143 replies to this topic

[anonymous161]

I think there should be a mechanic that makes your shots more innacurate in time like constantly firing, or if you take damage it might cause a limp in your stride or your aim is off because you have taken damage to your arm and can no longer move it all the way to one side or another or your camera feed gets fuzzy due to taking head damage or something and having to open the canopy to see but at far greater risk of getting one shot killed.

[LordKnightFandragon]

Alan Davion, on 01 May 2016 - 06:43 AM, said:

1. That all depends on how many people stay here. If there's a mass exodus from this game, and only the most hardcore players are left... Is that enough of a playerbase for PGI to sustain the game with?

2. That sounds like a pretty extreme CoF system. I've been advocating for no more than a 5-pixel or so deviation from where you're aiming, so in your case, what mech are you aiming at? A tiny-butt Locust or a barn-door Awesome? Are they moving? Are they standing still?



What Joystick? I used a Saitek X-52 HOTAS when I played MW4. I always had my missile weapons tied to the cool "missile" button under the little flip-up cover. That felt so damn awesome I'd grin every time I got a lock, flipped that up and gave it a jab, before watching a swarm of LRMs whoosh out from my mech and just knock down some poor SoB a kilometer away.

Saitek 290 Pro I think it was. I want another one of those, it felt just right. To bad I think it no longer exists.

[Alan Davion]

LordKnightFandragon, on 01 May 2016 - 06:46 AM, said:

Saitek 290 Pro I think it was. I want another one of those, it felt just right. To bad I think it no longer exists.

You could probably find one on eBay, though I don't dare to imagine in how bad a shape they might be in at this point.

[Davers]

Alan Davion, on 01 May 2016 - 06:41 AM, said:

1. That all depends on how many people stay here. If there's a mass exodus from this game, and only the most hardcore players are left... Is that enough of a playerbase for PGI to sustain the game with?

2. That sounds like a pretty extreme CoF system. I've been advocating for no more than a 5-pixel or so deviation from where you're aiming, so in your case, what mech are you aiming at? A tiny-butt Locust or a barn-door Awesome? Are they moving? Are they standing still?

Dammit guys, Old R has been working on this CoF thing for years, and I want him to tell me the specifics!

What difference does it matter what mech I am aiming at? Will the CoF be different for each target? Different if they are moving or standing still?

The point is if you have an Atlas that measures arm to arm roughly, say, 8 meters and head to pelvis about 6-7 meters and a Locust that is maybe 3-4 meters wide, but MUCH less vertically So a 1 meter difference won't mean much- you will most likely hit the Atlas in the same location you aimed at. But there is actually a fair chance of completely missing the Locust. Now if you get to a spread that would spread damage on an Atlas, like 2-3m then you will definitely be missing a lot of your shots on the Locust. Not to mention that a CoF would force everyone to just shoot CT and hope for the best rather than be able to target hit locations. We might as well just pool the armor/structure and make it like a traditional shooter.

[ComradeHavoc]

Cof is a bad idea because then I can't boat my 60 alpha laser damage pinpoint at a torso and use my guard arm to completely mitigate damage to my CT while I cool down, and use coolshot consumables.


The common stupid arguments that I keep reading over and over again like anti-vaxxers, being: it lowers skill, no mechwarrior game has it, and there shouldn't be RNG.


The first being oxymoronic, just by the virtue of new factors when shooting. The second being completely irrelevant to MWO due to the different mechanics, engine, playstyle etc. And the third being misleading as players have the direct ability to counter said RNG.

The real argument from these guys are:

I want to keep my alpha (X) damage meta mech build, just add more quirks to appease the peasants.

[oldradagast]

Davers, on 01 May 2016 - 06:50 AM, said:

Dammit guys, Old R has been working on this CoF thing for years, and I want him to tell me the specifics!

What difference does it matter what mech I am aiming at? Will the CoF be different for each target? Different if they are moving or standing still?

If you read my posts, I said I was a "long time supporter" of Cone of Fire, not "working on it for years." Blowing things out of scale and not actually reading what is written seem to be common themes for those opposed to a cone of fire.

To answer your questions - all of which have been answered before on other threads on this subject:

• The exact size of the cone can be worked out in testing, but it would be Gaussian weighted towards the center point of where you're aiming, so most of your shots would still land about where you aim. You just don't get the 100% guaranteed that you get today.
  
• The addition of a Cone of Fire would allow for greater design space. For example, the cone could widen a bit - making your shots less accurate - if you're near overheating. Wow - reduced accuracy when running hot - just like tabletop! It could also tighten up a bit if you have a target lock. Wow - a form of info warfare that actually matters and makes sense!

As for the rest:

- The game already has people aiming for nothing but center torsos and mechs that may as well have only 1 section and 1 hitpoint pool. A Cone of Fire is meant to reduce the idiotic effectiveness of the pinpoint, long-range, "hide behind rocks" meta. Claiming that a cone of fire would INTRODUCE center-torso aiming is laughably wrong.
- You seem upset that it may be harder to hit a small target at a long range than a big target. And... the problem with that is what, exactly? That's how things work in the current game, and the "scary, hard to hit Locust" also has about 1/5 the armor of the big, easy to hit Atlas.

So, that should answer your questions, though I sadly know from experience on this subject that no amount of facts will move people who are not interested in them.

Edited by oldradagast, 01 May 2016 - 07:07 AM.

[Davers]

ComradeHavoc, on 01 May 2016 - 06:53 AM, said:

Cof is a bad idea because then I can't boat my 60 alpha laser damage pinpoint at a torso and use my guard arm to completely mitigate damage to my CT while I cool down, and use coolshot consumables.


The common stupid arguments that I keep reading over and over again like anti-vaxxers, being: it lowers skill, no mechwarrior game has it, and there shouldn't be RNG.


The first being oxymoronic, just by the virtue of new factors when shooting. The second being completely irrelevant to MWO due to the different mechanics, engine, playstyle etc. And the third being misleading as players have the direct ability to counter said RNG.

The real argument from these guys are:

I want to keep my alpha (X) damage meta mech build, just add more quirks to appease the peasants.

If players through skill and game knowledge could counter the effects of RNG then it wouldn't be bad. But a general all encompassing nerf to aiming is bad.

Plus I can't think of a game that has CoF and such a huge discrepancy in target sizes.

[Alan Davion]

Davers, on 01 May 2016 - 06:50 AM, said:

Dammit guys, Old R has been working on this CoF thing for years, and I want him to tell me the specifics!

What difference does it matter what mech I am aiming at? Will the CoF be different for each target? Different if they are moving or standing still?

The point is if you have an Atlas that measures arm to arm roughly, say, 8 meters and head to pelvis about 6-7 meters and a Locust that is maybe 3-4 meters wide, but MUCH less vertically So a 1 meter difference won't mean much- you will most likely hit the Atlas in the same location you aimed at. But there is actually a fair chance of completely missing the Locust. Now if you get to a spread that would spread damage on an Atlas, like 2-3m then you will definitely be missing a lot of your shots on the Locust. Not to mention that a CoF would force everyone to just shoot CT and hope for the best rather than be able to target hit locations. We might as well just pool the armor/structure and make it like a traditional shooter.

How is that any different from the current system? Everyone already has it hardwired into their brains to shoot the CT, with the exception being light mechs, in which people have it hardwired into their brains to shoot the little ankle biters in the legs.

It does matter what mech you are aiming at, as well as whether you and they are moving.

If you were both standing completely still, yes, there is likely a good chance you could end up shooting a PPC bolt right between that Locust's spindly little legs. But if you're aiming at the Awesome, there's about a 99% chance you will hit that Awesome, you may even get a lucky headshot on the guy.

If you're both moving, you will undoubtedly miss the Locust, but you shouldn't be shooting at a Locust with a PPC at that range to begin with. If you're shooting at the Awesome, then yes, there's likely a 50/50 chance you may hit or miss the target.

ComradeHavoc, on 01 May 2016 - 06:53 AM, said:

Cof is a bad idea because then I can't boat my 60 alpha laser damage pinpoint at a torso and use my guard arm to completely mitigate damage to my CT while I cool down, and use coolshot consumables.


The common stupid arguments that I keep reading over and over again like anti-vaxxers, being: it lowers skill, no mechwarrior game has it, and there shouldn't be RNG.


The first being oxymoronic, just by the virtue of new factors when shooting. The second being completely irrelevant to MWO due to the different mechanics, engine, playstyle etc. And the third being misleading as players have the direct ability to counter said RNG.

The real argument from these guys are:

I want to keep my alpha (X) damage meta mech build, just add more quirks to appease the peasants.

And you are part of the problem.

Both MW2/4 did not have pin-point accuracy. Granted MW4 had better accuracy than MW2, but it was still nowhere near as bad as MWO is. MW2/4 were excellent games that rewarded both sniping and knife fighting. You could order your lance mates to go flank the enemy, shoot them, draw them out of position and then you come in from behind and just rip the shite out of them.

MWO has been reduced to this.

Get into cover/position.

Wait for enemy mechs.

Poke out of cover.

Fire alpha strike.

Duck back into cover.

Rinse and repeat ad nauseum until enemy is destroyed.

Yeah, that takes SO much skill.

Read: It requires zero skill and zero thought.

Cone of Fire would force people to completely re-evaluate their mechs, not to mention force PGI to completely re-evaluate the quirk system, which I think is a big double-win for the game as a whole.

If the "hardcore" players can't adapt to a very slight cone of fire system, then they really weren't all that hardcore to begin with in my eyes.

Hell, there could even be a mission in the MWO Academy that covers the CoF system.

[Davers]

oldradagast, on 01 May 2016 - 07:01 AM, said:

If you read my posts, I said I was a "long time supporter" of Cone of Fire, not "working on it for years." Blowing things out of scale and not actually reading what is written seem to be common themes for those opposed to a cone of fire.

See, I had a smiley face there. Stop being a stick in the mud.

oldradagast, on 01 May 2016 - 07:01 AM, said:

To answer your questions - all of which have been answered before on other threads on this subject:

I had one question, and you didn't answer it. Thank you.

[oldradagast]

Davers, on 01 May 2016 - 07:07 AM, said:

I had one question, and you didn't answer it. Thank you.

So, what? You didn't get an immediate answer to your random questions amid your insults and now you're taking your ball and going home? Grow up:
- Nobody ever said anything about making the Cone of Fire deviant by the size of the target you are aiming at. Since nobody suggested that idea, it's obvious that nobody was proposing it
- As for the cone changing and growing less accurate if you're moving, that idea has been discussed before (admittedly, not on this thread) and it was determined a long time ago that punishing movement was a bad idea since it would encourage even more camping.

Currently, the proposed cone of fire:
- Is Gaussian weighted towards the center of where your aiming
- Is the same size across the board, regardless of weapon number or type. Certainly, one could introduce mechanics that widen the cone a bit if more damage is fired at once, but that is risky because of adding illogical complexity, something the game has too much of already. A basic cone of fire is easy to understand - weapons are not perfectly accurate.
- Could be affected by the heat level of the attacking mech (realistic and lore-based) and by if you have a target lock (again, realistic and encourages some level of info warfare in a sane fashion.)

Some of us have been tossing around productive ideas on this topic for a while (months, not years) while others are clearly more interested in picking fights on the subject.

Edited by oldradagast, 01 May 2016 - 07:16 AM.

[cazidin]

LordKnightFandragon, on 01 May 2016 - 06:27 AM, said:

How do you propose to do that? You fail to realize adding a CoF of sorts would do exactly that, since people would be firing slower, less often, or smaller bursts, lowering the alpha.

Just nerfing laser damage alone doesnt fix the Alpha. All people would do is go to w/e is the next best Alpha weapon, probably PPCs, despite them being so bad.

You misunderstand. I realize that a COF will have an affect on gameplay, it's just a bad one. Humor me for a moment and let's assume that there's a COF similar to say, MASC. If you're moving at top speed or are at high heat your lasers will spread wildly then people will just move to PPFLD and move a bit slower.

Who does this punish? Light and mediums. Anything that can or has to boat energy weapons. Energy weapons in general. Who does this reward? Heavy and Assaults. Anything that can use SRMs or ACs. We just revert back to the PPFLD meta if we implement a COF that's based on movement or heat and worse yet, if the former, we obsolete fast mechs - which some may want to see as a method of combating the BEMS.

You should also ALWAYS avoid RNG as a balance factor in ANY video game. Nobody really likes RNG unless it heavily favors them in some way, and then it isn't true RNG.

I do not want to swing the meta back to PPFLD but laser vomit IS the biggest offender of high damage alpha strikes. If you want to mitigate them you'll need to start there first and be careful not to nerf it too hard. Putting all laser weapons in the same ghost heat family would be effective and yes, I know that Ghost Heat isn't a well received mechanic but it can work.

Absent that, harsher penalties for high heat, a proper heat scale akin to TT would be a good alternative. You'd need to adjust base heat capacity and dissipation, however and possibly change the heat on energy weapons.

I am adamantly opposed to a COF mechanic or anything that's RNG. The reason I labelled my thread the Short Sightedness of Convergence and I did address COF in that thread was because no one considers the implications of what they're asking or is willing to discuss the cons to their proposal. They only see what they think will work even if it'll be executed poorly.

[oldradagast]

cazidin, on 01 May 2016 - 07:14 AM, said:

You misunderstand. I realize that a COF will have an affect on gameplay, it's just a bad one. Humor me for a moment and let's assume that there's a COF similar to say, MASC. If you're moving at top speed or are at high heat your lasers will spread wildly then people will just move to PPFLD and move a bit slower.

And - again - nobody has seriously suggested for a while now basing the Cone of Fire's accuracy penalty on movement because anyone who's played this game for any length of time knows that it already heavily rewards sniping and camping.

I truly wish people would stop fighting against ideas that aren't even the ones being proposed.

[Oberost]

Davers, on 01 May 2016 - 07:04 AM, said:

Plus I can't think of a game that has CoF and such a huge discrepancy in target sizes.

WoT.

[cazidin]

oldradagast, on 01 May 2016 - 07:17 AM, said:

And - again - nobody has seriously suggested for a while now basing the Cone of Fire's accuracy penalty on movement because anyone who's played this game for any length of time knows that it already heavily rewards sniping and camping.

I truly wish people would stop fighting against ideas that aren't even the ones being proposed.

I'm not going to argue with you on that but it had been suggested several times in this thread and thus I felt I should address the merits of it, or the lack thereof. Please, debate me on the other points that I listed if you're interested.

[oldradagast]

Oberost, on 01 May 2016 - 07:21 AM, said:

WoT.

World of Warships has even larger variations in target size, and based at least on player count, it's far more successful than MWO. It also has TV ads and internet ads... haven't seen one of those for MWO.

The funny part: despite the large cone of fire in World of Warships, shot accuracy is still WAY higher than the gunnery of the era that it is simulating.

[oldradagast]

cazidin, on 01 May 2016 - 07:22 AM, said:

I'm not going to argue with you on that but it had been suggested several times in this thread and thus I felt I should address the merits of it, or the lack thereof. Please, debate me on the other points that I listed if you're interested.

Fair enough:
- Ghost Heat and all "hard limit" systems fail because the meta simple turns into "boat the most long-range precision weapons you can boat that keeps you just under the bad-stuff-happens limit and win." Witness the current laser vomit meta, and whatever new mechanic they introduce that sounds like it will be based on the raw damage you deal. If that is how power draw will work - X damage fired at once and bad stuff happens to you - the meta will immediately switch to doing X-1 pinpoint damage at once at long ranges. Bam - new stagnant meta instantly defined.
- All accuracy penalty systems based only on heat level fail because of the Gauss Rifle, one of the most powerful long-range precision weapons in the game... and it basically produces no heat. So, yes, making a system that puts in some sort of cone of fire, damage scatter, or whatever based only on heat level could work... but you'd still need some sort of goofy special case for the Gauss rifle. That's why an across-the-board cone of fire works better in a way - no special cases needed.

Edited by oldradagast, 01 May 2016 - 07:33 AM.

[Davers]

oldradagast, on 01 May 2016 - 07:12 AM, said:

- Nobody ever said anything about making the Cone of Fire deviant by the size of the target you are aiming at. Since nobody suggested that idea, it's obvious that nobody was proposing it

Alan Davion, on 01 May 2016 - 06:43 AM, said:

so in your case, what mech are you aiming at? A tiny-butt Locust or a barn-door Awesome? Are they moving? Are they standing still?

Right there someone did.

oldradagast, on 01 May 2016 - 07:12 AM, said:

Some of us have been tossing around productive ideas on this topic for a while (months, not years) while others are clearly more interested in picking fights on the subject.

So everyone who agrees with CoF is being productive, and everyone who disagrees is just looking to pick fights? I guess if you start with the assumption that your way is the only right way, end of argument, it might look like that.

Oberost, on 01 May 2016 - 07:21 AM, said:

WoT.

WoT doesn't have the same kind of damage mechanics that we have. Their light vehicles are made of paper, their heavy vehicles can be almost immune to damage (ever have a match where only one tank on your team could penetrate the other side's top tank? It almost turns into a protect mission to keep him alive), and it has a system where the computer will shoot for you.

[ComradeHavoc]

Alan Davion, on 01 May 2016 - 07:07 AM, said:

How is that any different from the current system? Everyone already has it hardwired into their brains to shoot the CT, with the exception being light mechs, in which people have it hardwired into their brains to shoot the little ankle biters in the legs.

It does matter what mech you are aiming at, as well as whether you and they are moving.

If you were both standing completely still, yes, there is likely a good chance you could end up shooting a PPC bolt right between that Locust's spindly little legs. But if you're aiming at the Awesome, there's about a 99% chance you will hit that Awesome, you may even get a lucky headshot on the guy.

If you're both moving, you will undoubtedly miss the Locust, but you shouldn't be shooting at a Locust with a PPC at that range to begin with. If you're shooting at the Awesome, then yes, there's likely a 50/50 chance you may hit or miss the target.



And you are part of the problem.

Both MW2/4 did not have pin-point accuracy. Granted MW4 had better accuracy than MW2, but it was still nowhere near as bad as MWO is. MW2/4 were excellent games that rewarded both sniping and knife fighting. You could order your lance mates to go flank the enemy, shoot them, draw them out of position and then you come in from behind and just rip the shite out of them.

MWO has been reduced to this.

Get into cover/position.

Wait for enemy mechs.

Poke out of cover.

Fire alpha strike.

Duck back into cover.

Rinse and repeat ad nauseum until enemy is destroyed.

Yeah, that takes SO much skill.

Read: It requires zero skill and zero thought.

Cone of Fire would force people to completely re-evaluate their mechs, not to mention force PGI to completely re-evaluate the quirk system, which I think is a big double-win for the game as a whole.

If the "hardcore" players can't adapt to a very slight cone of fire system, then they really weren't all that hardcore to begin with in my eyes.

Hell, there could even be a mission in the MWO Academy that covers the CoF system.

Try reading my entire post next time. [redacted].

Edited by Marvyn Dodgers, 03 May 2016 - 04:28 PM.
Insults

[Oberost]

Davers, on 01 May 2016 - 07:40 AM, said:

WoT doesn't have the same kind of damage mechanics that we have. Their light vehicles are made of paper, their heavy vehicles can be almost immune to damage (ever have a match where only one tank on your team could penetrate the other side's top tank? It almost turns into a protect mission to keep him alive), and it has a system where the computer will shoot for you.

But still has different "hitboxes" (not all the tank has the same armour on every surface) and some kind of critical system (ammo explosions, engine hits, crew members death...).

Yes, light vehicles are made of paper, but you can't oneshot it (critical hits apart or some HE rounds really scarce...). Also, they usually have better concealment numbers and great speed and manoeuvrability.

About being immune to damage, I can't think about one situation where with the help of gold rounds (the ones that now you can buy with in-game currency) a tank can't penetrate the rear of one enemy tank or one of the several "soft" spots that almost every armored vehicle has (hatches, machine gun ports, this kind of things...).

And finally yes, the auto-aim option, the one that you don't use because always target a predefined location on the enemy which usually it's not the best (normally is one of the worst...), and that only has some limited use in a case of a "dogfight", where you should be targeting the side or rear of the enemy where it doesn't matter too much what part are you hitting, because it will penetrate anayway...

Edited by Oberost, 01 May 2016 - 08:04 AM.

[Alan Davion]

Davers, on 01 May 2016 - 07:40 AM, said:

Right there someone did.

You're taking my words out of context.

I NEVER said that a cone of fire system would depend on the mech you were aiming at. I have never said that in all the posts I've made about a CoF system.

I have always advocated for a constant CoF system, regardless of what mech you are using or aiming at.

Go back a couple pages and you should find the post where I advocated for a 5-pixel deviation CoF system.

In fact I think I told you to do that already.

A 5 pixel CoF would pretty much be about the size of the circle in your targeting reticule, that's not a huge CoF, and I've also advocated for it to be tied into the range mechanics.

If you're shooting at something at or inside optimum range for your weapons, you have no CoF, if you're shooting beyond optimum range, you'll start getting deviation. For example, let's take a Medium Laser.

270 Meters optimum range, 540 meters max range. At 270 meters, you have no CoF deviation. At 540 meters you would have the maximum 5-pixel deviation. That is not a huge penalty, and depending on the mech you're shooting at, you're likely to hit the part of the mech you were aiming at to begin with. Let's say an Atlas or an Awesome CT hitbox.

Now a Locust on the other hand, yes, that's likely to be that much harder to hit because of one, how fast the little f***er is, and how small it is. You wouldn't want to engage that mech beyond optimum range for your weapons.