132 replies to this topic

[Troutmonkey]

Big Tin Man, on 12 February 2016 - 02:40 PM, said:

So after 2 seconds of t3h googles, I found this handy reference after searching "cryengine cone of fire"

http://docs.cryengin...nScripts-Spread

Looks like it would be really, really easy to implement a weapons rule to the effect of:

IF(weaponspread_modifier > X, minspread= Y, maxspread= Z, else minspread = 0, maxspread = 0)

(I'm not a programmer, but you get the picture here)

And then they'd just have to make a table of weapon spread modifiers. For starters, use the weapons optimum damage

NOT HARD because the tools exist within Cryengine.

The problem I see with that script is that it applies the cone starting from the weapons origin, meaning that it will work like LB10X and spread a crazy amount at long distances. The system I have is that it deviates the end point by a fixed distance, making the spread even regardless of if you're aiming at 100m or 1000m.
I get your point though and I think my demo shows just how easily a system could be added. There hard part after that is getting it to play nice with HSR

[Ratpoison]

Troutmonkey, on 12 February 2016 - 03:31 PM, said:

The system I have is that it deviates the end point by a fixed distance, making the spread even regardless of if you're aiming at 100m or 1000m.

You realize how ridiculous that concept sounds, right?

[Troutmonkey]

tortuousGoddess, on 12 February 2016 - 03:41 PM, said:

You realize how ridiculous that concept sounds, right?

No I don't. Please explain? This is the best way to do it that I could conceive as it achieves the goal of spreading fire on higher alpha without penalizing other factors such as range. This is exactly how it works in the demo that you can download and play test right now

Edited by Troutmonkey, 12 February 2016 - 03:48 PM.

[Ratpoison]

Troutmonkey, on 12 February 2016 - 03:48 PM, said:

No I don't. Please explain? This is the best way to do it that I could conceive as it achieves the goal of spreading fire on higher alpha without penalizing other factors such as range. This is exactly how it works in the demo that you can download and play test right now

If you have to resort to something as nonsensical as a CYLINDER OF FIRE, then I think it's a solid sign that you should wrap it up and come up with something new. PGI isn't going to confuse the hell out of everyone with new mechanics that don't follow any kind of intuitive logic for the sake of a potential balance fix(even though it would make all the problems far worse, btw). How about you try fixing weapons instead and stop trying to rip the game's depth to shreds.

[Wolfways]

Gyrok, on 12 February 2016 - 02:12 PM, said:

Want to watch a game die?

Take a "thinking man's shooter" with very precise aiming mechanics, and a very small audience.

Then, drop some goofball CoF mechanic onto that group of players out of nowhere that only 10% of them might actually want...

In case you have not been listening...people are asking for the game to STOP being dumbed down to the lowest common denominator. A CoF does exactly what people are asking the developers to stop doing to an even greater degree.

What is after that? Everyone meet at theta and hug until someone falls over from impact damage?

And you don't think that being able to fire every weapon at once at one spot is dumbed down? I'd say introducing the system in the OP increases the complexity of the game and would make the game a lot easier to balance at the same time.

[Ratpoison]

Wolfways, on 12 February 2016 - 04:07 PM, said:

And you don't think that being able to fire every weapon at once at one spot is dumbed down? I'd say introducing the system in the OP increases the complexity of the game and would make the game a lot easier to balance at the same time.

You'd be incorrect on both.

A small part of me hopes that some day CoF DOES implemented, so that when all the competitive players exploit the hell out of the dumbed down system and go on major stomping sprees, all the CoF proponents show up again crying for their bad idea to be removed. It would get removed very soon after, and cost a lot of money on PGI's end, but it's hard to not want to see the CoF proponents get it shoved into their faces just how awful it really would be.

[Wolfways]

tortuousGoddess, on 12 February 2016 - 04:11 PM, said:

You'd be incorrect on both.

A small part of me hopes that some day CoF DOES implemented, so that when all the competitive players exploit the hell out of the dumbed down system and go on major stomping sprees, all the CoF proponents show up again crying for their bad idea to be removed. It would get removed very soon after, and cost a lot of money on PGI's end, but it's hard to not want to see the CoF proponents get it shoved into their faces just how awful it really would be.

So can you explain how the OP's system could be exploited? I'm sure he would like to discuss potential problems.

[Troutmonkey]

tortuousGoddess, on 12 February 2016 - 04:04 PM, said:

If you have to resort to something as nonsensical as a CYLINDER OF FIRE, then I think it's a solid sign that you should wrap it up and come up with something new. PGI isn't going to confuse the hell out of everyone with new mechanics that don't follow any kind of intuitive logic for the sake of a potential balance fix(even though it would make all the problems far worse, btw). How about you try fixing weapons instead and stop trying to rip the game's depth to shreds.

...

PGI isn't going to confuse the hell out of everyone with new mechanics that don't follow any kind of intuitive logic for the sake of a potential balance fix

Um, Ghost Heat anyone?
Anyway this system is pretty intuitive. The players don't exactly need to know exactly how the system works behind the scenes or any of the weapon CPU values. All they need to know is that if you shoot lots, you might not hit where you aim. That's about as intuitive as it gets as it's in almost every shooter ever. Heck, the bar showing the TCL value could even be hidden and it wouldn't make the slightest bit of difference.

Edited by Troutmonkey, 12 February 2016 - 04:58 PM.

[Troutmonkey]

tortuousGoddess, on 12 February 2016 - 04:11 PM, said:

You'd be incorrect on both.

A small part of me hopes that some day CoF DOES implemented, so that when all the competitive players exploit the hell out of the dumbed down system and go on major stomping sprees, all the CoF proponents show up again crying for their bad idea to be removed. It would get removed very soon after, and cost a lot of money on PGI's end, but it's hard to not want to see the CoF proponents get it shoved into their faces just how awful it really would be.

Yeah, really not seeing where the possible exploits are, just possible balance imperfects based on the what CPU values are used. If PGI set the CPU value for LPLs too low for some dumb reason and people start boating LPLs because they are accurate then you just adjust the value until it no longer too powerful. Unlike Ghost Heat the system can't be bypassed by missing different classes of laser or mixing lasers with missiles / ballistics. The best part is that unlike Damage, Heat, Range, Tonnage and Slots, this is a value that can easily be changed without breaking any stock builds or having lore buffs screaming from the hills.

Edited by Troutmonkey, 12 February 2016 - 05:02 PM.

[Gyrok]

Wolfways, on 12 February 2016 - 04:07 PM, said:

And you don't think that being able to fire every weapon at once at one spot is dumbed down? I'd say introducing the system in the OP increases the complexity of the game and would make the game a lot easier to balance at the same time.

Let me ask an Abrams tank driver if the main gun has a greater diversity in accuracy when the .50 cal is shooting at the same target by some arbitrary mechanic induced by "magic" in a computer.

/s

Edited by Gyrok, 12 February 2016 - 07:54 PM.

[Troutmonkey]

Gyrok, on 12 February 2016 - 07:54 PM, said:

Let me ask an Abrams tank driver if the main gun has a greater diversity in accuracy when the .50 cal is shooting at the same target by some arbitrary mechanic induced by "magic" in a computer.

/s

Who even cares if it's realistic? We're dealing with a universe where weapons have abysmal ranges and giant sitting targets called battlemechs are the most effective weapons of war. The proposal I've described comes with some semi-believable techno-babble and replaces an arbitrary system that is completely illogical, has no logical "lore" reason and fails to address the issue. It's a win for balance, gameplay and can even be explained away with some nonsense about targeting computers if you don't think about it too hard - which you shouldn't, because it's a game and Balance trumps Lore.

[Troutmonkey]

tortuousGoddess, on 12 February 2016 - 04:04 PM, said:

If you have to resort to something as nonsensical as a CYLINDER OF FIRE,

You know what. Calling it a cylinder of fire is actually going to make it easier to differentiate it from the bad cone of fire mechanics that everyone keeps assuming I'm talking about. Thanks!

[Ramseti]

Gyrok, on 12 February 2016 - 07:54 PM, said:

Let me ask an Abrams tank driver if the main gun has a greater diversity in accuracy when the .50 cal is shooting at the same target by some arbitrary mechanic induced by magic in a computer.

/s

Um, no, but the .50 cal would when the main gun fires, so your point is moot.

Edited by Ramseti, 12 February 2016 - 09:52 PM.

[Wolfways]

Gyrok, on 12 February 2016 - 07:54 PM, said:

Let me ask an Abrams tank driver if the main gun has a greater diversity in accuracy when the .50 cal is shooting at the same target by some arbitrary mechanic induced by "magic" in a computer.

/s

This just in, BattleTech is not reality.

[LordKnightFandragon]

tortuousGoddess, on 09 February 2016 - 08:15 AM, said:

Comparing that to the work it would take to implement the idea into MWO makes absolutely no sense.

Lol, you must be a die hard laser vomiter who just cant stand to see it end.

And to the OP, yes please? Might make the game a little less derpy.

Also watched your convergerance video after, I prolly wouldnt make the convergeance spread that much, since your guns basically do just aim forward, but the idea is nice.

Edited by LordKnightFandragon, 12 February 2016 - 10:22 PM.

[Troutmonkey]

LordKnightFandragon, on 12 February 2016 - 10:19 PM, said:

Lol, you must be a die hard laser vomiter who just cant stand to see it end.

And to the OP, yes please? Might make the game a little less derpy.

Also watched your convergerance video after, I prolly wouldnt make the convergeance spread that much, since your guns basically do just aim forward, but the idea is nice.

You mean the non-convergence one? Can't do much about. When weapons point forward that's exactly how it would work, only physical spacing on the mech could fix that which is why it's a terrible idea that will favour some mechs far more than others. If you meant this demo the maximum spread is set pretty high but it's easy enough to adjust

[smokefield]

@OP nice work on the demo.

@others - coding some lines and some fixed targets for a 2 min demo its a little different than coding the idea for an entire game. just image the huge amount of testing after the first phase. i would prefer pgi to invest their time and effort in new content, maps, new game modes...stufff that we actually can enjoy. The game its pretty ok where it is now.

@ the idea

i am still in favor of not changing the present system. It makes movement, positioning and especcialy twisting an important part of the combat and a required skill to become good. And hear this..people are better at aiming...most of them will be decent shooters but will suck at positioning and moving and twisting....so in the end they are bad players. I would like to keep this as a required skill and any spread of the damage will just give to all bad players the possibility to just face tank the damage knowing that will be spread, put the max armour in the front, maybe twist a little, and voila ! you have increased TTK artificially and lowered the overall combat skill.

[LordKnightFandragon]

smokefield, on 13 February 2016 - 12:55 AM, said:

@OP nice work on the demo.

@others - coding some lines and some fixed targets for a 2 min demo its a little different than coding the idea for an entire game. just image the huge amount of testing after the first phase. i would prefer pgi to invest their time and effort in new content, maps, new game modes...stufff that we actually can enjoy. The game its pretty ok where it is now.

@ the idea

i am still in favor of not changing the present system. It makes movement, positioning and especcialy twisting an important part of the combat and a required skill to become good. And hear this..people are better at aiming...most of them will be decent shooters but will suck at positioning and moving and twisting....so in the end they are bad players. I would like to keep this as a required skill and any spread of the damage will just give to all bad players the possibility to just face tank the damage knowing that will be spread, put the max armour in the front, maybe twist a little, and voila ! you have increased TTK artificially and lowered the overall combat skill.

Except when you get hit with an 50 point alpha, you get hit before you even realize your being hit....against those AI mechs in the battlegrounds, I can never twist away enough damage to matter. Its walk around the corner, get alphad...turn back to shoot, get alphad again....

The whole point is lower the damage output so twisting actually means something. A Mech like the Mauler? Twisting away is impossible, since not only does it move slow, but it doesnt even turn that far....

Twisting awway a huge laser alpha doesnt really save you, since the lasers are instant....and even if you tist away half the 50 point alpha, that is still 25 to w/e he hit....your mech wont take many of those...

Edited by LordKnightFandragon, 13 February 2016 - 12:09 PM.

[Gyrok]

Ramseti, on 12 February 2016 - 09:51 PM, said:

Um, no, but the .50 cal would when the main gun fires, so your point is moot.

Merely due to recoil....and even then, the vast majority of that is absorbed by the turret. So, if there was some variance on the .50 cal, it would be anecdotal evidence at best.

Additionally, anything a .50 cal is shooting at with practical effectiveness is pretty much irrelevant where it gets hit. If you hit someone in the foot with a .50 cal, they lose it. If you hit a truck anywhere in the engine with a .50 cal, the vehicle is disabled.

Your point is moot.

[Troutmonkey]

LordKnightFandragon, on 13 February 2016 - 12:08 PM, said:

Except when you get hit with an 50 point alpha, you get hit before you even realize your being hit....against those AI mechs in the battlegrounds, I can never twist away enough damage to matter. Its walk around the corner, get alphad...turn back to shoot, get alphad again....

With 300ms of lag you pretty much absorb the entire alpha before you even know that you're being shot at.

smokefield, on 13 February 2016 - 12:55 AM, said:

@OP nice work on the demo.

@others - coding some lines and some fixed targets for a 2 min demo its a little different than coding the idea for an entire game. just image the huge amount of testing after the first phase. i would prefer pgi to invest their time and effort in new content, maps, new game modes...stufff that we actually can enjoy. The game its pretty ok where it is now.

@ the idea

i am still in favor of not changing the present system. It makes movement, positioning and especcialy twisting an important part of the combat and a required skill to become good. And hear this..people are better at aiming...most of them will be decent shooters but will suck at positioning and moving and twisting....so in the end they are bad players. I would like to keep this as a required skill and any spread of the damage will just give to all bad players the possibility to just face tank the damage knowing that will be spread, put the max armour in the front, maybe twist a little, and voila ! you have increased TTK artificially and lowered the overall combat skill.

I understand making it in the game and working with HSR is harder than righting the demo, but the people generating content are different from the people working on code and bugfixing. At least they should be