on the mech like as now, but you could distribute it as you like. 200 armor on CT? If you wish. All armor distributed only on CT and STs? If you wish so. [/Off-Topic]

I guess its a good thing we dont have to worry about balancing the mech out so it doesnt adversely affect movement. I thought somewhere in TT, you had to have even load distributon on the mech, much like loading a Semi tractor trailer, where if you dont load it right, it has control issues on the road.

Then loading armor all in one spot would be not unlike not evenly distributing the weight across the 3 axles on a 18 wheeler, where if you put 50,000lbs on the drive tires, 18k on the steer tires and just 12k on the trailer tires, you would have control issues and increase the chance of a blowout......pretty much the mechs structure wouldnt be able to even support 200 armor on the CT.....

That proposal almost sounds like this game needs to just change its name to Mechassault 5......cuz really, at this point, MWO seems alot more like MA and alot less like any kind of Battletech.

[Kuritaclan]

ice trey, on 10 February 2016 - 04:47 PM, said:

As for arguments that "Modern tanks can hit a target while moving at 6 billion miles away", sure, whatever, but the Battletech setting is really more of a glorified World War 2 with giant robots. Accuracy isn't great, Mechs are far from comfortable, and you don't have the best the world has to offer. Most machines aren't running on modern targeting computers, but rather glorified hundred-year-old 286es with amber-screen monitors overheating and struggling to keep all the weapons systems pointing in the same direction. This is not a high tech setting. It's a setting of failing tech. You consider yourself lucky that you've found a 300 year old dell laptop in an abandoned bunker somewhere in a forgotten corner of space that has instructions on how to build a hydroponic farm.

Sorry that i need to debunk you. You should read the novels again. And get back into the Field Manuals. This is not a "glorified World War 2 with giant robots".

"Computers have been a fact of daily life for more than a thousand years and reamin in widespread use ampng the military and civilians on major planets." - As could be read in LosTech. Clearly plans of a hydroponic farm are speculative rare. But The 300 year old dell laptop is ********. Also Battletechs stil been programmed with Descartes Computers and so on. And they get stil manufactured on the remaining facilitys. And that is also true for the equipment to sustain them over centurys long. The world isn't shiney but is pretty much what we have now at the capitals and among strong populated industrial worlds, with some gimicks like Holoprojectors and Flat TVs.

Edited by Kuritaclan, 10 February 2016 - 08:22 PM.

[MW Waldorf Statler]

Kuritaclan, on 10 February 2016 - 08:18 PM, said:

Sorry that i need to debunk you. You should read the novels again. And get back into the Field Manuals. This is not a "glorified World War 2 with giant robots".

"Computers have been a fact of daily life for more than a thousand years and reamin in widespread use ampng the military and civilians on major planets." - As could be read in LosTech. Clearly plans of a hydroponic farm are speculative rare. But The 300 year old dell laptop is ********. Also Battletechs stil been programmed with Descartes Computers and so on. And they get stil manufactured on the remaining facilitys. And that is also true for the equipment to sustain them over centurys long. The world isn't shiney but is pretty much what we have now at the capitals and among strong populated industrial worlds, with some gimicks like Holoprojectors and Flat TVs.

Hi Kuritaclan


an with this Tech fight Aerofighter against Aerospacefighter , and Mech fights against Aerofighters ? with this technique might not fly once or maneuver with this in space, not to mention JumpShips very one..navigate Jumpships with a Abacus? or Sextant or can walk with a Mech..each Infantrymen in the 31 century shooting and aiming better as the Mechs...ok, give away the Zoom for the Mechs, all Optical systems and paint a Cursor of the Monitor...the Story of Battletech is





unfortunately very easy and far from every reality, is a good for a very simple Boardgame system , not more

Edited by Old MW4 Ranger, 10 February 2016 - 09:20 PM.

[Dagorlad13]

SQW, on 10 February 2016 - 07:58 PM, said:

And a multi ton, moving, vibrating machinery trying to hit another moving object will have perfect accuracy just because the artificial reticule on your HUD is pointing at your target? I'd like to say it's not a video game but there's too much irony in that statement. =P

Battletech is what it is because of it's rich lore and history and everything says perfect convergence is wrong. Not just lore wise but gameplay wise for a supposedly 'thinking man's shooter'. We are not arguing about the sci-fi tech here. We are talking about whether COF is more fun for MWO. The opponents' arguments are 1. It's less skilled because RNG takes away skill (somehow) and 2. noobs will able to compete with leets thanks to the previous point (somehow).

So, facing a stationary target at medium range while standing still and firing a torso mounted weapon at the target's torso, but somehow randomly hitting the foot instead is your idea of fun? Seriously, carefully aiming at something that you should be able to hit and missing because of some lame RNG system is NOT FUN.

Edited by IronClaws, 10 February 2016 - 09:58 PM.

[Champion of Khorne Lord of Blood]

SQW, on 10 February 2016 - 07:58 PM, said:

And a multi ton, moving, vibrating machinery trying to hit another moving object will have perfect accuracy just because the artificial reticule on your HUD is pointing at your target? I'd like to say it's not a video game but there's too much irony in that statement. =P

Battletech is what it is because of it's rich lore and history and everything says perfect convergence is wrong. Not just lore wise but gameplay wise for a supposedly 'thinking man's shooter'. We are not arguing about the sci-fi tech here. We are talking about whether COF is more fun for MWO. The opponents' arguments are 1. It's less skilled because RNG takes away skill (somehow) and 2. noobs will able to compete with leets thanks to the previous point (somehow).

You and I have some pretty different definitions of fun, just saying.

[adamts01]

tortuousGoddess, on 09 February 2016 - 04:59 AM, said:

Alright, I ignored this the first time but it's bothering me. CoF is NOT a good model for what occurs in real life competitive target shooting. Bullet deviation in real life is affected by a slew of factors that don't exist in this game, including wind and other environmental factors, the specific model and condition of the gun being used, the shooter's familiarity with the behavior of the gun, the shooter's stance and technique, etc. There are dozens of additional factors that competitive shooters take into account when they compete, to compensate for the factors that create bullet deviation.

What competitive shooters do NOT do, is pray to RNGesus.

CoF is praying to RNGesus. CoF is bad for competition.

I'm catching up but had to reply to this. I'm on page 20 but I'll be back soon. Read what absolutely every single sniper has written about their longest shot, "there was a lot of luck involved." Absolutely every one. Because they know, at 1,600 yards, their 7.62x51 could have landed anywhere within a 2 foot COF. You're connecting two separate things, shooter error (breath control, cheek weld, wind call, trigger pull....) and platform error (the COF of the weapon system: Type and condition of weapon combined with ammo). The absolute best rifles are 1/4 MOA, that means that at 1000 yards, the bullet will randomly hit anywhere within about a 3" circle. Your daddy's deer rifle, probably more like 1.5 MOA, so that 1000 yard head shot on a deer was mostly luck, there was a lot of skill involved, but at the end of the day RNG was to thank.

[Champion of Khorne Lord of Blood]

adamts01, on 10 February 2016 - 10:19 PM, said:

I'm catching up but had to reply to this. I'm on page 20 but I'll be back soon. Read what absolutely every single sniper has written about their longest shot, "there was a lot of luck involved." Absolutely every one. Because they know, at 1,600 yards, their 7.62x51 could have landed anywhere within a 2 foot COF. You're connecting two separate things, shooter error (breath control, cheek weld, wind call, trigger pull....) and platform error (the COF of the weapon system: Type and condition of weapon combined with ammo). The absolute best rifles are 1/4 MOA, that means that at 1000 yards, the bullet will randomly hit anywhere within about a 3" circle. Your daddy's deer rifle, probably more like 1.5 MOA, so that 1000 yard head shot on a deer was mostly luck, there was a lot of skill involved, but at the end of the day RNG was to thank.

I'd like to mention that 3 inches is nearly nothing when it comes to the size of a mech. Also things like lasers aren't effected by drop or wind resistance and simply are pinpoint. I guess people could argue for spread, recoil, and other mechanics on the ballistics, but people don't really want that for the most part, especially if lasers stayed pinpoint also.

[Mystere]

IronClaws, on 10 February 2016 - 09:57 PM, said:

So, facing a stationary target at medium range while standing still and firing a torso mounted weapon at the target's torso, but somehow randomly hitting the foot instead is your idea of fun?

Again, that's nothing but gross misrepresentation of the OP. <smh>

[adamts01]

Dakota1000, on 10 February 2016 - 10:41 PM, said:

I'd like to mention that 3 inches is nearly nothing when it comes to the size of a mech. Also things like lasers aren't effected by drop or wind resistance and simply are pinpoint. I guess people could argue for spread, recoil, and other mechanics on the ballistics, but people don't really want that for the most part, especially if lasers stayed pinpoint also.

Tortuous has used competition shooting as an argument against COF but in actuality it's a perfect example of why I want it in game. As a lifelong shooter it just makes my brain hurt listening to him talk about actual ballistics. I'm not asking for real life values in game, that just wouldn't translate well, just a little more realism than what we have.

[SQW]

COF is an attempt to simulate the inherent inaccuracies of weapon fire. Yes, your multi-ton mech is not a precision machine. It moves, it vibrates, electronics suffers damage and the whole contraption knocked around all match. Of course it shouldn't be able to shoot out 6 different weapons and have them land on the exact spot every time regardless what a HUD reticule says.

No idea why the anti-cof crowd is so opposed to the idea of adding a bit of realism to a sim game.

adamts01, on 10 February 2016 - 10:51 PM, said:

Tortuous has used competition shooting as an argument against COF but in actuality it's a perfect example of why I want it in game. As a lifelong shooter it just makes my brain hurt listening to him talk about actual ballistics. I'm not asking for real life values in game, that just wouldn't translate well, just a little more realism than what we have.

According to Tortuous, he has 80+ mastered mech in his stable. You don't play that much MWO without getting attached to a certain way of doing things.

It's almost like a tribal thing now. =)

[H I A S]

SQW, on 10 February 2016 - 07:37 PM, said:

Maybe not idiocy but definitely stubborn.

Did Counter Strike break FPS when recoil was introduced? Did the previous generation of LEET shooters suddenly become overwhelmed by a sea of noobs surviving perfectly aimed shots?

COF vs no COF has been settled in FPS genre a decade ago. Go to ARMA or Battlefield forum and argue that COF is making things too easy and watch the response. We are only having this argument here because PGI, for some unknown reason, decided to bring back hit-scan weapon with perfect converging accuracy leading to this whole boating fiasco. Those of you who have spent the last 2 years polishing the art of twitch aiming and pop tarting just don't want to step into the deeper end of the pool.

Do you know why CS is a better FPS than Battlefield? You can handle the recoil and its not random.
Do you know the difference between any infantery FPS and MWO? In an infantery FPS you stop immediately.
So a COF based on movement will punish it and reward camping when the opponents are on the same level.