1094 replies to this topic

[Kuritaclan]

Lily from animove, on 12 February 2016 - 03:47 AM, said:

Quote

The exact same caliber of shell fired in a 100 shot burst to do 20 damage will have a shorter effective range than when fired in a 10 shot burst to do 2 damage due to recoil and other factors.

With a BT turn being 10 seconds, thats 10 shots per second of an AC 20 that uses this kind of shots, not even speakign of autocannons. That may not be what you lik to define "rapid" but its clearly not "once in a while"

I know that you are upset. And I know you and others would get disturbed by once in a while. And because of this i put it in quotation marks. However there is a big difference having a Machinegun fire 1200 rounds a minute and having it fire 120 times. And that is what the text you quoted talks about. Weapons that uses multiple times the projects over another to deliver the same impact energy is only as effective in penetrating armor, if all the bullets hit the same target area. An because that is the case the rabbit of all of this is get a bigger weapon that shots less ofter but more accurate, because the accurarcy is a function of cadence and recoil. Thats what the text talks about. And i said nothing more or less than that. Percice osition determination is a pretty hard task for a regulation system and it is even harder when it is dynamic. Dynamic it becomes when the recoil is that often that the weapon does not have time to get back into a zero position between the shots. But you know thats maybee to complex to think through for you. Reality stinks.

Lily from animove, on 12 February 2016 - 03:47 AM, said:

They are not meant to operate normal under extreme conditions, but this does not nullfiy not being able to work under extreme conditions a the expanse of some performanse just LIKE NEARLY ANYTHING IN OUR LIFE.

If the purpouse is to funcition under extreme condition, there is no expanse of performance. The performance have to be under every case 100% or you have errors which are in a military problem definition a condition of loss. Therefore no military or equipment that controlls risk situations is desigend with such flaws. And if you can not evade the flaw because of physics you rather go for the option to not destroy it unless you can rebuild it. And the later part many deny for Battle Tech.

Doman Hugin, on 12 February 2016 - 05:32 AM, said:

There was never a set number of shells for auto-cannons.

From memory as i have no material to hand:

Summoner's Ultra AC20 fired so many rounds as to be a nearly continuous stream of rounds if fired on ultra.

Victor's Pantiac AC20 was a single round.

and there were many in between

Matter of fact is if ever we can decide between different Autocannons the ones with lesser projectiles wins, unless there are other benefits. And to crack open armor plates, the one time impact trumps the X shot align in a row methode to penetrate.

Repasy, on 12 February 2016 - 08:43 AM, said:

Building off this, how siiiick would it be if they included different manufacturers for every weapon in the game. No single manufacturer would be 'better' than the rest, but they'd each have unique mechanics. Some AC would be single round, some continuous stream. Some PPC would have different color, or trade off range for speed etc. Different missile manufacturers would have different reload times, fire missiles all at once or in a stream. There's so many possibilities, and it would really add some flavor to the game & shake up the meta.

We all would like it. But if we would get it and i'm 100% on this idea they need to pretty good balanced and tradeoffs between each other to make all viable. Or we get the ongoing complain about ppfld of is ac vs clan ac. Oh w8. I think that is no problem because Lily from animove said there is no difference between autocannons.

Mystere, on 12 February 2016 - 08:11 AM, said:

Kuritaclan, on 12 February 2016 - 02:09 AM, said:

Well there are pretty sophisticated ways to measure those.But i won't open up that can of worms, since it is related to the post #368 http://mwomercs.com/...59#entry5008859 and then we have the full debate again.

Don't temp me, or I'll be dumping a truck full of x-ray and gamma irradiated worms on you.

I had you in mind when i did wrote it.

pyrocomp, on 12 February 2016 - 05:12 AM, said:

I was reffering no to a detection of the object on the camera feeded image (computer vision), but more on the mechanical part. Take camera one to look and use it's feed to track birds and use the tracker data to autoaim second camera on the same bird. If the bird does not leave the dead center of the second image (or birds CT if we go nerdy), then I really missed some new tech advancement since last I checked. The above mentioned setup can track cars on highway, but not better than that.

Yeah hardly imaginable that a tracking system can track a birds. Oh and even more unimaginable that it could do so in a SIFI universe. Harr Harr. Beside of that the nice thing about Battlemechs they are a couple meters taller than birds. How lucky we are. And have a fully recognizable profile at least for the fire controll system. You know it because why has the madcat his IS name?

Edited by Kuritaclan, 12 February 2016 - 01:06 PM.

[pyrocomp]

Kuritaclan, on 12 February 2016 - 09:28 AM, said:

Oh and even more unimaginable that it could do so in a SIFI universe. Harr Harr. Beside of that the nice thing about Battlemechs they are a couple meters taller than birds. How lucky we are. And have a fully recognizable profile at least of the fire controll system. You know it because why has the madcat his IS name?

The profile and size are a benefit for the first camera, not for the second. The second camera is laser, the first one shows you red doritos all right.
By the way, wad there any PGI statement why IS IFF show Timber as Timber, not as MadCat, Dire as Dire, not as Daishi etc.? Would've been a nice touch with low impact on balance/gameplay and some hint for new players to go to Sarna. We already have those names on the clan mech packages, but nowhere in game. Pity.

[Kuritaclan]

pyrocomp, on 12 February 2016 - 10:18 AM, said:

The profile and size are a benefit for the first camera, not for the second. The second camera is laser, the first one shows you red doritos all right.

I thought our Hud give us red doritos. Jam Jam.

pyrocomp, on 12 February 2016 - 10:18 AM, said:

By the way, wad there any PGI statement why IS IFF show Timber as Timber, not as MadCat, Dire as Dire, not as Daishi etc.? Would've been a nice touch with low impact on balance/gameplay and some hint for new players to go to Sarna. We already have those names on the clan mech packages, but nowhere in game. Pity.

Yeah that part of immersion was cut out. At least you can write it away if we assume that all of our fire control systems got an update to recognize the certain mechs. At least ingame time goes forward, so first apperance is somewhat done and both sides know each other by now. xD

Edited by Kuritaclan, 12 February 2016 - 10:27 AM.

[pyrocomp]

Kuritaclan, on 12 February 2016 - 10:25 AM, said:

I thought our Hud give us red doritos. Jam Jam.


Yeah that part of immersion was cut out. At least you can write it away if we assume that all of our fire control systems got an update to recognize the certain mechs. At least ingame time goes forward, so first apperance is somewhat done and both sides know each other by now. xD

The hell HUD shows but what the systems tell it to show and red doritos are from radar or fire control systems. This game actually has zero thought behind al that (redundant at first steps in beta) but now it starts to be a problem for IW since the information and it's collection, transfer and such are not written into a model and that model is nit implemented.

As for the IFF... I doubt that real names were anywhere outside Comstar data banks at the times before the Tykk. And after at least the fluff refers to Clan mechs via their IS names if the fluff describes IS side if the conflict. So I'm for the proper Clan mech names on IS IFF for the next 25 years or so.

Edited by pyrocomp, 12 February 2016 - 10:40 AM.

[Kuritaclan]

pyrocomp, on 12 February 2016 - 10:39 AM, said:

The hell HUD shows but what the systems tell it to show and red doritos are from radar or fire control systems. This game actually has zero thought behind al that (redundant at first steps in beta) but now it starts to be a problem for IW since the information and it's collection, transfer and such are not written into a model and that model is nit implemented.

Jeep. That's the part when we all flip out, when it come down to what does the fire control system and their telemetric system can and can not do. As a matter of fact it isn't described in detail. So it is up to speculation. And there we have the main problem to define what is the tech level, since so many ideas of "lostech" are floating around. That is a problem when implementations like convergence, cone of fire, information warfare are talking points. What could be possible. In the end PGI decides. But i would guess many players don't like what PGI because they are close minded as f***.

pyrocomp, on 12 February 2016 - 10:39 AM, said:

As for the IFF... I doubt that real names were anywhere outside Comstar data banks at the times before the Tykk. And after at least the fluff refers to Clan mechs via their IS names if the fluff describes IS side if the conflict. So I'm for the proper Clan mech names on IS IFF for the next 25 years or so.

Well the big houses were informed when clans invaded by Wolf's Dragoons. What they agreed to share is up to your own or in the case of PGI imagination.

Edited by Kuritaclan, 12 February 2016 - 01:09 PM.

[Mystere]

Kuritaclan, on 12 February 2016 - 10:58 AM, said:

Jeep. That's the part when we all flip out, when it come down to what does the fire control system and their telemetric system can and can not do. As a matter of fact it isn't described in detail. So it is up to speculation. And there we have to problem to define what is the tech level, since some many ideas of "lostech" are floating around. That is the main problem when implementations like convergence, cone of fire, information warfare are talking points. What could be possible. In the end PGI decides. But i would guess many players don't like what PGI because they are close minded as f***.

But, what is not up to speculation is that in the BT universe, Mechs and their weapons have inherent inaccuracy.

But for some reason, the "automatic near-instant pixel perfect conversgence" crowd seems to ignore all that.

Edited by Mystere, 12 February 2016 - 11:40 AM.

[Kuritaclan]

Mystere, on 12 February 2016 - 11:39 AM, said:

But, what is not up to speculation is that in the BT universe, Mechs and their weapons have inherent inaccuracy.

But for some reason, the "automatic near-instant pixel perfect conversgence" crowd seems to ignore all that.

No they dont ignore it, at least i don't. I see it simulated - some others maybe on the same bandwagon. Brain+hand+mouse is as perfect as a fire control system is with somewhat inaccurate weapons we all never will agree about how accurate they be in a fictional szenario. So there we go it evens each other out. If you say it isn't the case because brain+hand+mouse is better than computer assisted fire control. Well we have to talk. Our modern military sektor in this case never should have skiped the way of human torpedo and so on.

Edited by Kuritaclan, 12 February 2016 - 11:53 AM.

[Hotthedd]

Kuritaclan, on 12 February 2016 - 11:50 AM, said:

No they dont ignore it, at least i don't. I see it simulated - some others maybe on the same bandwagon. Brain+hand+mouse is as perfect as a fire control system is with somewhat inaccurate weapons we all never will agree about how accurate they be in a fictional szenario. So there we go it evens each other out. If you say it isn't the case because brain+hand+mouse is better than computer assisted fire control, well we have to talk to our military sektor i guess in the real world that they develop pretty bad weapons and should better use manned accuracy to target everything.

But this isn't our military sector, this is a fictional future universe, and in THAT fictional universe, 'mechs had relatively inaccurate weapons, especially when fired all at once.

[Kuritaclan]

Hotthedd, on 12 February 2016 - 11:54 AM, said:

But this isn't our military sector, this is a fictional future universe, and in THAT fictional universe, 'mechs had relatively inaccurate weapons, especially when fired all at once.

And it rinse and repeat.

Humm follow this link an tell me https://mwomercs.com...ats?type=weapon how accurate are your AC10/C-UAC10 shots and your ER Large and C-ER Lage Laser shots. If you don't have 100% accuracy in every row, well it looks like you pretty much miss shots as it is with inaccurate weapons. And this Accuracy only tells the story if you hit the barn door wide mechs, not if you are accurate enough to hit special parts of mechs.

Edited by Kuritaclan, 12 February 2016 - 12:08 PM.

[Hotthedd]

Kuritaclan, on 12 February 2016 - 11:58 AM, said:

And it rinse and repeat.

Humm follow this link an tell me https://mwomercs.com...ats?type=weapon how accurate are your AC10/C-UAC10 shots and your ER Large and C-ER Lage Laser shots. If you don't have 100% accuracy in every row, well it looks like you pretty much miss shots as it is with inaccurate weapons. And this Accuracy only tells the story if you hit the barn door wide mechs, not if you are accurate enough to hit special parts of mechs.

I do not miss because the weapons are innaccurate, I miss because I am a lousy aim. Hell, I'm not even 100% accurate with Streaks!!
In other words, the ONLY reason we miss in MW:O is due to pilot error, the weapons are still 100% accurate.

[Kuritaclan]

Hotthedd, on 12 February 2016 - 12:12 PM, said:

I do not miss because the weapons are innaccurate, I miss because I am a lousy aim. Hell, I'm not even 100% accurate with Streaks!!
In other words, the ONLY reason we miss in MW:O is due to pilot error, the weapons are still 100% accurate.

And now tell me where is the difrence between your inaccuracy and the accuracy in the novels? As depicted in the BT Universe. Both is equal.

Edited by Kuritaclan, 12 February 2016 - 12:18 PM.

[pyrocomp]

Kuritaclan, on 12 February 2016 - 12:14 PM, said:

And now tell me where is the difrence between your inaccuracy and the accuracy in the novels? As depicted in the BT Universe. Both is equal.

The difference is that the averages hide datails. My inability to put 4 consewutive ERLL shots of the same pixel does not translate into 4 ERLLs in one shot hitting same pixel. Roughly, 4 ERLLs in one shot hitting the same pixel is the 'ideal' aiming system, 4 consequtive ERLL shots on the same pixel is aiming skill. I hope you see the difference. If the 4 ERLL shots of the alpha had the same accuracy that 4 consequtive (or just your base accuracy with that weapon) then you would've been fully correct.

In theory of probability this is called self-correlation. It should not exist if we talk about independently aimed weapons (and as people repeat, each weapon adjusts itself independently unto target) there should be no correlation between shots positions in both cases of consequtive shots (chainfire) and in simultaneous fire (alphastrike). Thus brain+muscles+aim does not make for true FCS inaccuracy simulation. The correlation between shots is different and it does matter.

Look on this from different angle, the ability to hit and keep a crosshair on that defined pixel is a skill. Why arbitrary multiplier to the damage (number of weapons fire) becomes multiplier to the skill? It shouldn't. I get that the CoF is a sideway to this. But again, not to get into groundhog day and initiate another round of same arguments, I think that getting rid of above mentioned correlation is enough reason to do it and missing some 'sure-shots from 1 km' is a fair price for that. I piloted a twin-Gauss DWF and felt guilty for those one-shotted lights in first minute on Canyons.

Edited by pyrocomp, 12 February 2016 - 12:39 PM.

[Kuritaclan]

pyrocomp, on 12 February 2016 - 12:38 PM, said:

The difference is that the averages hide datails. My inability to put 4 consewutive ERLL shots of the same pixel does not translate into 4 ERLLs in one shot hitting same pixel. Roughly, 4 ERLLs in one shot hitting the same pixel is the 'ideal' aiming system, 4 consequtive ERLL shots on the same pixel is aiming skill. I hope you see the difference. If the 4 ERLL shots of the alpha had the same accuracy that 4 consequtive (or just your base accuracy with that weapon) then you would've been fully correct.

In theory of probability this is called self-correlation. It should not exist if we talk about independently aimed weapons (and as people repeat, each weapon adjusts itself independently unto target) there should be no correlation between shots positions in both cases of consequtive shots (chainfire) and in simultaneous fire (alphastrike). Thus brain+muscles+aim does not make for true FCS inaccuracy simulation. The correlation between shots is different and it does matter.

The problem I and maybe others have with your description is that while playing the game you don't stay on that pixel, you won't in most cases by your movement and the enemy not even hold the Laser during the duration on the same mech part with enough distance between you and the enemy. The possibility to transfer all the damage into the mech part is what is inaccurate enough to not bother with additional applied patches of inaccuracy.

pyrocomp, on 12 February 2016 - 12:38 PM, said:

Look on this from different angle, the ability to hit and keep a crosshair on that defined pixel is a skill. Why arbitrary multiplier to the damage (number of weapons fire) becomes multiplier to the skill? It shouldn't. I get that the CoF is a sideway to this. But again, not to get into groundhog day and initiate another round of same arguments, I think that getting rid of above mentioned correlation is enough reason to do it and missing some 'sure-shots from 1 km' is a fair price for that. I piloted a twin-Gauss DWF and felt guilty for those one-shotted lights in first minute on Canyons.

Well i don't feel guilty if i hit a light 1km away. And thats the little things, he could have evaded the shot that far away. If i hit at that distance, the enemy did something wrong. And blaming to get hit on accuracy is just a bad excuse.

Edited by Kuritaclan, 12 February 2016 - 12:51 PM.

[Tordin]

I like this idea, kudos to OP. PGI... TAKE NOTICE

[pyrocomp]

Kuritaclan, on 12 February 2016 - 12:50 PM, said:

The problem I and maybe others have with your description is that while playing the game you don't stay on that pixel, you won't in most cases by your movement and the enemy not even hold the Laser during the duration on the same mech part with enough distance between you and the enemy. The possibility to transfer all the damage into the mech part is what is inaccurate enough to not bother with additional applied patches of inaccuracy.

Each laser tick will still be correlated that way. Changes nothing in my description. Just think of not 4 ERLLs but of one with 4 times lower number of ticks an 4 times the damage per tick. Or 1/4 beam duration. Will you call that laser OP?
You have correlated hits (AC shells or laser ticks) that preferably should not be correlated to simulate that 'I aim myself and they roll the damage'. That, I think, sums the whole point of arguments on 'buffed accuracy via pinpoint instant convergence'.

[Kuritaclan]

pyrocomp, on 12 February 2016 - 01:04 PM, said:

Each laser tick will still be correlated that way. Changes nothing in my description. Just think of not 4 ERLLs but of one with 4 times lower number of ticks an 4 times the damage per tick. Or 1/4 beam duration. Will you call that laser OP?
You have correlated hits (AC shells or laser ticks) that preferably should not be correlated to simulate that 'I aim myself and they roll the damage'. That, I think, sums the whole point of arguments on 'buffed accuracy via pinpoint instant convergence'.

http://i.imgur.com/eJmY03h.jpg?1
Deviation by non correlation is negligible.

[pyrocomp]

Kuritaclan, on 12 February 2016 - 01:59 PM, said:

http://i.imgur.com/eJmY03h.jpg?1
Deviation by non correlation is negligible.

Please, ellaborate on that. The screenshot and info on it I get. I just can't connect it to previously made statements.

Btw (not changes much anything) MWO atlas is 17.1 m to the tophead and 17.7 with antennae.

Edited by pyrocomp, 12 February 2016 - 02:24 PM.

[wanderer]

Quote

1.) Computers are 0 and 1 - as long as they are not overheated they calculate correctly or give you a error, if it cannot proceed - if they are to hot they don't calculate at all -they don't calculate partially. Not to say that the engineer who made the cooling for the chip should be fired, if that is the case in combat equipment, in BT maybe he is beheaded.

The computer may work fine under high heat levels, but the mechanical parts that actually make those adjustments? Not so much. Temperature variants that are simply normal ol' day will cause a mil or so in dispersion. 'Mechs run the heatscale up and down far, FAR more than that even in normal operations, energy weapons included.

Do you think a machine that can heat itself to the point of melting the 'Mech is going to be able to keep it's more fragile systems from suffering heat-related malfunctions as the temperature rises, or that systems may have to function on reduced modes just to keep from frying entirely, or that some systems (like the myomers that move pretty much everything on a 'Mech) don't perform within specs if dealing with too much waste heat?

We regularly drive 'Mechs well past that point in MWO, but with no effects between "Nothing" and "giant robot melts". That's a flaw in the system.

[Kuritaclan]

pyrocomp, on 12 February 2016 - 02:06 PM, said:

Kuritaclan, on 12 February 2016 - 01:59 PM, said:

http://i.imgur.com/eJmY03h.jpg?1
Deviation by non correlation is negligible.

Please, ellaborate on that. The screenshot and info on it I get. I just can't connect it to previously made statements.

You remind me of Robin Hood, I mean the bow tournament. Where one arrow split the previous. If you can not see why one plays into the other. Sry I can not help. you.

wanderer, on 12 February 2016 - 02:10 PM, said:

The computer may work fine under high heat levels, but the mechanical parts that actually make those adjustments? Not so much. Temperature variants that are simply normal ol' day will cause a mil or so in dispersion. 'Mechs run the heatscale up and down far, FAR more than that even in normal operations, energy weapons included.

Do you think a machine that can heat itself to the point of melting the 'Mech is going to be able to keep it's more fragile systems from suffering heat-related malfunctions as the temperature rises, or that systems may have to function on reduced modes just to keep from frying entirely, or that some systems (like the myomers that move pretty much everything on a 'Mech) don't perform within specs if dealing with too much waste heat?

The only thing I can offer you as a reply on this is a facepalm.

wanderer, on 12 February 2016 - 02:10 PM, said:

We regularly drive 'Mechs well past that point in MWO, but with no effects between "Nothing" and "giant robot melts". That's a flaw in the system.

Sure but it is not dependend on convergency or COF. This has other roots.

Edited by Kuritaclan, 12 February 2016 - 02:30 PM.

[pyrocomp]

Kuritaclan, on 12 February 2016 - 02:29 PM, said:

You remind me of Robin Hood, I mean the bow tournament. Where one arrow split the previous. If you can not see why one plays into the other. Sry I can not help. you.

This part I get, I don't get how you draw that conclusion from that screeshot.