1094 replies to this topic

[TexAce]

Very rough examples, not the exact numbers I propose, just 4u to get the idea

Khereg, on 08 February 2016 - 09:18 AM, said:

What's the level of effort required for PGI to implement this proposed change?

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 08 February 2016 - 09:24 AM, said:

I think you missed what he was talking about, I think he was referring to how much work/code would PGI have to put in/implement to even get this change in place to test.

Either way, you won't see many comp players supporting this afaik.

The code is already in game. Some mechs have quirks based on reducing CoF.
I'm not saying we have to use the jumpy CoF of the MGs, I'm just saying, if they already implemented it once, it won't be hard to alter it

[XX Sulla XX]

Not a fan of the idea.

[Barantor]

1453 R, on 08 February 2016 - 08:22 AM, said:

So Fup alluded to it, but I'm going to spell it out.

'Cone of Fire', as very nicely illustrated by the original poster (nice work on that by the way, Tex), is a concept that does not work with Mechwarrior Online because, while everyone is just super-ultra quick to go "YOU MEAN LIKE EVERY OTHER FPS HAS?!?!?!" whenever someone mentions that CoF would be problematic in MWO...there are numerous underlying mechanical differences between MWO and the Modern AAA Shooter (MAAAS). As I posted in the last convergence thread that p!ssed me off, and as I will now post here, and as will be posted in every other convergence thread I spot that manages to p!ss me off:

Imagine you're playing a MAAAS game, with the normal MAAAS cone of fire nonsense, except you are no longer able to ADS. You have no ability, whatsoever, to mitigate your hipfire inaccuracy, you're forced to hipfire every single shot you make.

Now, take that same hipfire-only MAAAS, and give everyone in it a bolt-action rifle. You can take one, singular shoot every second or two tops, and you cannot aim that shot. No ADS or scope, remember? You have a bolt gun you can hipfire, and your job is to kill other players with it.

Now. Take that hipfire-boltgun MAAAS, and give every player in it thirty times more health than they normally have. You have players with 3000% increased health, using bolt-action rifles to try and kill their enemies, which they are unable to aim.

Does that sound like a fun time to anyone here? Does that sound like the next MAAAS mega-hit series?

Because that's what cone of fire/Convergence Fix adherents are constantly, constantly, constantly, CONSTANTLY trying to turn MWO into. A sad bad game where everyone is trying to kill people with un-aimable bolt-action rifles through several tons of armor.

You. Cannot. Remove. A. Player's. Ability. To. Aim. And. Hit. Their. Target. In. An. FPS.

The MAAAS uses several interlocking mechanics to allow players to mitigate or eliminate cone-of-fire inaccuracy and allow them to take aimed shots. I have seen zero MWO cone-of-fire proposals that include the same - they simply expect the player to eat the newly introduced, HSR-killing randomized inaccuracy with a smile on their face and go "THIS IS SO MUCH BETTER!" because they're salty and bitter over lasers actually being good for the first time in MWO history.

Well, guess what. Not so much.

Koniving, a long while back, introduced the perfect plan for defusing the whole pinpoint issue. The third-person camera's reticle bobs and sways with the natural movements of a 'Mech - simply introduce that reticle motion to the first-person cockpit view as well. Fire still goes exactly where it's aimed, as is only right and proper, but the aimpoint itself shifts with the motion of the machine - also right and proper. Players need to time their shots with the movements of their rides to hit precisely, and the motion of the reticle spreads laser damage naturally over the course of a shot. Clean, simple, does not invalidate HSR like randomized-cone-of-fire does, does not eliminate snipers from the game like randomized-cone-of-fire does, and is pretty much already in the system.

What's wrong with that? Why do we have to turn MWO into a sad bad MAAAS where nobody hits anything they aim at ever again?

Only one problem with your whole argument is that there is a game existing out there right now that uses CoF and has similar types of movement and makes a tremendous amount of money with a huge following.

World of Tanks/World of Warships

I might not like the way that tanks has shots that deflect at angles and I might not like the tier system of tanks to level through, but WoT has a solid gameplay schematic with a robust community all over the world.

Would it work for MWO? I think certain aspects of it can if done well like the OP has said and I have posted about since this forum were brand new.

Thing is, WoT has a competitive scene, Russ even referenced it when they were talking about figuring out the tournie and the amount of players each team can have. I think WoT/WoWS has the closest analogue to this game as far as gameplay, online, and combat and could borrow ideas from it without causing super revolts in this community.... well maybe, this community sometimes revolts over the smallest thing...

Just because mechs have legs doesn't mean we should compare it to infantry shooters, these mechs are vehicles and I think that games that heavily use vehicles should be the model, not infantry.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

TexAce, on 08 February 2016 - 09:39 AM, said:

The code is already in game. Some mechs have quirks based on reducing CoF.
I'm not saying we have to use the jumpy CoF of the MGs, I'm just saying, if they already implemented it once, it won't be hard to alter it

Some of the code is in the game, but that is for individual weapon spread, there would still need to be code added to increase/decrease the spread according to heat, speed, etc.

Edit: Why does zoom level affect CoF, I know "zooming" in typically increases accuracy in MAAAS's, but why should it here?

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 08 February 2016 - 09:51 AM.

[Mechteric]

Won't cone of fire just make people not want to fire their weapons while moving (most common in brawling or fast flanking actions)? Wouldn't that just further entrench the peek-snipe-hide ridgeline combat we already have?

[FupDup]

CapperDeluxe, on 08 February 2016 - 09:48 AM, said:

Won't cone of fire just make people not want to fire their weapons while moving (most common in brawling or fast flanking actions)? Wouldn't that just further entrench the peek-snipe-hide ridgeline combat we already have?

But it's okay Capper, because Call of Duty and other mainstream FPS's make us stand in static firing lines like the British soldiers during the American Civil War, so that means MWO clearly needs it too.

But seriously though, I hate the plague ADS* shooters.


*ADS = "Aiming Down Sights." It refers to games where you have to basically stand still and/or crouch and look down your weapon scope in order to be accurate. I hate them and I hate that they're making most of the rest of the shooter market copy them.

Edited by FupDup, 08 February 2016 - 09:53 AM.

[Barantor]

FupDup, on 08 February 2016 - 09:50 AM, said:

But it's okay Capper, because Call of Duty and other mainstream FPS's make us stand in static firing lines like the British soldiers during the American Civil War, so that means MWO clearly needs it too.

But seriously though, I hate the plague ADS* shooters.


*ADS = "Aiming Down Sights." It refers to games where you have to basically stand still and/or crouch and look down your weapon scope in order to be accurate. I hate them and I hate that they're making most of the rest of the shooter market copy them.

A lot of us like it and like that it simulates actually having to aim rather than the floating cursor effect of firing from the hip. Different strokes for different folks, but IMO Mechwarrior is better for it when it is more Simulation.

[1453 R]

Barantor, on 08 February 2016 - 09:40 AM, said:

Only one problem with your whole argument is that there is a game existing out there right now that uses CoF and has similar types of movement and makes a tremendous amount of money with a huge following.

World of Tanks/World of Warships

I might not like the way that tanks has shots that deflect at angles and I might not like the tier system of tanks to level through, but WoT has a solid gameplay schematic with a robust community all over the world.

Would it work for MWO? I think certain aspects of it can if done well like the OP has said and I have posted about since this forum were brand new.

Thing is, WoT has a competitive scene, Russ even referenced it when they were talking about figuring out the tournie and the amount of players each team can have. I think WoT/WoWS has the closest analogue to this game as far as gameplay, online, and combat and could borrow ideas from it without causing super revolts in this community.... well maybe, this community sometimes revolts over the smallest thing...

Just because mechs have legs doesn't mean we should compare it to infantry shooters, these mechs are vehicles and I think that games that heavily use vehicles should be the model, not infantry.

Does World of [Whatevers] have systems that allow the player to minimize/compensate for their CoF mechanic?

I'm seriously asking - I've avoided Wo[W] because I find the fundamental concept of the game to be unsalvageably awful and because I've heard absolutely horrible things about it from friends, so I don't know how World of Whatevers handles their combat.

This proposal from Tex doesn't include any way of mitigating/compensating for its cone of fire. It has methods of not aggravating its cone of fire ("don't do the things that keep you alive in a match, like move, and your CoF won't get any worse!"), but outside of installing 10+ tons of 'sniper' equipment and using 5+ module slots to correct for it, you cannot mitigate or compensate for the introduced CoF elements. You can't get your aim back after losing it, which is the thing that makes this, and every other CoF suggestion out there, a no-go.

How does World of Whatevers do it?

[FupDup]

Barantor, on 08 February 2016 - 09:56 AM, said:

A lot of us like it and like that it simulates actually having to aim rather than the floating cursor effect of firing from the hip. Different strokes for different folks, but IMO Mechwarrior is better for it when it is more Simulation.

How does a laser beam changing direction when it leaves the barrel make the game a simulation?

[adamts01]

Barantor, on 08 February 2016 - 09:40 AM, said:

Only one problem with your whole argument is that there is a game existing out there right now that uses CoF and has similar types of movement and makes a tremendous amount of money with a huge following.

We're hoping for Mechwarrior to be a benchmark. 2nd place is the first loser. MWO is supposed to be different.

TexAce, on 08 February 2016 - 09:39 AM, said:

stuff....

I'm a huge fan of COF. But, the overwhelming majority of IS doesn't have the option of mounting a targeting computer. So that really needs to be toned down in your equation. Also, a stock mech, perfectly cool, not moving, firing a single weapon should be able to hit what he's aiming at. Reduce the inaccuracy in that instance.

FupDup, on 08 February 2016 - 09:57 AM, said:

How does a laser beam changing direction when it leaves the barrel make the game a simulation?

It doesn't, it leaves the barrel perfectly aligned with the weapon. For argument's sake, the weapon is on heat/vibration isolating mounts which give the weapon a slight degree of inaccuracy. The slower the mech moves, the less vibration occurs. Either way, it's for the sake of gameplay.

[Barantor]

FupDup, on 08 February 2016 - 09:57 AM, said:

How does a laser beam changing direction when it leaves the barrel make the game a simulation?

Now I dive back into the fact that no vehicle has perfect aim unless it is perfect conditions?

It isn't the beam changing directions, its the barrel swaying all over when you hit the trigger. We are simulating vehicles that were thought up as sci-fi in the 80s, the same time that the movie 'Aliens' was showing those old green screen computers in a high tech world. We are also in a lore universe where things just aren't technologically advanced (clans are a bit better) so a lot of the knowledge base is lost.

We can't get perfect aim now, so why would 80s sci-fi lore be better? I'm one for the lore and simulation over even ease of play, I'm probably in the minority and I know it so I concede certain things, but CoF exists in lots of other games that do very well and simulates all the messed up things that can happen to a vehicle while firing. I think its a good solution to the problem we have of this power creep happening so rapidly lately. I've liked the idea from the beginning, I understand if others don't though.

[John80sk]

Are we still beating this horse? It's done folks, the horse is dead, tenderized, been buried and resurrected several times.

For the record I like the idea of cone of fire, though I'd say you should still be able to hit a light at 800m+ with a perfect shot regardless of what's equipped. I think this actually raises the skillcap of the game (you have to be more accurate to hit targets, as being slightly off has a greater chance of punishing you). This argument has gone on forever though, and the majority of players seem to prefer the pinpoint accuracy.

[adamts01]

John80sk, on 08 February 2016 - 10:06 AM, said:

Are we still beating this horse? It's done folks, the horse is dead, tenderized, been buried and resurrected several times.

The horse isn't dead because all we've had are years worth of bandaids. I'll keep complaining till I'm satisfied.

Also..... PSR and MM suck.


LRMs suck too

[Khereg]

TexAce, on 08 February 2016 - 09:39 AM, said:

The code is already in game. Some mechs have quirks based on reducing CoF.
I'm not saying we have to use the jumpy CoF of the MGs, I'm just saying, if they already implemented it once, it won't be hard to alter it

I now see proposals for cones varying dynamically based on:
* mech speed
* heat bar
* time without movement
* weapon type

Did I miss any?

Also, there's a parallel discussion going on about convergence, which is a wholly different mechanic.

None of that sounds like it's currently in game.

The larger point, of course, is that PGI has to be swayed to action. This has been going on for 3+ years with no movement. I don't see what's different here to change PGI's decision. If anything, the proposal just keeps getting more complex over time, which I think works against the argument.

Factors that affect PGI's decision include:
* Community desire and degree of unification
* Benefit or detriment to gaming experience, including unforeseen issues like FPS impacts from increased processor overhead
* Cost/effort to implement
* Potential for revenue increase, whether via direct sales or improved gaming experience leading to increase in customer base
* Relative importance compared to other items in the development pipeline

So, ticking through those, where do you honestly think this stands?

[Barantor]

1453 R, on 08 February 2016 - 09:57 AM, said:

Does World of [Whatevers] have systems that allow the player to minimize/compensate for their CoF mechanic?

I'm seriously asking - I've avoided Wo[W] because I find the fundamental concept of the game to be unsalvageably awful and because I've heard absolutely horrible things about it from friends, so I don't know how World of Whatevers handles their combat.

This proposal from Tex doesn't include any way of mitigating/compensating for its cone of fire. It has methods of not aggravating its cone of fire ("don't do the things that keep you alive in a match, like move, and your CoF won't get any worse!"), but outside of installing 10+ tons of 'sniper' equipment and using 5+ module slots to correct for it, you cannot mitigate or compensate for the introduced CoF elements. You can't get your aim back after losing it, which is the thing that makes this, and every other CoF suggestion out there, a no-go.

How does World of Whatevers do it?

Here is a basic explanation.
http://guides.gamepr...de.asp?ID=16340

More detailed here.
http://wiki.wargamin..._and_Dispersion

The problems with WoT is that if you put your tank out there it has a total HP pool, not components like Mechwarrior, so they tend to sit in place once the battle progresses, but that does simulate WW2 style tanking a bit *shrug*.

Is it perfect? No. Is it preferable IMO to pinpoint everything? Yes.

Comp players in WoT still find the best tanks and such for their tournaments and it has a pretty good tournament crowd.

[Gas Guzzler]

John80sk, on 08 February 2016 - 10:06 AM, said:

(you have to be more accurate to hit targets, as being slightly off has a greater chance of punishing you).

Except for the equally likely situation where your aim was off but RNG decided to bless you with a perfect shot to the CT. It doesn't raise the skill cap, it just shrinks a gap between those who can hit the CT 90% of the time and those who hit somewhere on the torso 90% of the time.

[Barantor]

Khereg, on 08 February 2016 - 10:12 AM, said:

I now see proposals for cones varying dynamically based on:
* mech speed
* heat bar
* time without movement
* weapon type

Did I miss any?

Also, there's a parallel discussion going on about convergence, which is a wholly different mechanic.

None of that sounds like it's currently in game.

The larger point, of course, is that PGI has to be swayed to action. This has been going on for 3+ years with no movement. I don't see what's different here to change PGI's decision. If anything, the proposal just keeps getting more complex over time, which I think works against the argument.

Factors that affect PGI's decision include:
* Community desire and degree of unification
* Benefit or detriment to gaming experience, including unforeseen issues like FPS impacts from increased processor overhead
* Cost/effort to implement
* Potential for revenue increase, whether via direct sales or improved gaming experience leading to increase in customer base
* Relative importance compared to other items in the development pipeline

So, ticking through those, where do you honestly think this stands?

Pretty much covers it, this is a horse that is down to molecular dust level of beating as far as this game is concerned. PGI either doesn't want to or has to go with what pays the bills first, which is what I think is going on.

If wants and wishes were candy though, we wouldn't have any teeth left because of cavities.

[1453 R]

adamts01, on 08 February 2016 - 10:08 AM, said:

The horse isn't dead because all we've had are years worth of bandaids. I'll keep complaining till I'm satisfied.

Then you'd best be prepared for other people to keep telling you that forcibly introducing MAAAS CoD-kiddie hipfire mechanics into MWO, without any of the numerous ways MAAAS's use to offset that randomized inaccuracy, is an awful idea.

Unless, of course, you're ready for us all to have fire rates in the hundreds of rounds a second for all weapons, an ADS mechanic, and the ability to mount modifier equipment directly on our weapons to compensate for inaccuracy, as well? I mean, we are talking about why MWO isn't like every other MAAAS on the market, so why not get gun mods and all the rest as well, while we're stealing their hipfire system?

[pbiggz]

TexAce, on 08 February 2016 - 09:39 AM, said:

Very rough examples, not the exact numbers I propose, just 4u to get the idea






The code is already in game. Some mechs have quirks based on reducing CoF.
I'm not saying we have to use the jumpy CoF of the MGs, I'm just saying, if they already implemented it once, it won't be hard to alter it

See this looks great on paper but at 800 meters you've already made accuracy so bad nobody will bother to even fire. Im not going to argue whether that SHOULD happen at all, but you have to take these things into account. Over all, I get the feeling your disproportionately attempting to punish sniper meta, even though laser vomit brawl meta has been the standard for a while now, and their optimal ranges are all within 600 meters.

Point im trying to make is, your pictures seem to convey a VERY heavy handed approach. Hows about you show some numbers now? Numbers after all are what its going to come down to in the end.

Edited by pbiggz, 08 February 2016 - 10:22 AM.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Barantor, on 08 February 2016 - 10:17 AM, said:

so they tend to sit in place once the battle progresses

So we want this to be the case in MWO as well?

I don't want this game to be all about static engagements.

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 08 February 2016 - 10:24 AM.