1094 replies to this topic

[Hotthedd]

Gloris, on 10 February 2016 - 11:27 AM, said:

Having played a lot of WoT in the past, a game where accuracy is HUGELY influence by RNG, i'm looking foreward to this change.

Not because i think it's a good idea, i think it's a horrible one.

I just want to see how many people who think putting RNG in the accuracy is a brilliant idea will start crying their eyes out the first time they accidentally TK someone because of RNG, or miss game winning shots because RNG made them miss.

If these changes come people will still alpha, only difference is that now instead of crying "QQQQALPHAQQQ" people will cry "QQQ ENEMY GOT LUCKY I DIDN'T QQQQ"

Because you can Alpha at 99% heat like the biggest donkey and still get a lucky RNG roll and hit the pinpoint center.

I have read all 33 pages of this thread and have not found anything at all to suggest a RNG in the proposal.

Did you accidentally post in the wrong thread?

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 10 February 2016 - 11:31 AM, said:

By situational I think you mean worthless outside of niche facehugging scenarios, so basically all you really did was flip the usefulness of both, in other words, you didn't really create worthwhile choices.

No, by situational, I mean times when it would be a better choice and other times when it would NOT be the better choice. Unlike now.

[Gloris]

Hotthedd, on 10 February 2016 - 11:49 AM, said:

I have read all 33 pages of this thread and have not found anything at all to suggest a RNG in the proposal.

Did you accidentally post in the wrong thread?

How is it not RNG to have a big aiming circle, where it's random what point of the circle your shots go to?

here for you, you seem to need it.

http://www.urbandict...ne.php?term=RNG

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Hotthedd, on 10 February 2016 - 11:49 AM, said:

No, by situational, I mean times when it would be a better choice

Yes, and I'm telling you the number of times it would be useful are about as numerous as the number of times that chain fire is useful, edge cases and only that. Much like now, only inverted.

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 10 February 2016 - 11:56 AM.

[Livewyr]

Shredhead, on 10 February 2016 - 10:52 AM, said:

That exists only because the maps are built to favor long range engagements. Strangely enough, this stuff rarely happens on standard maps...

Lasers favor long range engagements... (And it happens on standard maps with long range engagements...)

Shredhead, on 10 February 2016 - 10:52 AM, said:

Are you playing MW4 right now? Because there is no point and click with lasers in this game! It's point, click and hold on the target location, otherwise you're spreading all that pretty 20-30 points of laser damage you can distribute at once over the whole enemy mech. Strawmanning that hard...

So much skill involved in dragging a cursor. (Can you select multiple icons on your desktop? Congrats... you can aim at a moving target with lasers.

Shredhead, on 10 February 2016 - 10:52 AM, said:

As I said above, you have to learn to keep those lasers on the target location for the duration it burns. Here's also a useful link for you. Gee, I wonder why there are 492.000 findings for this topic alone...

Gee, I wonder what the answers are... Shocker!

Muscle Memory
Mouse Sensitivity.

Thanks for the laugh. (You should probably look at the search results before trying to use them for an argument.)

Shredhead, on 10 February 2016 - 10:52 AM, said:

No, you're just shifting the skill gap towards things that are a: easier to game and b: easier to handle, learn and overcome. You're dumbing it down.

a: What exactly is easier to game than instant pin perfect convergence?
b: more challenging to handle. It's what we have now, with more factors to consider...

The aiming system could only get dumber if the system just aimed for you. Quite literally.

Shredhead, on 10 February 2016 - 10:52 AM, said:

So you don't even play the game. And you were allegedly king of the underhive. Wow. I'm impressed. That's almost like when I play with buddies who are Tier 4 or 3, and we meet only lower tier enemies. Playing this game on higher skill levels is a whole different experience. You know, when you get enemies that know how to twist, move and position.

Yup, king of the underhive. Yet somehow ran with Lords (before the split by Emp) and still invited to SwK even without the game installed... in case I come back.
Total Scrublord.

(Get a grip. I know what I'm talking about.)

Shredhead, on 10 February 2016 - 10:52 AM, said:

You would create the absolute epitome of such gameplay with that proposition! You want to come at me? Well, too bad, we've got a firing line with Gauss Rifles only waiting for you to show, so we can set the first hit and **** you up for good before you can fire back effectively! And you're still strawmanning hard, because hitting a mech with lasers =/= hitting the vulnerable components consistently. Drawing a painting on an enemy mech with my lasers gets me damage, but not efficiency!

1: If you would like to stand in the open and hope you see them first- go for it. You just can't hillhump and do it with this proposal.
2: LRMs might be useful again... SHOCK
3: Hitting a vulnerable component consistently is going to require some risk on your part.. sorry.

Shredhead, on 10 February 2016 - 10:52 AM, said:

Yeah, because that's really a thing right now. All that jump sniper meta. Holy ****.

It's still there. (AFAIK) Just not as big as the shoulder mounted hill-humping meta.

[Mystere]

Dino Might, on 10 February 2016 - 11:07 AM, said:

I have a solution. Make the crosshair randomly move about in the pre-calculated CoF, and the shots ALWAYS go EXACTLY where the crosshair is pointing (okay, so we'll ignore realistic CoF of the weapon itself, because space magic). Now everyone is happy

As long as it is the crosshair and not the nausea-inducing screen shake, then I'm fine.

Edit:

Nope! I've reconsidered. That is even worse. Not only will we still have automatic and near-instant pixel-perfect convergence, but it will happen while all weapons are shaking in unison during a random movement pattern.

Yuk! Yuk! Yuk!

Edited by Mystere, 10 February 2016 - 12:09 PM.

[Hotthedd]

Gloris, on 10 February 2016 - 11:52 AM, said:

How is it not RNG to have a big aiming circle, where it's random what point of the circle your shots go to?

here for you, you seem to need it.

http://www.urbandict...ne.php?term=RNG

Because since NONE of your shots has the possibility to randomly fall outside of the player-influenced reticle, there is no "random" value to assign.

[FupDup]

Hotthedd, on 10 February 2016 - 12:05 PM, said:

Because since NONE of your shots has the possibility to randomly fall outside of the player-influenced reticle, there is no "random" value to assign.

You're using a very specific definition of "random" here.

In the world of gaming, any outcome which is not foreseen is considered to be "random." For traffic cones in particular, the outcome is "random" because I have no idea if my bullet will deviate to the left, right, up, or down from the center of the crosshair until after the shot has been made.

[Hotthedd]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 10 February 2016 - 11:53 AM, said:

Yes, and I'm telling you the number of times it would be useful are about as numerous as the number of times that chain fire is useful, edge cases and only that. Much like now, only inverted.

When is chain fire more useful than alpha striking currently?

I think a system where BOTH are equally useful is the best, but if we have to choose one to be the dominant mode, and the other to be situational only, My vote goes to the mechanic that is most lore-friendly.

FupDup, on 10 February 2016 - 12:08 PM, said:

You're using a very specific definition of "random" here.

In the world of gaming, any outcome which is not foreseen is considered to be "random." For traffic cones in particular, the outcome is "random" because I have no idea if my bullet will deviate to the left, right, up, or down from the center of the crosshair until after the shot has been made.

Well then, they are using the word random incorrectly. Perhaps we should join together for an education campaign?

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Hotthedd, on 10 February 2016 - 12:08 PM, said:

When is chain fire more useful than alpha striking currently?

High on heat and something is "one touch", well, you may not be chain firing per se, you would be using group fire, but you aren't firing all the weapons so it isn't an alpha strike. Not everything alpha strikes constantly, even high energy alpha boats like the BK, or Ebjag/Timby.

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 10 February 2016 - 12:11 PM.

[Mystere]

Hotthedd, on 10 February 2016 - 12:09 PM, said:

Well then, they are using the word random incorrectly. Perhaps we should join together for an education campaign?

Please include "normal distribution" in the curriculum, please. <Har! Har! Har! ... >

[FupDup]

Hotthedd, on 10 February 2016 - 12:09 PM, said:

Well then, they are using the word random incorrectly. Perhaps we should join together for an education campaign?

Bing says...



So it would appear that the definition that I proposed is actually correct.

[Dino Might]

Mystere, on 10 February 2016 - 12:04 PM, said:

As long as it is the crosshair and not the nausea-inducing screen shake, then I'm fine.

Edit:

Nope! I've reconsidered. That is even worse. Not only will we still have automatic and near-instant pixel-perfect convergence, but it will happen while all weapons are shaking in unison during a random movement pattern.

Yuk! Yuk! Yuk!

I know, just threw that in for laughs.

[Champion of Khorne Lord of Blood]

Also why do these cone of fire threads always resort to shouting about skill? Also at what point does it even matter if even if you had all those imaginary modules, were running a no heat gauss build, and were standing still you can still miss a mech at long range even with your crosshairs dead center on his cockpit?

Also why further nerf AC2s at long range due to their heat generation which would cause them to lose accuracy at range? What about PPCs, they run very hot and move slow already?

Why is everyone just shouting about lasers and skill instead of balance!?

Also in the OP what would the crosshair even look like since we don't just have 1 crosshair, we have both an arm and torso crosshair, could we get a picture of that too if you are going to have a 34+ page discussion over it? Maybe some more info about the modules you came up with, how about how in the example of the smallest spread crosshair you said you'd need both CC and TC, how does that work?

Can I get some answers?

[Hotthedd]

FupDup, on 10 February 2016 - 12:12 PM, said:

Bing says...



So it would appear that the definition that I proposed is actually correct.

Actually, as it applies to the OP's suggestion, it is not.

[Dino Might]

FupDup, on 10 February 2016 - 12:12 PM, said:

Bing says...



So it would appear that the definition that I proposed is actually correct.

Be careful with that definition, as it is misleading in relation to random variables used in statistical models. I won't say it is wrong, but that many here are probably reading it incorrectly and inferring things that are not necessarily true.

The following gives a better indication of what we're talking about:
[color=#000000]A random number is a number chosen as if by chance from some specified distribution such that selection of a large set of these numbers reproduces the underlying distribution. - Wolfram MathWorld[/color]

Dakota1000, on 10 February 2016 - 12:15 PM, said:

Also why do these cone of fire threads always resort to shouting about skill? Also at what point does it even matter if even if you had all those imaginary modules, were running a no heat gauss build, and were standing still you can still miss a mech at long range even with your crosshairs dead center on his cockpit?

Also why further nerf AC2s at long range due to their heat generation which would cause them to lose accuracy at range? What about PPCs, they run very hot and move slow already?

Why is everyone just shouting about lasers and skill instead of balance!?

Also in the OP what would the crosshair even look like since we don't just have 1 crosshair, we have both an arm and torso crosshair, could we get a picture of that too if you are going to have a 34+ page discussion over it? Maybe some more info about the modules you came up with, how about how in the example of the smallest spread crosshair you said you'd need both CC and TC, how does that work?

Can I get some answers?

These changes would not be in a vacuum. You would have to adjust other values like heat/damage, but that's an entirely different discussion. It's a lot of work, yes, but I think the end result could be far more engaging.

[Mystere]

Dino Might, on 10 February 2016 - 12:13 PM, said:

I know, just threw that in for laughs.

[process]

The OP is about degrees of randomness, but it's randomness nonetheless. Having to remain perfectly still, with minimal heat, and extra equipment and modules to achieve a minimal cone does not sound terribly fun to me.

[FupDup]

Hotthedd, on 10 February 2016 - 12:17 PM, said:

Actually, as it applies to the OP's suggestion, it is not.

Yes it is actually. You have some control over how big the cone is, sure, but no matter what the size of the cone is you still never know WHERE in that cone that the shot will land. It just gives you the maximum boundaries of where it can/can't land.

So for example with cones I might shoot a bullet and it goes straight to the left of the aiming point. Or it might go up and to the right diagonally. Or it could go in any other number of directions. For all intents and purposes, it's still "random."

[Champion of Khorne Lord of Blood]

Dino Might, on 10 February 2016 - 12:20 PM, said:

These changes would not be in a vacuum. You would have to adjust other values like heat/damage, but that's an entirely different discussion. It's a lot of work, yes, but I think the end result could be far more engaging.

If you are planning to make a change such as cone of fire then this is the same discussion, you cannot simply discuss adding cone of fire in without talking about all the things it would affect.

As for the strawman, its essentially like asking to fire a missile at another country then only talking about the missile itself rather than its consequences.

[LordKnightFandragon]

Gloris, on 10 February 2016 - 11:27 AM, said:

Having played a lot of WoT in the past, a game where accuracy is HUGELY influence by RNG, i'm looking foreward to this change.

Not because i think it's a good idea, i think it's a horrible one.

I just want to see how many people who think putting RNG in the accuracy is a brilliant idea will start crying their eyes out the first time they accidentally TK someone because of RNG, or miss game winning shots because RNG made them miss.

If these changes come people will still alpha, only difference is that now instead of crying "QQQQALPHAQQQ" people will cry "QQQ ENEMY GOT LUCKY I DIDN'T QQQQ"

Because you can Alpha at 99% heat like the biggest donkey and still get a lucky RNG roll and hit the pinpoint center.

Dude, WOT is a prime example of RNG/COF done overboard. They made an RNG so severe that the outcome of the battle is literally decided almost entirely on RNG, and having played that, I can see why people are so against an RNG/COF of any kind. I to loathe WoT with an undying passion, mostly due to it's RNG. That is an example of an RNG that almost entirely removes skill.

No one here is even remotely suggesting a CoF to that degree. Anyone supporting CoF/RNG is simply wanting a slight variance in the PPD meta. In fact, some even have suggestions and methods which you can get your PP shots if you so choose. It just doesnt include running around at 90 KPH hitting perfectly accurate at 2 miles with 9 guns, hitting the tip of a guy's gun barrel that happens to be sticking over the ridge.