Kuritaclan, on 13 February 2016 - 08:02 PM, said:
Sry i don't blew it out of proportion. I only say what are the consequences, if Hotthedd statement would mean with Cof or Cconvergency would be translated into game mechanics. It would essentially make it a unpredictable shotgun shooter.
You know, to my opninion as people are arguing through this thread everybody keeps some picture and numbers in his/her head, uses it as a measure of any others words and does not care to share it. So who's blowing out of proportions or both or noone I already start to doubt.
Kuritaclan, on 13 February 2016 - 08:02 PM, said:
Well it is some more pixels in best case like 1 meter in the game engine is equal to 33 pixel @ 4k/32" screen, what makes a deviation by 6,22 mm on the actuall screen. However not all gamers have such good gaming rigs. With 1080p and 24" it is 4,68 mm. Roughly 1/4 less accuracy for the same player with different rigs if the mouse is the same.
Lasers are quite awesome. If you say they have a deviation to each other with a radius of 5cm this is 1pixel at 1080p/24" @ 1000m. If you say it is 30cm (Looks high to me since it is 3 times what the "real life" laser system had to explode the 8,5 cm mortar shell) you have 5 pixel you won't notice the difference, since you need to move the mouse only a bit more than 1mm for it. And 25 to 30cm deviation is pretty much the COF radius of modern Tank Ammunition @ 1000m.
See all i wanna have is some "realism" in this simulation. And out of my understanding, even many have another approach, our eye hand coordination on the pc simulates somewhat the inaccuracy enough as shown by those examples.
The modern tank fires a single shot from a single barrel. In your examples those were the tests of giudance and gun itself. E.g. looks like from stationary tank with lots of time to aim and to give the cannon time to 'settle'. I'd really like to see live firing tests on full-forward across the field as there are different systems involved. If memory serves at 4 km normal accuracy (for a crew, not a just the barrel) is 2 out of 3 to the targeted tank (need to update, might be reaaaally old norms for older tanks).
And now a new round of arguments on what is aiming, e.g. what to you really control with that crosshair, the throgh-the-barrel-view or position to which some mech systems must adjust weapons positions? There comes dabates on how accurate those are and how fast and... well, the problem of this game is instant pinpoint convergence (and I still think that testing of correlated shots should be done or reall spreading damage opponent). Not just convergence (weapons should converge), not just pinpoint (mechs move, distances change, for ballistics there is no pinpoint unless the target is stationary, bu it is targets problems, honestly) not just instant (same argument as for pinpoint). In the end to get to a better place it can suffice to breake a single chain. Either convergence altogether (number of threads why it solves something for all to much dumbing the game) or intant (we have problems with HRS and hitreg and traffic, as PGI claimed) or pinpoint. Now, if not to bring into game more Ghost Mechanincs what part of instant pinpoint converegence it is easier to adress with least impact on the overall game?
Kuritaclan, on 13 February 2016 - 08:02 PM, said:
The least thing i want the game to become is a rng/dice simulator. I mean i'm pretty much amused. There are ideas floating around to make "alphas" bigger than ~20 - 25 bad, i get it that some people have problem with it (I also get caught in bad situations), however a Stock KGC with dual AC 20 get the short stick, if we come around with such things. I mean you need to stretch Cof and or convergence pretty much to not let two rounds of AC 20 hit the same Torso section. And allways be remembered, if you fix one thing another creeps upward, see FupDups post #957.
Well, here is where I disagree with parts of the CoF crowd that CoF should be always noticable. IMHO, the removal of pinpoint (see above why just pinpoint) accuracy at 800-1000 m will be enough (4-5 m at 1000-1200 m ?). This means that AC20 will fire on that pixel (or next one to it). Since AC20 has extremely low speed and short range it requires leading, often against 'infinity' distance meaning no convergence at all, unless the target is stationary, but then the 'target' deserves what's coming. Same for SLs and MLs (well to some extent). Affected are LLs only, every other weapon that reaches those 1000 m require leading.
How CoF should behave on mivement/heat is another matter, but fast degradation past some 50-70% will be a good way to limit laser spam (lasers a good strong hit-scan weapons, just not that reliable and certain situations, bring back up weapons).
Lastly, if something goes down another thing is standing in place and goes up only in comparision. The idea is not to kill lasers entirely, but to tone down the LL family a bit.
Kuritaclan, on 13 February 2016 - 08:02 PM, said:
Maybe we should also think about environmental parameters. Every map has certain conditions. Dust (Tourmaline) or Fog (Vidrian) could give penalties. So there's that. Then also the timeline will come up with some pretty nasty armor - unfortunately not yet in time. And then there are other ideas like the reactor power idea to refil capacitors of lasers. Or the innard idea, where wasting a high damage alpha into one spot do not help you at all to kill the enemy effective.
Proposed environmental effects on weapons (there was a thread) such as 'dust eats base laser range (all ranges)' and 'gravity affects ballistics' and 'wind affects missiles' met even less support than CoF is I remember correctly. While grouds for those statements were 'no bad visibility maps/I hate fog', 'ACs already suck' and 'noob tubes are OP/UP nerf/buff' respectively, proposed effects add to simulation, but also with map selection in mind will lead to severe drop in maps general popularity. Would've been great if not the general rejection.
The reactor draw has some points but... well, if you can power those 100 tons running you can power all weapons just by comparision. And if the power becomes a shortage why the hell the mech does not collapse immediately since there is not enough power to keep it upright? Not counting that it is based on a single occurence in (not a good one) fluff, this is still arbitrary mechanics that needs to be coded as it looks like the general architecture of weapons handling is as simple as possible. We do not have selectable ammo types in-game for LBX. Simplier is to enforce chainfire or make every energy weapon to have charge up and limit the number of charged weapons to some degree (2 or 3) and overcharging produces the risk of explosion. This is already incoded for GR and is transferable. But, both option strongly affect lights that rely mostly on boating small lasers (as the cannot afford those ballistics, just look at AC2 mass) and not so the main offeders that run mostly LL family in not so large numbers.
Idea that concentration of lasers on one spot does not translate lineary into damage might have a point (looks like Ghost Armor), but it should be really strong an effect to negate damage or it will change nothing.
17
