425 replies to this topic

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Levi Porphyrogenitus, on 15 June 2016 - 11:40 AM, said:

Do it in such a way that deviation is predictable rather than random, and there's even more room for skill in compensating for your precision reduction, allowing you to get pinpoint shots in where lesser players either miss their mark or forego shooting altogether.

That would mean no traditional CoF spread then, it would have to be more akin to recoil based patterns that way a player could actually compensate. just because the circle is small enough wouldn't make the deviation predictable.

Bishop Steiner, on 15 June 2016 - 12:21 PM, said:

and running and gunning would still be mostly accurate...just less so at maximum ranges. Or when pushing super high heat..by which point most noob rushes are in knifefighting range, anyhow, where the CoF is a lot less an issue. Especialyl compared to some shmucks essentially standing still and firing at low RoF to get that perfect aim.

You are still somewhat hampering a tactic that often has less advantages over static lines, which is again one of my worries because pushes are still not powerful, but once they get into brawl range a long range oriented team will be screwed because you can no longer spread out while firing. Basically it exacerbates the problems at the stages of the fights, push teams will be unable to do quite as much meaningful damage on the initial push while long range teams will be pretty worthless once that push is close enough because running and gunning (again, with important damage) while you put distance between you and the murder ball is less plausible.

[Mystere]

Fut, on 15 June 2016 - 12:25 PM, said:

Alright...
So what if the reticle in 1PV had a sway in relation to Mech movement, Mech Heat, and Cockpit Shake due to incoming fire?

A person would be able to learn how much reticle sway would come from their current speed, their current heat.. etc. A person, at any given moment, could choose to fire their weapons and their shot would be directed at the point on the screen where their recticle is. But what if, instead of merely having the reticle bounce around a bit, it expanded into a larger circle depending on the amount of sway?

This would be a Cone of Fire that wasn't completely random, and players would be able to learn how to compensate for everything that caused inaccuracies - but without the little dot that shows the exact pixel you wanted to hit.

Now make the sway have a frequency of 50 hertz from one end of the circle to the opposite and back.

Edited by Mystere, 15 June 2016 - 01:09 PM.

[Hotthedd]

1453 R, on 15 June 2016 - 11:38 AM, said:

Unfortunately, there's something of a key thing missed in what would otherwise be very valid points. Don't get me wrong, I do see your argument. But most Cone of Failure/Dumvergence types (most especially Mystere) argue that there should be a base, unavoidable level of inaccuracy to any given shot that cannot be overcome. As that makes it more realistic/A BattleTech Game™. To whit: say you're in a Warhawk, one with an arm-mounted Gauss rifle, a TCVII, an active probe, and sensor/targeting-boosting modules. You are looking at a Dire Whale that has just shut down one hundred meters in front of you, with a cherry-red CT. In the MWO we currently have, in the MWO your inferred implementation describes, in a MWO that is built to be enjoyed by its players, that Whale is a goner. Flat, no-contest done. In the MWO Mystere wants - the MWO Bishop and all the other Cone of Failure folks are arguing for - there is a (usually) small but still very real chance that a shut-down, cherry-red center Whale being faced by something with eight extra tons of advanced targeting equipment and several targeting-boosting modules will get to wake up again, because the basic inaccuracy forced on all pilots by the A BattleTech Game™ alpha-defusing Cone of Failure means that the Warhawk pilot cannot be guaranteed that his Gauss shot will hit that stationary, shut-down Whale's CT, even at pistols-at-ten-paces range. Because in TT BattleTech, you could not be guaranteed of hitting that mark, and because IRL crew-served weapons would not be guaranteed of hitting that mark (though if I were a military commander, anyone who missed that shot in an equivalent IRL scenario would be back on the training range really, really fast). That is absolutely, completely, utterly, beyond all reproach unacceptable. Were I the Warhawk pilot in that situation, and that Whale got to wake up and take another shot at me, I would consider hurling something heavy and expensive out my front windows. And there is not a single gamer out there with a soul who would be able to blame me.

Either you are intentionally misconstruing the opposing arguments or you believe that the cone of fire would have to be bigger than a Dire Wolf CT at 100m.
...I believe it is the former.

[1453 R]

Fut, on 15 June 2016 - 12:25 PM, said:

A bad implementation of CoF would behave like this, but this thread is 10+ pages of people discussing ways to implement a better version of it. It's also 10+ pages of you putting your fingers in your ears and reverting back to the same baseline hyperbolic argument.



Alright...
So what if the reticle in 1PV had a sway in relation to Mech movement, Mech Heat, and Cockpit Shake due to incoming fire?

A person would be able to learn how much reticle sway would come from their current speed, their current heat.. etc. A person, at any given moment, could choose to fire their weapons and their shot would be directed at the point on the screen where their recticle is. But what if, instead of merely having the reticle bounce around a bit, it expanded into a larger circle depending on the amount of sway?

This would be a Cone of Fire that wasn't completely random, and players would be able to learn how to compensate for everything that caused inaccuracies - but without the little dot that shows the exact pixel you wanted to hit.

Why?

No, seriously - why?

Why is it absolutely essential that the player's aimpoint be camouflaged from them? if the 'Mech's aimpoint is moving predictably and controllably based on various external factors, why do you need to camouflage this movement behind a World of Danks-style balloon-bubble? You've already accomplished the goal of spreading damage across multiple panels and requiring pilots to compensate for their 'Mech's motion, heat, recent firing/impacts, state of the weather, etcetera...

The only possible reason is to force players to play as if the system was a dice-rolling randomized Cone of Failure regardless, because without thousands of hours of intensive practice it's not really realistic to expect someone to know where their invisible crosshair is within the Wheel of Maybe based on the half-hundred factors everyone wants to tie to Whiff Chance. for the overwhelming majority, fire distribution within that Wheel of Maybe will be a weird, unintuitive version of randomized in which all your fire goes precisely and with 100% pinpoint precision to a point you could not determine or decide on.

Once more, I ask - why?

Mystere, on 15 June 2016 - 12:54 PM, said:

Are you absolutely sure you will know where the reticle position is in a circle with a 50-meter radius and a shake frequency of 1 kilohertz?



<I'm using the same kind of rampant idiocy I mistakenly believe you are using, by the way>

Can I see the reticle?

Can I determine its position on the screen at any given time?

Does fire go where the reticle is currently pointed when I pull the trigger?

Is there no Wheel of Maybe overlaying the actual reticle to artificially obscure aim and force Cone of Failure whiff parades?

Then yes - I'd know where the damn thing is. Whether or not that particular excessive level of motion is warranted...well. I'm not the one who wants to get back to our A BattleTech Game™ where an average pilot was lucky to hit more than one in fifteen attack rolls, am I?

Head to the Testing Grounds. Hit 3PV. Move. Watch what your reticle does. Then get Piranha to implement that motion into 1PV, with commensurate motion of your weapons' aimpoint.

Done.

Edited by 1453 R, 15 June 2016 - 01:15 PM.

[MischiefSC]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 15 June 2016 - 10:50 AM, said:

Wind nor sun would affect Michael Jordan because there is very little in stadiums for basketball (wind may however play into it since crowds cause some disturbance, but do you not think there are factors like that currently? Shoddy hit reg and lag do that just fine currently, me and another Kodiak shot an alpha into a Mauler's CT and watched it pass through him 3 times until our shots finally did damage, if that isn't a random factor I don't know what is, same with SRM hit reg. Sure it would be nice if that variance is removed, and honestly should be if possible since hit reg can be worse than a small yet decent CoF.

While I'd still be hesitant, I'd be willing to try a CoF that makes an alpha hit different sections of a mech at range, but not one that is going to make me miss an AC20 at 270m while moving. Part of my problem with the ideas are that they are trying to penalize movement and high heat on top of high alphas, which is too much imo, realistic or not.

You've hit the crux of it that's getting ignored.

Think of it more like the CoF inherent in full auto vs sniper weapons. Shooting 1 weapon, accurate. Shooting multiples, less accurate.

At no point am I in favor of wildly divergent CoF. A few meters and you need to be able to see what the variance would be. I don't see a need for it to be more than marginally impactful inside 270m.

Aside from which AC20 projectile speed needs upped.

[Fut]

1453 R, on 15 June 2016 - 01:08 PM, said:

Why?

No, seriously - why?

Why is it absolutely essential that the player's aimpoint be camouflaged from them? if the 'Mech's aimpoint is moving predictably and controllably based on various external factors, why do you need to camouflage this movement behind a World of Danks-style balloon-bubble? You've already accomplished the goal of spreading damage across multiple panels and requiring pilots to

The only possible reason is to force players to play as if the system was a dice-rolling randomized Cone of Failure regardless, because without thousands of hours of intensive practice it's not really realistic to expect someone to know where their invisible crosshair is within the Wheel of Maybe based on the half-hundred factors everyone wants to tie to Whiff Chance. for the overwhelming majority, fire distribution within that Wheel of Maybe will be a weird, unintuitive version of randomized in which all your fire goes precisely and with 100% pinpoint precision to a point you could not determine or decide on.

Once more, I ask - why?

Why? Because that's the suggestion that's been made.
What can I say? Some people like Grape Soda more than Cola, some people don't like SodaPop at all - we're all different. I think that it'd be enjoyable to play the game with this mechanic in place, you may not.

It's cool if you want to discuss the pros and cons of the suggestion, just stop exaggerating points and claiming that people are arguing for something that they're not. Nobody is suggesting a "half-hundred" factors, and nobody is arguing for a CoF that's the size of an Atlas either.

If I could magically make things the way I wanted, the reticle would balloon to maybe triple the size max. It'd be enough so that a shot you were hoping to hit the CT might hit a ST. Or a shot that you were aiming at an Arm (if you were crazy enough to shoot at an arm instead of torso) might miss. In my magical scenario here, this is at full speed, 90% heat, and getting hit by incoming fire. If your reticle is on the exact middle of the CT, you're still going to hit the Mech you're aiming at.

A simple ballooning reticle would help the game feel more like Battletech, without the RNG-Boogeyman throwing your shots to the moon. It would increase TTK, and it would reduce the amount of people who go full throttle/full alpha all the time (not that full alpha is bad, but high heat should be an issue. You want to Alpha-Alpha-Alpha? Your aim will become worse).That's why I'd like to try something along these lines, others may have alternative reasons.

Edited by Fut, 15 June 2016 - 01:30 PM.

[Levi Porphyrogenitus]

1453 R, on 15 June 2016 - 01:08 PM, said:

Why?

No, seriously - why?

Why is it absolutely essential that the player's aimpoint be camouflaged from them? if the 'Mech's aimpoint is moving predictably and controllably based on various external factors, why do you need to camouflage this movement behind a World of Danks-style balloon-bubble? You've already accomplished the goal of spreading damage across multiple panels and requiring pilots to compensate for their 'Mech's motion, heat, recent firing/impacts, state of the weather, etcetera...

The only possible reason is to force players to play as if the system was a dice-rolling randomized Cone of Failure regardless, because without thousands of hours of intensive practice it's not really realistic to expect someone to know where their invisible crosshair is within the Wheel of Maybe based on the half-hundred factors everyone wants to tie to Whiff Chance. for the overwhelming majority, fire distribution within that Wheel of Maybe will be a weird, unintuitive version of randomized in which all your fire goes precisely and with 100% pinpoint precision to a point you could not determine or decide on.

Once more, I ask - why?



Can I see the reticle?

Can I determine its position on the screen at any given time?

Does fire go where the reticle is currently pointed when I pull the trigger?

Is there no Wheel of Maybe overlaying the actual reticle to artificially obscure aim and force Cone of Failure whiff parades?

Then yes - I'd know where the damn thing is. Whether or not that particular excessive level of motion is warranted...well. I'm not the one who wants to get back to our A BattleTech Game™ where an average pilot was lucky to hit more than one in fifteen attack rolls, am I?

Head to the Testing Grounds. Hit 3PV. Move. Watch what your reticle does. Then get Piranha to implement that motion into 1PV, with commensurate motion of your weapons' aimpoint.

Done.

Consider the following:

The reticule consists of two elements: a cross for the torso weapons and a circle for the arm weapons. As variables stack up, the circle goes from what is essentially a point to more of a proper circle, while the area encompassed by the open center of the cross likewise expands. At rest, with no heat or other factors in play, firing the arm weapons will land all shots within the arbitrarily small arm reticule, while firing the torso weapons will land all shots within the arbitrarily small area enclosed by the arms of the cross. At high precision reduction, the arm weapons will impact at the outside edges of the arm reticule circle, dividing them into what are essentially two tight groups. Similarly, torso weapons will impact at the inner edges of the arms of the cross, leading to up to four tight impact groups (head for the upper arm, CT for the lower arm, and STs for the horizontal arms).

Your accuracy remains 100%, but your precision is predictably reduced in a way that is reflected graphically. Now, additional effects might apply based on how the heat scale ends up performing (say, fuzzing the reticule or other HUD elements, which is a common choice for MW devs when relfecting heat effects). The Academy would naturally be updated to reflect this mechanic, and it'd apply another layer of skill when managing weapons during intense combat.

[1453 R]

All right. First of all, apologies - partially misunderstood Fut's earlier comment. Figured he meant that the pinpoint-accurate 3PV reticle-bob would remain intact, but be hidden beneath a Cone of Failure-style Whiff Wheel. That's...an odd combination that makes no sense.

Reading his rebuttal (re-Fut-tal?), it's clearer now that he's talking about regular ol' Cone of Failure. See my last million posts on the matter, in this thread and others.

Second of all: why do we need to punish movement? Quicksilver's mentioned several times that inflicting steep accuracy penalties - or any accuracy penalties at all - on the folks doing the pushing is very dangerous, since pushing is inherently more dangerous and less likely to result in victory than sitting in your foxhole and popping shots off at anything you can spot.

This whole thing keeps coming with an increasingly ridiculous list of "if [X], then you miss" effects. If you're moving? You miss. If you've built up any heat? You miss. If you've taken fire recently? You miss. If you've generated fire recently? You miss. If you fire more than one weapon in a go, regardless of where those weapons are located and how blind-idiot obvious it is that they're intended to be fired together? You miss. Do any two of those things at once? You miss hard. Do any three of those things at once? You miss in a troll-worthy manner. Four or more? They could make hilarious YT compilation videos of how legendarily you miss.

The only way you hit is, and this is at least the second time I've said this...if you do exactly what experienced players have spent the last however-long-they've-been-here telling new players to not do - sit still, don't move, don't maneuver, and wait for the enemy to walk into your crosshairs.

Because otherwise you don't have crosshairs, but instead a varyingly-sized Circle of (Your Enemy Still Retains Their) Life.

[wanderer]

Quote

Games with Cone of Failure, or other accuracy modifier systems, are built from the ground up with those modifiers in mind.

MWO was built with imperfect convergence from the ground up.

Paul removed it in the name of HSR.

So, whatcha think all those CoF style shooters would end up like if suddenly, all perfect shots all the time?

[Hotthedd]

1453 R, on 15 June 2016 - 01:44 PM, said:

All right. First of all, apologies - partially misunderstood Fut's earlier comment. Figured he meant that the pinpoint-accurate 3PV reticle-bob would remain intact, but be hidden beneath a Cone of Failure-style Whiff Wheel. That's...an odd combination that makes no sense.

Reading his rebuttal (re-Fut-tal?), it's clearer now that he's talking about regular ol' Cone of Failure. See my last million posts on the matter, in this thread and others.

Second of all: why do we need to punish movement? Quicksilver's mentioned several times that inflicting steep accuracy penalties - or any accuracy penalties at all - on the folks doing the pushing is very dangerous, since pushing is inherently more dangerous and less likely to result in victory than sitting in your foxhole and popping shots off at anything you can spot.

This whole thing keeps coming with an increasingly ridiculous list of "if [X], then you miss" effects. If you're moving? You miss. If you've built up any heat? You miss. If you've taken fire recently? You miss. If you've generated fire recently? You miss. If you fire more than one weapon in a go, regardless of where those weapons are located and how blind-idiot obvious it is that they're intended to be fired together? You miss. Do any two of those things at once? You miss hard. Do any three of those things at once? You miss in a troll-worthy manner. Four or more? They could make hilarious YT compilation videos of how legendarily you miss.

The only way you hit is, and this is at least the second time I've said this...if you do exactly what experienced players have spent the last however-long-they've-been-here telling new players to not do - sit still, don't move, don't maneuver, and wait for the enemy to walk into your crosshairs.

Because otherwise you don't have crosshairs, but instead a varyingly-sized Circle of (Your Enemy Still Retains Their) Life.

You MISS!?!
Are you unable to locate a larger reticle on a 'mech?

Seriously, you degrade your argument when you use so much hyperbole. It shows you have no grasp of the concept.

[MischiefSC]

wanderer, on 15 June 2016 - 02:34 PM, said:

MWO was built with imperfect convergence from the ground up.

Paul removed it in the name of HSR.

So, whatcha think all those CoF style shooters would end up like if suddenly, all perfect shots all the time?

Again - the mechanics we've ported in from TT were based on an insane degree of inaccuracy. Insane. 50% hit/miss standing still, shooting a stationary together at 135m with a ML.

From which we cut any real heat scale and increased rof 4x and totally eliminated any inaccuracy factor. We addressed all this by....

Doubling armor.

TT is built around gaining an accuracy advantage or spray n pray. Managing your to-hit and gimping theirs. Tilting the odds of a lucky shot in your favor.

Removing that but leaving the rest broke the game and you can't fix that without addressing all of it.

I still say give each weapon a DPS to get their tt damage stat every 10 seconds. Then some sort of convergence mechanic and we're back to playing sorta like tt.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

wanderer, on 15 June 2016 - 02:34 PM, said:

So, whatcha think all those CoF style shooters would end up like if suddenly, all perfect shots all the time?

You mean like the AWP and most sniper rifles in most FPS shooters do? Most of those games use CoF to limit effective damage output (and effective range) whether it be burst or sustained, which is funny, because isn't that what heat is supposed to do?

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 15 June 2016 - 02:50 PM.

[Thunder Child]

Levi Porphyrogenitus, on 15 June 2016 - 01:28 PM, said:

Consider the following:

The reticule consists of two elements: a cross for the torso weapons and a circle for the arm weapons. As variables stack up, the circle goes from what is essentially a point to more of a proper circle, while the area encompassed by the open center of the cross likewise expands. At rest, with no heat or other factors in play, firing the arm weapons will land all shots within the arbitrarily small arm reticule, while firing the torso weapons will land all shots within the arbitrarily small area enclosed by the arms of the cross. At high precision reduction, the arm weapons will impact at the outside edges of the arm reticule circle, dividing them into what are essentially two tight groups. Similarly, torso weapons will impact at the inner edges of the arms of the cross, leading to up to four tight impact groups (head for the upper arm, CT for the lower arm, and STs for the horizontal arms).

Your accuracy remains 100%, but your precision is predictably reduced in a way that is reflected graphically. Now, additional effects might apply based on how the heat scale ends up performing (say, fuzzing the reticule or other HUD elements, which is a common choice for MW devs when relfecting heat effects). The Academy would naturally be updated to reflect this mechanic, and it'd apply another layer of skill when managing weapons during intense combat.

This man gets it. 1453 R, your hatred for CoF is sinking your own argument, due to the amount of hyperbole you apply to it.

I don't think anyone is asking for actual TT inaccuracy. They are asking for all the important modifiers that made TT what it was, to affect gameplay in MWO.

Right now, you could do a 360 aerial no-scope with quad PPCs at 90% heat while taking fire from the entire enemy team and perfectly hit that Jenner running at 140kph. Admittedly, that would be one HELL of a shot, but provided the relative latency is low, and you have quality gaming peripherals, it is achievable. Hyperbole, yes, but achievable.

What we (the TT nuts) want, is for these factors to make a difference. Something that a SKILLED player needs to compensate for. We are not asking for your shots to go in random directions when you fire an Alpha while moving. We are not asking for you to completely miss a Barn.... sorry, I mean Awesome at 270m, because you happen to be running at 75% heat.
Now, I may be wrong in this assumption on behalf of the TT Nuts, but what I believe we are after is what Levi described. Predictable Crosshair divergence, based on factors that are affecting your mech. So, high heat? A few mm's of deviation, meaning at 600m, your ST weapons might hit their ST instead of their CT. Running full speed, with High Heat? Your ST are now likely to hit the STs, but may still hit the CT, at 600m. Taking fire, while Jumping, at 90% heat? Your ST and arm weapons are probably going to hit their STs, maybe their arms, but may still hit the CT.

And all of this is Predictable, and accurate, divergence. So, even with all these factors in the mix, if you swing right a little, and fire the left side, and then swing left a little, and fire the right side, all your shots will still hit CT. It will just be in two salvos, instead of a single LOLDERP Alpha.
At least, I believe this is what the TT crowd are after. Not a World of Tanks Random CoF (which I have less issue with than their Tier system). Just skill modifiers based on conditions applied to your mech.

[MischiefSC]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 15 June 2016 - 02:48 PM, said:

You mean like the AWP and most sniper rifles in most FPS shooters do? Most of those games use CoF to limit effective damage output (and effective range) whether it be burst or sustained, which is funny, because isn't that what heat is supposed to do?

Heat mitigates spray and pray. That was always the point of it. Again - in the BT game we've ported stats from there is no real accuracy. Even hitting top ot bottom half of a mech is really hard.

So we need to really get away from viewing the game mechanics we have in the BT light. We need to look at what we want it to play like and build new mechanics from there. We've hugely deviated from the game design concepts but tried to keep the same values.

I agree we want a ton more accuracy. I'd like to see it move away from building superweapon loadouts and limit big alphas (35+) in some way but I'm pretty flexible on. What it looks like.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

MischiefSC, on 15 June 2016 - 03:56 PM, said:

Heat mitigates spray and pray.

I was thinking about wrong in the first post I made commenting on it, but I will explain my thinking a bit better.

For DPS builds, like Dakka boats, heat capacity essentially contains how long you can sustain full dakka, while dissipation is more of a control of your sustained DPS once heat capped.
For burst damage builds, heat capacity controls your alpha, being able to alpha twice before running into heat works for most mid-extreme range builds. Heat dissipation is more of a measure of how long you have to wait before you can repeat alphas.
There are some similarities, but how heat plays into play styles is a bit differently. Heat mitigates both if done well as far as I'm concerned, the problem is that this was never designed well, and that includes how mechs fit into these two roles making balancing them appropriately tough.

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 15 June 2016 - 04:11 PM.

[Fut]

Thunder Child, on 15 June 2016 - 03:46 PM, said:

Levi Porphyrogenitus, on 15 June 2016 - 01:28 PM, said:

Consider the following:

The reticule consists of two elements: a cross for the torso weapons and a circle for the arm weapons. As variables stack up, the circle goes from what is essentially a point to more of a proper circle, while the area encompassed by the open center of the cross likewise expands. At rest, with no heat or other factors in play, firing the arm weapons will land all shots within the arbitrarily small arm reticule, while firing the torso weapons will land all shots within the arbitrarily small area enclosed by the arms of the cross. At high precision reduction, the arm weapons will impact at the outside edges of the arm reticule circle, dividing them into what are essentially two tight groups. Similarly, torso weapons will impact at the inner edges of the arms of the cross, leading to up to four tight impact groups (head for the upper arm, CT for the lower arm, and STs for the horizontal arms).

Your accuracy remains 100%, but your precision is predictably reduced in a way that is reflected graphically. Now, additional effects might apply based on how the heat scale ends up performing (say, fuzzing the reticule or other HUD elements, which is a common choice for MW devs when relfecting heat effects). The Academy would naturally be updated to reflect this mechanic, and it'd apply another layer of skill when managing weapons during intense combat.

This man gets it. 1453 R, your hatred for CoF is sinking your own argument, due to the amount of hyperbole you apply to it.

I don't think anyone is asking for actual TT inaccuracy. They are asking for all the important modifiers that made TT what it was, to affect gameplay in MWO.

Right now, you could do a 360 aerial no-scope with quad PPCs at 90% heat while taking fire from the entire enemy team and perfectly hit that Jenner running at 140kph. Admittedly, that would be one HELL of a shot, but provided the relative latency is low, and you have quality gaming peripherals, it is achievable. Hyperbole, yes, but achievable.

What we (the TT nuts) want, is for these factors to make a difference. Something that a SKILLED player needs to compensate for. We are not asking for your shots to go in random directions when you fire an Alpha while moving. We are not asking for you to completely miss a Barn.... sorry, I mean Awesome at 270m, because you happen to be running at 75% heat.
Now, I may be wrong in this assumption on behalf of the TT Nuts, but what I believe we are after is what Levi described. Predictable Crosshair divergence, based on factors that are affecting your mech. So, high heat? A few mm's of deviation, meaning at 600m, your ST weapons might hit their ST instead of their CT. Running full speed, with High Heat? Your ST are now likely to hit the STs, but may still hit the CT, at 600m. Taking fire, while Jumping, at 90% heat? Your ST and arm weapons are probably going to hit their STs, maybe their arms, but may still hit the CT.

And all of this is Predictable, and accurate, divergence. So, even with all these factors in the mix, if you swing right a little, and fire the left side, and then swing left a little, and fire the right side, all your shots will still hit CT. It will just be in two salvos, instead of a single LOLDERP Alpha.
At least, I believe this is what the TT crowd are after. Not a World of Tanks Random CoF (which I have less issue with than their Tier system). Just skill modifiers based on conditions applied to your mech.

Yep, this says it all for me.
Well worded, both of you guys.

[Mavairo]

1453 R, on 14 June 2016 - 12:51 PM, said:

'Convergence', without Cone of Failure to randomize shot placement on deconverged weapons, is basically an oxymoronic/self-defeating system. Also f*** delayed/decoupled/fixed/otherwise-jerked-with convergence with a prickly pear - nowhere in BattleTech lore does it state "a 'Mech's torso-mounted weapons are irretrievably hard-bolted to the chassis and cannot in any way ever adjust their aimpoint in a fight."

And frankly, I don't think you understand how infuriating a shooter game in which you can never, ever reliably hit your target, under any circumstances, would be. yes, I do indeed mean 'eliminate'. You should be able to create situations in which you are able to hit exactly what you aim at in any game in which aiming and shooting is the principle gameplay. Hitting 'close to' where you wanted to, even when at a dead stop on zero heat, is not acceptable.

Do you ever want to see Gauss Rifles, AC/20s (or AC/10s), or PPCs in MWO ever again?

Then you had best be prepared to give players ways of yes outright eliminating Cone of Failure effects from their shots, even if temporarily or in a position of relative disadvantage (not moving/moving too slowly to adequately defend themselves), or you'll never see weapons like those which require precision hits pretty much ever again.

And as Quicksilver pointed out earlier, with heavy and obtrusive Cone of Failure mechanics implemented into MWO, a game which already tends to over-encourage anyone but coordinated, well-practiced teams in constant communication with each other to turtle up and avoid seeking battle...well. How do'you feel about World War 1, 3050 Edition? Hope your 'Mech doesn't get trench foot waiting a few weeks for an opportunity to engage.

You say this...as if Battleships (slowest rate of fire but Big BIG damage) weren't insanely popularly played in World of Warships, which features RNG.

Infact BBs are arguably the most powerful class of ship in the game.
Yet they have the least accurate guns in WOWS.

MWO is EZ Mode in aiming. It's so easy I catch myself repeatedly acting like I actually have to lead my shots in this game, after playing WOWS.

You also act as if precision shooting were not possible (and it VERY much is in WOWS. Otherwise everyone's damage numbers would be the same... guess what? They aren't.).

I can target people's turrets, their bows, smoke stacks, sterns, depending on how much lead I place on the target. My shells, are going to land there, more often than not. And there's a good chance I'm going to knock out that turret, or possibly Citadel an enemy ship, reliably, or at the very least penetrate for significant damage.

Maybe this game isn't so popular in part because of how shallow the gameplay is? Shallow gameplay is in part created by the fact that let's be honest, MWO is easy.

You rack up as big of an alpha strike as you can, setup a gunline somewhere, and either push into your enemy's backside and whup their *** or you wait for them to be stupid and charge you.
Or you mindlessly circle about, ignore caps and just kill everyone.

You think skill doesn't factor into WOWS? It does. A hell of a lot more than it does in MWO.

"Go play WOWS THEN!" the supposed Skill Crowd will say... I play this game because it has big effing robots in it. That doesn't mean this game can't take from frankly it's Betters to become better itself.

Non existent armor mechanics, non existent detection mechanics, further de incentivise lighter chassis.

Further more no form of RNG at all, also means that lighter and less armored (read Less HPed because that's all "Armor" in this game is is less HP) that lighter chassis, are even worse for it in this game.

Cap not mattering compared to the Murderball, means there's no reason NOT to murderball on every game mode, ever. And that's equally stupid.

For a Thinking Man's Shooter™ there's a whole lot of Stupid and Simple in this game's actual gameplay.
And if you support the shallow gameplay as it is...maybe you aren't so Thinking Man or "Skilled" ™ as you think.

[MischiefSC]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 15 June 2016 - 04:00 PM, said:

I was thinking about wrong in the first post I made commenting on it, but I will explain my thinking a bit better.

For DPS builds, like Dakka boats, heat capacity essentially contains how long you can sustain full dakka, while dissipation is more of a control of your sustained DPS once heat capped.
For burst damage builds, heat capacity controls your alpha, being able to alpha twice before running into heat works for most mid-extreme range builds. Heat dissipation is more of a measure of how long you have to wait before you can repeat alphas.
There are some similarities, but how heat plays into play styles is a bit differently. Heat mitigates both if done well as far as I'm concerned, the problem is that this was never designed well, and that includes how mechs fit into these two roles making balancing them appropriately tough.

I can agree with all of it. However damage, range, armor and heat values were based on every weapon hitting different locations and missing about 66% of your shots.

I don't think anyone wants a fps where 66% of your shots miss and tthe 33% that do hit random locations. Oh, and 4x higher rof.

I like using heat to cap out sustained DPS and force delays on refire for burst damage. It's a good mechanic.

We need to get some reasonable baselines for dps and burst. We can use heat and lost convergence to break up sustained dps/burst and prevent huge alpha hits while still supporting a reason to carry more than 35 pts of guns.

[Wintersdark]

1453 R, on 15 June 2016 - 01:44 PM, said:

This whole thing keeps coming with an increasingly ridiculous list of "if [X], then you miss" effects. If you're moving? You miss. If you've built up any heat? You miss. If you've taken fire recently? You miss. If you've generated fire recently? You miss. If you fire more than one weapon in a go, regardless of where those weapons are located and how blind-idiot obvious it is that they're intended to be fired together? You miss. Do any two of those things at once? You miss hard. Do any three of those things at once? You miss in a troll-worthy manner. Four or more? They could make hilarious YT compilation videos of how legendarily you miss.

The only way you hit is, and this is at least the second time I've said this...if you do exactly what experienced players have spent the last however-long-they've-been-here telling new players to not do - sit still, don't move, don't maneuver, and wait for the enemy to walk into your crosshairs.

Because otherwise you don't have crosshairs, but instead a varyingly-sized Circle of (Your Enemy Still Retains Their) Life.

Man, you know I've got a lot of respect for you, but you're REALLY overexaggerating every post in this thread.

There are no "If [X], you miss." effects. None. At proposed CoF levels, in extreme circumstances (high speed, high heat, under fire) you're looking at a small window that's going to spread fire at the absolute worst in a few degrees, meaning a CT aimed shot is also likely to hit a side torso.

That's not a "miss".

It's also not punishing movement and expecting people to stop to fire. Suggestions here involve scaling from somewhere around 75% throttle to max, so at 75% throttle you get zero degrees of CoF. Only at very high speed (relative to your mech) does this become an issue, and even then you're looking at just a couple degrees.

Why is this relevant? Because that way, it doesn't punish pushes. When you're pushing into brawl range, a couple degrees of CoF doesn't matter. You're close, so it doesn't have time to spread much at all.

What it DOES mean, though, is at range you have to make choices. Do you move at full speed, and suffer some inaccuracy, or run at "cruising speed" and have no inaccuracy.

The same with heat. Run at lower heat, fire with perfect accuracy. Only suffer a couple degrees of CoF at high heat. That right there is exactly what should happen in Battletech, by the way.

So, you have total control. You can have zero CoF while moving at a good speed and a moderate amount of heat, but as you push limits the various additive factors come into play.

Brawling isn't really punished at all, as you're so close even in extreme circumstances you're not missing anything.



So, CoF isn't about making you miss (unless you're moving at 100% throttle, at high heat, and firing at targets a kilometer away, at least), it's about spreading your fire, so it hits multiple components, but in a way that is 100% under your control. Bind a key to 70% throttle, so you can slow readily to a good firing speed. Maybe hold your fire a bit longer if you're at high heat. Or, if you're in the ****, maybe it's better to stay fast and hot, push that shot out faster, with a measure of risk. Either way, it's totally under your control.

Edited by Wintersdark, 15 June 2016 - 05:27 PM.

[Cy Mitchell]

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.

*shrugs*

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

I am sorry, I was at the beach all day and I am just getting back to read this. I do not understand how you are going to overcome the randomness of CoF with skill. If your inaccuracy is going to be determined by a RNG then overcoming it is simply going to be by luck ie missing your shot by exactly the amount that the RNG tried to make your shot miss your target and thus scoring a perfect hit. Am I wrong about this?

However, if you make the reticle bounce with the Mech as it moves then you can potentially make adjustments to your shot based on the rhythm of the Mech's gait and still have a chance to land your shot on target intitially. However, the gait would cause your lasers to trace a path as the reticle moved or the uAC to land its second shot in a different location. That, to me, is skill overcoming(at least partially) adverse conditions.

While I understand the desire to add a computer simulated dice role to accuracy from the TT perspective, I have always played MechWarrior as a Mech simulator so adding number generated random inaccuracy in targeting to the game just feels wrong to me unless it is tied to an environmental element such as uneven terrain, wind or the movement of the Mech.