425 replies to this topic

[1453 R]

Mystere, on 15 June 2016 - 08:29 AM, said:

Well, fixed convergence -- or any form of non-automatic convergence for that matter -- will still allow you to hit where you aim. You just might have to do it for each weapon or weapon cluster though.

I have a challenge for you, Mystere.

I want you to set up a private-match game of MWO, in which everyone playing is forced to used chainfire for all weapon groups at all times. Furthermore, let's make use of this macro debacle nonsense and require players to institute macros for all their primary triggers that delay weapons fire by three seconds whenever a "fire" action is triggered. Record it - ideally with voice comms/capture enabled for all players.

I want to taste the fury when I watch the videos.

That's about as close as I can come up with, in currently achievable* in-game terms, to what all these Dumvergence™ idiot-ideas is shooting for. You can only ever fire one weapon at a time, and that weapon needs a stupidly long time to try and remember where it keeps its glasses if you want it to fire anywhere even remotely near where you told it to.

Might I point to Mei's post, here?

MeiSooHaityu, on 15 June 2016 - 08:00 AM, said:

I do. It's not quite the same though Bish.

Other shooters weapons have some CoF, but they also have a higher RoF to go with it as well. Missed shots due to sway have less effect when I can put a grouping or stream of rounds down range. I also generally have a decent amount of ammo and with most shooters, can pick up another rifle lying around once I'm out of ammo.

In MWO, other than a Clan A/C, ballistics don't fire bursts of rounds with a high rate of fire like that. I also don't have a lot of rounds to burn or can pick up a new auto cannon or ammo when ammo is depleted.

In MWO, if I make a huge investment to carry an A/C20, I can't afford random off shots. The weapon is heavy, it takes a ton of crit slots (so I'm either running STD engine or no lower arm actuators), and at best, can normally allocate up 21~24 rounds of ammo. That's not even mentioning a long cool down. If after all that, I may miss what I'm aiming at on a regular Basis, why equip it? I'm better sticking with laser vomit. Some of the beam's duration will hit and I won't be wasting ammo on RNG misses.

I mean, even now with the way it is I cringe when I waste a valuable round of ammo, but I know it is my fault. I don't know if I want random chance burning ammo for me too.

Like I said, CoF is a concern for me because I don't know if it will really work quite right.

Like I also said, I'd be at least willing to try it, but I'm really not sold on the idea with MWO.

This is not Call of Duty, where you have enough ammunition to kill fifteen people in any given standard loadout and can pick up new stuff whenever you need to. This is not World of Whatevers, where you have enough ammunition to kill the entire enemy team, most stuff dies in one or two good shots, and the balancing mechanic is that most hits bounce uselessly off sloped armor or whatever unless you manage to catch them with their pants down (or pay for Magic Golden Shells that ignore balance because somehow Golden Ammo isn't P2W, right?).

This is MechWarrior. You cannot restock ammo mid-match, or replace your weapons with a fallen enemy's gear. You cannot count on switching to HEAP rounds and penetrating for a one-shot gib. You have to drag your enemies to their demise kicking and shrieking and biting back the whole time; every single miss with most any munition-firing weapon is a painful mistake you often cannot afford to make, and can never correct.

Can we please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please stop talking about Dumvergence™ now? Or Cone of Failure? Or all these other things designed to absolutely, 100% guarantee that you will run out of gorram ammo before you've so much as dragged one single enemy down past 50% integrity?

You want to render all non-SRM weapons systems in MechWarrior Online absolutely worthless, wait until they implement melee combat. Then we can at least have a bit of fun with MechPuncher Online while folks blow up the forums with 'requests' for their weapons to be returned to a state that could possibly, maybe, eventually, faintly compete with SRM Splatterhugs in a game where every weapon has an SRM launcher's spread without the numerous other benefits of an SRM launcher used to balance out its otherwise disastrous spread.

Edited by 1453 R, 15 June 2016 - 09:19 AM.

[Mystere]

1453 R, on 15 June 2016 - 07:31 AM, said:

Missing. The. POINT.

Do you want your once-every-four-seconds AC/20 firing in that same Cone of Failure? No other weapon in MWO conforms to the machine gun's rate of fire - everything else we have is multiple seconds per shot with the exception of the AC/2, which is also hot garbage. WHY does no one else understand that you can not have a system where your gameful of bolt-action rifles have unavoidable 30-degree MoA deviation?! That sort of thing only works with automatic weapons in other games because you can EMPTY THE MAGAZINE at a bolt-action guy before he can get his second or third shot off!

You just can't DO that sort of thing in a game where every weapon is specifically intended to be a deliberate, carefully-aimed tool instead of a spray-and-pray SMG!

And here you are again with your exaggerations.

MeiSooHaityu, on 15 June 2016 - 07:37 AM, said:

And this makes up a portion of my concern for an CoF system in MWO.

Once you yank out the above exaggerations, especially the first sentence, see if there is still something to be concerned about.

Edited by Mystere, 15 June 2016 - 09:45 AM.

[Farix]

Just adding a few videos on how a bit of randomness can help improve a skill based game.

[Bishop Steiner]

Mycrus, on 15 June 2016 - 08:07 AM, said:

how about at least they remove arm lock or at least make it a toggle only out of battle...

http://www.examiner....geting-reticles

once upon a time the two reticule system was touted as a 'feature'...

AMEN

[Mystere]

1453 R, on 15 June 2016 - 09:17 AM, said:

I have a challenge for you, Mystere.

I want you to set up a private-match game of MWO, in which everyone playing is forced to used chainfire for all weapon groups at all times. Furthermore, let's make use of this macro debacle nonsense and require players to institute macros for all their primary triggers that delay weapons fire by three seconds whenever a "fire" action is triggered. Record it - ideally with voice comms/capture enabled for all players.

I want to taste the fury when I watch the videos.

That's about as close as I can come up with, in currently achievable* in-game terms, to what all these Dumvergence™ idiot-ideas is shooting for. You can only ever fire one weapon at a time, and that weapon needs a stupidly long time to try and remember where it keeps its glasses if you want it to fire anywhere even remotely near where you told it to.

Might I point to Mei's post, here?

I don't have to, especially because you seem to miss the advantages and disadvantages of all non-pinpoint and/or non-automatic convergence ideas being presented to replace what we currently have that replaced the delayed convergence system we should have but was removed due to problems with HSR. Here are some of them:

• clustered weapon hardpoints are an advantage
  
• articulated arm-based weapon hardpoints are an advantage
  
• big guns are better placed on solitary hardpoints if other weapons are better served on clustered ones
  
• Mechs with scattered weapon hardpoints are at a disadvantage under certain conditions (e.g. no lock in a lock-based convergence system)
  
• each shot per weapon is predictable vs. a CoF system

Those are just a few.

But at least some people here see those. But you, on the other hand, just rant and rant and give out extreme and wildly exaggerated cases. Why should I even bother?

[Bishop Steiner]

MeiSooHaityu, on 15 June 2016 - 08:16 AM, said:

It sounds like an interesting way to limit Alphas in that game. I get that.

I'm just wondering if the possible energy draw system bwing developed for MWO might accomplish the same sort of thing and yet still allow you the usual control over your aim.

part of the issue is not the individual Mech Alpha, though, but the focus fire from 4-8 mechs, all having pinpoint accuracy to one component. Yes reducing size of alphas will help SOME, but part of the flavor of Btech was that some mechs did boat large alphas, in fact larger than they could realistically use. But they didn't all hit with millimetric precision to one area, which is what Metus is saying with how we don't have a mech with 2x AC20...we have one with an AC40, or an SRM90 because they all go to the same exact spot, with no outside influence to add immersion and yes, I will say it again. REAL skill.

What people are touting as "skill" here is like comparing pre-targeted benchrest mounted cornfield rifles being shot in an indoor range vs what a real shooter does with his milspec weapon outdoors. I'm sorry to bust the esporters hump, but what the marine recon sniper does, IRL conditions with less than ideally tuned equipment takes 10x more skill than the undisturbed perfect conditions, perfect gear club shooter.

[1453 R]

Farix, on 15 June 2016 - 09:25 AM, said:

Just adding a few videos on how a bit of randomness can help improve a skill based game.

Extra Credits are a great bunch of folks...but I imagine even they would agree that a game which makes heavy use of RNG, the way these yayhoos are going on about, needs to be designed and balanced out that way from the get-go. You can't just suddenly introduce heavy RNG Cone of Failure Dumvergence™ whatever-systems to a game which has been balanced the entire time with the notion of being able to accurately direct fire in mind and expect everything to fall out peachy-keen rad.

Games with Cone of Failure, or other accuracy modifier systems, are built from the ground up with those modifiers in mind. Call of Duty accounts for the fact that a huge majority of your shots will be misses - you need only a small handful of hits to win a fight, you get six or seven kills' worth of ammunition in any given clip, you get several clips to reload with, and most importantly the game offers numerous ways of reducing Cone of Failure inaccuracy - switch your stance, equip one of several gun modifiers, equip one of several perk modifiers, switch to a weapon with better hipfire performance, so on and so forth - up to and including the ability to aim down a weapon's sights in order to eliminate Cone of Failure completely.

Cone of Failure/Dumvergence proponents in MWO are coming up with equivalents to, or MWO correlations to, exactly none of these mitigating or controlling features. They want, effectively, full CoD run-n-gun maximum LMG hipfire inaccuracies forced on all 'Mechs, at all times, for all shots, with no ability to regain a single solitary jot of the accuracy lost to this new 'feature' system. Because TT, and because nobody likes dying in a MechWarrior game.

[Bishop Steiner]

1453 R, on 15 June 2016 - 09:50 AM, said:

Extra Credits are a great bunch of folks...but I imagine even they would agree that a game which makes heavy use of RNG, the way these yayhoos are going on about, needs to be designed and balanced out that way from the get-go. You can't just suddenly introduce heavy RNG Cone of Failure Dumvergence™ whatever-systems to a game which has been balanced the entire time with the notion of being able to accurately direct fire in mind and expect everything to fall out peachy-keen rad.

Games with Cone of Failure, or other accuracy modifier systems, are built from the ground up with those modifiers in mind. Call of Duty accounts for the fact that a huge majority of your shots will be misses - you need only a small handful of hits to win a fight, you get six or seven kills' worth of ammunition in any given clip, you get several clips to reload with, and most importantly the game offers numerous ways of reducing Cone of Failure inaccuracy - switch your stance, equip one of several gun modifiers, equip one of several perk modifiers, switch to a weapon with better hipfire performance, so on and so forth - up to and including the ability to aim down a weapon's sights in order to eliminate Cone of Failure completely.

Cone of Failure/Dumvergence proponents in MWO are coming up with equivalents to, or MWO correlations to, exactly none of these mitigating or controlling features. They want, effectively, full CoD run-n-gun maximum LMG hipfire inaccuracies forced on all 'Mechs, at all times, for all shots, with no ability to regain a single solitary jot of the accuracy lost to this new 'feature' system. Because TT, and because nobody likes dying in a MechWarrior game.

1453r.....

Mystere has nailed it on the head. You keep arguing only absurdly extreme example, 1 dimensional outlook of a mechanic, and ignore literally everything else. Unless you are actualyl going to calm down and have a rational conversation acknowledging other points, I'm going to ask you to please can the rants. You have "made your point" if you want to call it such, enough, and TBH, I'm getting tired of it.

This is me trying to be civil, but you are pushing things, with as little actual proof, and consideration, as far on this topic, as we both felt Mischief and some others were on the KDK3/Spirit Bear issue.

It's frankly, tiring and becoming obnoxious.

[Mystere]

Bishop Steiner, on 15 June 2016 - 09:54 AM, said:

1453r.....

Mystere has nailed it on the head. You keep arguing only absurdly extreme example, 1 dimensional outlook of a mechanic, and ignore literally everything else. Unless you are actualyl going to calm down and have a rational conversation acknowledging other points, I'm going to ask you to please can the rants. You have "made your point" if you want to call it such, enough, and TBH, I'm getting tired of it.

This is me trying to be civil, but you are pushing things, with as little actual proof, and consideration, as far on this topic, as we both felt Mischief and some others were on the KDK3/Spirit Bear issue.

It's frankly, tiring and becoming obnoxious.

There is really no point in discussing an N-dimensional problem space with someone with a 1-dimensional outlook. I mean, a line is totally incapable of comprehending the concept of "area" or "angle".

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Farix, on 15 June 2016 - 09:25 AM, said:

Just adding a few videos on how a bit of randomness can help improve a skill based game.

So going off the second video then, what is the point of CoF?

It certainly isn't the excitement element,
Is it to force players to adapt to maybe unfortunate elements (because this happens already with someone getting a lucky shot)?
Or is it to simply let the players with bad aim or movement be less unfortunate?

[kapusta11]

Go play tanks already. 9 pages in just one day. Good God!

[Bishop Steiner]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 15 June 2016 - 10:12 AM, said:

So going off the second video then, what is the point of CoF?

It certainly isn't the excitement element,
Is it to force players to adapt to maybe unfortunate elements (because this happens already with someone getting a lucky shot)?
Or is it to simply let the players with bad aim or movement be less unfortunate?

Immersion/Realism, learning skills beside twitch shooting, etc.

As noted, in my previous post, it's sort of like the difference between testing a theory in a laboratory under perfect controlled conditions...then testing the same theory in the real world, where one has to learn to adapt, as the perfect test tube world tends to fall apart when relaity gets introduced to the equation.

Simply put, for some people it's not about "relative perceived skill" but overcoming adversity being fun, and immersive. Believe it or not, clinical pick n clik a pixel aiming isn't fun to a fair number of people.

kapusta11, on 15 June 2016 - 10:15 AM, said:

Go play tanks already. 9 pages in just one day. Good God!

the fact that it has reached 9 pages of discussion that fast actually kind of makes the point on why it shoudl be here. Thanks for playing.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Bishop Steiner, on 15 June 2016 - 10:17 AM, said:

Immersion/Realism, learning skills beside twitch shooting, etc.

And here is my problem, what skills are you honestly learning besides minimizing twitch shots (which really doesn't even qualify as twitch shooting, you don't have to be fast in this game)? Or is it really just to minimize gunnery of the skilled players (which is less twitch and more learning lead times), making it fall in line with making it so the less skilled player may actually win more trades?

Realism by itself is a bad reason imo to add randomness.

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 15 June 2016 - 10:20 AM.

[MeiSooHaityu]

Bishop Steiner, on 15 June 2016 - 09:48 AM, said:

part of the issue is not the individual Mech Alpha, though, but the focus fire from 4-8 mechs, all having pinpoint accuracy to one component. Yes reducing size of alphas will help SOME, but part of the flavor of Btech was that some mechs did boat large alphas, in fact larger than they could realistically use. But they didn't all hit with millimetric precision to one area, which is what Metus is saying with how we don't have a mech with 2x AC20...we have one with an AC40, or an SRM90 because they all go to the same exact spot, with no outside influence to add immersion and yes, I will say it again. REAL skill.

What people are touting as "skill" here is like comparing pre-targeted benchrest mounted cornfield rifles being shot in an indoor range vs what a real shooter does with his milspec weapon outdoors. I'm sorry to bust the esporters hump, but what the marine recon sniper does, IRL conditions with less than ideally tuned equipment takes 10x more skill than the undisturbed perfect conditions, perfect gear club shooter.

I see both sides. I'm not trying to be close-minded about this.

I am open to the idea of CoF, but I do feel unsure if I would like it. An A/C20 for instance might be an extreme example, but it still needs to be taken into account since it is an important weapon in the game and BT universe.

I could see a small CoF being applied, but I'm not sure a small one would be adequate. A larger cone might be better, but would it hurt ranged loadouts too much? EEPPCs/ERLLasers/Gauss would suffer, but even with a CoF, would it effect short range weapons much? Would we see a shift to MPLaser/MLaser builds? Would that nerf the Clan's ranged advantage?

Really, there seem to be far reaching implications that would have to be taken into account. I think a CoF could work, but I'm sure balance would be a nightmare for a few months after.

In any case, I just feel that a CoF would have to be something I would need "seat time" with before I would be sold on the idea. I ain't going to lie though, I THINK it would be a hard sell to me, but I wouldn't know till i try it.

[Bishop Steiner]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 15 June 2016 - 10:20 AM, said:

And here is my problem, what skills are you honestly learning besides minimizing twitch shots (which really doesn't even qualify as twitch shooting, you don't have to be fast in this game)? Or is it really just to minimize gunnery of the skilled players (which is less twitch and more learning lead times), making it fall in line with making it so the less skilled player may actually win more trades?

Realism by itself is a bad reason imo to add randomness.

I honestly can't explain it any more in depth than in my 20 previous posts man. I'm sorry if you think being able to make shots in adverse conditions somehow diminishes skill. Screw it, let's keep the aiming for dummies and constantly decreasing TTK, or bandaid mechanics to fix it.

*shrugs*

Not sure what inherent skill click a pixel exemplifies, either, but that's just me, apparently.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Bishop Steiner, on 15 June 2016 - 10:17 AM, said:

Simply put, for some people it's not about "relative perceived skill" but overcoming adversity being fun, and immersive.

That makes sense for a PvE kind of game, but the moment you start talking about PvP, there is a different story. Don't get me wrong, when the dice roll your way in TT, it can be exhilarating, but the frustration from the reverse is not worth it and honestly why I don't play it that often anymore (well that and it takes forever).

[MeiSooHaityu]

Bishop Steiner, on 15 June 2016 - 10:17 AM, said:

the fact that it has reached 9 pages of discussion that fast actually kind of makes the point on why it shoudl be here. Thanks for playing.

Well, it shows it is a controversial topic with many people willing to voice their opinion.

Since it is a big change and a far reaching one, there is a lot to talk about.

That is why it is 9 pages. It's not because CoF should be a thing, but because it is something important enough to discuss no matter what side of the fence you are on (or sitting on top looking at either side).

Well, plus we all love to be long winded and type a lot Lol.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Bishop Steiner, on 15 June 2016 - 10:23 AM, said:

I honestly can't explain it any more in depth than in my 20 previous posts man. I'm sorry if you think being able to make shots in adverse conditions somehow diminishes skill. Screw it, let's keep the aiming for dummies and constantly decreasing TTK, or bandaid mechanics to fix it.

You say aiming is for dummies, but it obviously isn't considering how often people miss, sure in high level play that's not the case, and even then I miss and so do other people, my hit rate with Gauss is only in the high 60s. If you wanna be hyperbolic like McGral and start calling this game a point-n-click adventure, then so be it, but adding CoF doesn't add skill to that portion of aiming, it actually diminishes it making it even easier to aim, you just have to factor in misses more often like when a mech has cherry red internals on his CT and armor on the sides, you suddenly have to plan for a miss, but that isn't adding to the excitement from a player standpoint, that makes it more frustrating. Now it would make spectating that sort of match more interesting, but that isn't the biggest goal atm.

I think that is part of the problem with the communication behind your idea. You are saying aiming is easy, and want to add CoF, which doesn't actually make sense because CoF makes aiming easier, BUT has the side effect of making those who are better with aiming have to contemplate what happens if their shot misses into how they play which is really what you are after. That still doesn't mean aiming is "harder" but does mean aiming affects how you play the game, which is different imo.

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 15 June 2016 - 10:31 AM.

[Fut]

Yellonet, on 14 June 2016 - 12:02 PM, said:

Incorporating things into the game that makes it more difficult to hit what you're aiming at would not be a good idea as that would take away a large portion of the skill involved in the game.

If it's harder to hit a target, doesn't that actually mean it takes more skill to land a shot, not less?

[MeiSooHaityu]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 15 June 2016 - 10:23 AM, said:

Don't get me wrong, when the dice roll your way in TT, it can be exhilarating, but the frustration from the reverse is not worth it and honestly why I don't play it that often anymore (well that and it takes forever).

In TT I get RNG a bit more.

You have less control really. It's almost like you are a commander watching your pilots from a far. You can't influence their aim, you just watch and hope they strike.

In an FPS, you control the mech, you aim the cross hairs and you pull the trigger. If everything is lined up and you pull the trigger and see a shot magically go wide, it is much more frustrating IMO (especially if it happens twice in a row or 3 times do to dumb random chance).

An example of this (in a way) is the Ultra Jam chance. It's pure RNG and people HATE the lack of control over that mechanic. Applying that to aim could be seen as very negative.

The only way I could see around that is to make people at least feel they can shrink the CoF to almost nil with skill and control, but still have it present under many conditions just enough to have an affect. Not an easy task.