425 replies to this topic

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Levi Porphyrogenitus, on 15 June 2016 - 11:12 AM, said:

Which takes more skill: point-and-click, or managing your throttle, your heat, your range, and your stability state (assuming JJ use and received Impulse also modify precision)?

Skilled players are going to ensure that some of those are cut out of the equation by playing differently (limiting viable tactics/strats), which is part of the problem with ideas like making aim connected to all these separate systems, the end result is not what you would hope for. People are going to learn to control those in a way that is not good for the game, because they won't increase spread in a predictable and controllable pattern (at least as suggested, even with a normal distribution spread). Which is basically the problem, you aren't increasing the skill since all of those factors are already kept in control, you are just now making them affect aiming in an uncontrollable manor limiting what tactics you can employ even for skilled players because you can't overcome that spread in an appreciable manor.

Mystere, on 15 June 2016 - 11:19 AM, said:

Maybe movement, heat, and alphas will all be used in a CoF system. But then again, maybe they will not.

It doesn't matter whether someone has laid out the details or not, heat and movement should have an almost negligible impact because they have the potential to affect energy boats more than they should or limit what is viable with tactics or strategies.

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 15 June 2016 - 11:25 AM.

[GRiPSViGiL]

Aresye, on 15 June 2016 - 11:13 AM, said:

If MWO was as easy as people here make it out to be, then why is it always the same 2-3 teams winning every single league and tournament? Why is it always the same 10-20 players at the top of every leaderboard?

Because MWO isn't better than the games with world class talent playing them.

[Bishop Steiner]

Fut, on 15 June 2016 - 11:15 AM, said:

It's interesting that some people here are completely putting down the concept of a CoF, yet some seem to think that reticule bounce (due to whatever factors) would be acceptable. Tell me, would the reticule bounce have a limitation in size? If you connected the outer most limits of the bounce, would you be able to draw a circle of roughly where the shots would end up?

Seems like a lot of semantics bickering in this thread.



Because real life Snipers run and gun?

In tanks, no less. Tanks going 100 kph over broken terrain, hitting a breadbasket at 1000 meters.

as for CoF, as stated time and again, it should be a situational and yes very limited one with a defining circle of deviation similar to WoT but far less extreme, since we aren't manually aiming guns on WWII tanks with manual sights, lol.

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 15 June 2016 - 11:23 AM, said:

Skilled players are going to ensure that some of those are cut out of the equation by playing differently (limiting viable tactics/strats), which is part of the problem with ideas like making aim connected to all these separate systems, the end result is not what you would hope for. People are going to learn to control those in a way that is not good for the game, because they won't increase spread in a predictable and controllable pattern (at least as suggested, even with a normal distribution spread). Which is basically the problem, you aren't increasing the skill since all of those factors are already kept in control, you are just now making them affect aiming in an uncontrollable manor limiting what tactics you can employ even for skilled players because you can't overcome that spread in an appreciable manor.


It doesn't matter whether someone has laid out the details or not, heat and movement should have an almost negligible impact because they have the potential to affect energy boats more than they should or limit what is viable with tactics or strategies.

so, limiting uber spam, focus fire in most cases, while not damaging people setting up firing lines, etc.... kind of like real fighting? Not realyl seeing the issue..since honestly our builds and tactics are very limited as the game stands also, in part due to ease of uberalpha focus fire.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Bishop Steiner, on 15 June 2016 - 11:27 AM, said:

so, limiting uber spam, focus fire in most cases, while not damaging people setting up firing lines, etc.... kind of like real fighting? Not realyl seeing the issue..since honestly our builds and tactics are very limited as the game stands also, in part due to ease of uberalpha focus fire.

The problem is, if you can control the aiming better while standing still and at low heat, setting up static firing lines will be even stronger (which are a reason conquest was used over skirmish in comp). Being able to run and gun accurately is part of what allows pushes or noob-rushes to actually be threatening.

[C E Dwyer]

Gas Guzzler, on 14 June 2016 - 11:29 AM, said:

MechWarrior is a PC game where you put your reticle on an enemy and fire. Always has been, since MW2 anyway.

Maybe ever since MW2 developers have been doing it wrong.

[Mystere]

TKSax, on 15 June 2016 - 10:50 AM, said:

Because IRL you can detect those things like wind or Mirages that affect shooting quite a bit, in a computer game you can't so there is no way to compensate for them.

In MWO terms, it's movement, heat, and number of weapons fired that will have to be considered and their collective effects compensated for.

TKSax, on 15 June 2016 - 10:50 AM, said:

As I said before I rather MWO add effects like with in MW3 where it was harder than MWO to put a reticle on target (probably not as hard) and see things like heat effect torso movement, however in MW3 if your reticle was on target, it hit where you shot. I would not even mind if walking over things effected your reticle movement more, but not to much cause I would hate to see movement in the game become static.

May I propose looking at things from a different perspective?

In 1999, CPU were still limited by the amount of calculations they can perform and as such the game designers chose a simpler set of game mechanics to compensate. But given that here in 2016 CPU are much much more powerful, we do not have to limit ourselves to those same exact set of game mechanics. Our newer CPUs can actually do a lot more.

Did MW3 have ballistic drop? I myself cannot remember.

[Levi Porphyrogenitus]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 15 June 2016 - 11:23 AM, said:

Skilled players are going to ensure that some of those are cut out of the equation by playing differently (limiting viable tactics/strats), which is part of the problem with ideas like making aim connected to all these separate systems, the end result is not what you would hope for. People are going to learn to control those in a way that is not good for the game, because they won't increase spread in a predictable and controllable pattern (at least as suggested, even with a normal distribution spread). Which is basically the problem, you aren't increasing the skill since all of those factors are already kept in control, you are just now making them affect aiming in an uncontrollable manor limiting what tactics you can employ even for skilled players because you can't overcome that spread in an appreciable manor.

...if it's implemented badly. Do it right, don't turn precision reduction up to 11, and there will be real choice involved in timing your shots. 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.

[MeiSooHaityu]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 15 June 2016 - 11:29 AM, said:

The problem is, if you can control the aiming better while standing still and at low heat, setting up static firing lines will be even stronger (which are a reason conquest was used over skirmish in comp). Being able to run and gun accurately is part of what allows pushes or noob-rushes to actually be threatening.

Not to mention, it really isn't going to curb early game focus firing. Often (in PUG play anyway), teams tend to setup and trade shots early. At that point, mechs are relatively stationary and heat is low. This means that first SOB that pops out still gets hit with a concentrated alpha because the CoF is small. Even if there was a small scatter that meant accuracy was off by 10% or so, 90% of the fire is on target from multiple units. Everyone on that line sees the target in front of them pop out, everyone will focus.

Once people get used to this, we might find that early game tactics may involve both sides taking pot shots from relatively stationary lines. I could see a reassurgence of dual gauss being popular (especially on Jager's with high mount gauss) due to it's low heat production and low movement necessary to stay in cover helping preserve a small CoF.

Again, just trying to play a bit of devil's advocate here.

[Levi Porphyrogenitus]

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.

You may note that in none of my posts have I ever advocated a baseline level of imprecision.

Want to dump 100 damage from 10 PPCs into a single pixel? Be stationary, with 0 heat, and untouched by enemy fire. You may explode after you fire from the heat scale penalties you incur, but man will that shot hit like a truck.

Sniping under a system like the one I propose would not only be viable, it'd be important as part of a toolbox. It'd also make suppression of snipers a big deal, far more than it is currently. If the enemy sniper is controlling his mobility and heat variables, then impose some stability variables by applying impulse to him (oh look, AC2s now have a role!).

[1453 R]

Fut, on 15 June 2016 - 11:15 AM, said:

It's interesting that some people here are completely putting down the concept of a CoF, yet some seem to think that reticule bounce (due to whatever factors) would be acceptable. Tell me, would the reticule bounce have a limitation in size? If you connected the outer most limits of the bounce, would you be able to draw a circle of roughly where the shots would end up?

Seems like a lot of semantics bickering in this thread.

Reticle bounce, i.e. 3PV reticle sway in relation to 'Mech movement, is not randomization. At any given instant a player may choose to fire, their weapons will be directed at the point on the screen where their reticle is. The skill, in this case, is learning to compensate for the natural motion of the reticle and/or hold your fire until the correct instant.

Cone of Failure means weapons mostly just ignore the crosshair altogether and do whatever they like, regardless of player action or input.

One of those involves learning a new skill set. The other is Cone of Failure.

Fut, on 15 June 2016 - 11:15 AM, said:

Because real life Snipers run and gun?

'Real life' snipers only need to hit you once, can fire from beyond your effective detection range, let alone effective return-fire range, and are able to practice several orders of magnitude greater concealment than is capable in MWO.

To be more precise in my terminology, then: "So...what you're saying is 'F*** MWO designated marksman-style guys with maybe four hundred meters' effective range advantage over the brawlers at absolute best with a cactus."

Does that work better for you?

EDIT:: Sorry Levi, busy day at work. Be with you as I can, trying to keep up with a bunch of stuff.

Edited by 1453 R, 15 June 2016 - 11:58 AM.

[RussianWolf]

Bishop Steiner, on 14 June 2016 - 11:17 AM, said:

Lots of arguing about this. Some are fine with current TTK, some hate it. Some point out "1v1 it's fine" (mostly), the problem being that we seldom get 1v1 fights....but a lot of focus fire.

To counter that...PGI decided to Double Armor early in closed Beta. And as power creep came in, aided and abetted by the easiest targeting system in any shooter I've ever played.... TTK continues to plummet, and PGI keeps looking at "outside the box" fixes to limit damage... all the while buffing armor and structure more and more.... which may help in big fights for focus fire.... but then leaves it silly when you do get the drop on a lone mech so often, as you try to chip through huge layers of Quirk padding.

Here's the thing. Even if one removes the "random Hit Assignment Table" which is a core of the TT game, the simple act of hitting another moving robot was not easy. Even with elite skilled warriors, you missed 2/3 of the time or more, especially against fast/jumpy opponents and/or if you were also the fast jumpy one.

To demonstrate:

I've mapped out your basic combat modifiers on multiple threads in the past.

Assuming one was Natasha frikking Kerensky with a 0 base Gunnery Target:
Running: +2 modifier
Opponent Movement: (we'll let it be a big fat assault) 4-6 hexes +2
Partial cover: +1
Medium Range: +2

so that, which is a very average, normal encounter in MWO, is a 7 pt to hit modifier, on 2d6, where the hit then is randomly determined. And if it was against a running Light? +4, not 2. Intervening terrrain (which includes your own cover)? another +1 minimum. Long range? +4 instead of +2. Jumping? +3 if you are doing it, and another +1 if opponent.

So to hit a Jumping Light, at long range, over cover? +10 before your own movement and any other intervening terrain is added.

So an ELITE warrior would need a 10 on 2d6 to hit that Light.

Mind you am I stumping "for dice and RNG heraderp" like people always fall back on when immersive targeting is mentioned?

No. But I am pointing out that for the flavor and feel of this game, it is entirely too easy, and more to the point to hit exactly where you want, repeatedly. With a better, more believable firing mechanic and functional heatscale (which none of my to hits above factored, but DOES actually matter in TT) we probably could be running stock TT armor values, not this Doubled + Uber Quirked Structures just to vaguely survive.

Simple fact is, a less easily precise form of targeting is exactly what Battltech is supposed ot be built around, with a much more constraining and Heatscale that actualyl impacted your actions BEFORE shutdown, with your targeting and movement being hampered, your ammo running a chance of cooking off if you ran too hot, too long, or even shut down before hitting your threshold.

You want to "fix" TTK? "Skill" folk need to get over their revulsion to limited situational CoF mechanics, and we need a revamped heatscale and affects ( and BTW, we HAD heat that affected targeting in early CB, as well as ammo cookoffs. I don't recall if we had movement affected or not though, been 4 years)

Otherwise, all you can expect is more of the same, and convoluted "fixes" like Ghost Heat, Power Draw, Gauss DeSync and Charge Up, etc. Mind you, I don't actually see it being realistic to see these things happen this far down the rabbit hole.. but if people want to point fingers at what's wrong, let's actually get some perspective of the actual problems in the games base mechanics.

TLDR; In Battletech aiming was actually supposed to be hard, and your heatscale was supposed to matter.

since COF is such a bad word around here... maybe do what they did for JJs.... reticle shake based on your speed. The faster you are moving, the more shake your reticle shakes and the less accurate (pinpoint-wise) your shots would be.

So those Jenners running 150kph suddenly are missing half their SRM shots and if you are stationary you have the stability to snipe.

[Levi Porphyrogenitus]

RussianWolf, on 15 June 2016 - 11:57 AM, said:

since COF is such a bad word around here... maybe do what they did for JJs.... reticle shake based on your speed. The faster you are moving, the more shake your reticle shakes and the less accurate (pinpoint-wise) your shots would be.

So those Jenners running 150kph suddenly are missing half their SRM shots and if you are stationary you have the stability to snipe.

If speed impacts precision (which it should), then it cannot be based on raw speed, or lights will die. It must be based on throttle %. If you need a lore reason, gyros are linked to your engine. As your engine rating goes up, your gyro also improves to compensate. Pushing your engine to its limits will always strain the gyro, though, making higher throttle settings similarly impactful regardless of absolute velocity numbers.

[Bishop Steiner]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 15 June 2016 - 11:29 AM, said:

The problem is, if you can control the aiming better while standing still and at low heat, setting up static firing lines will be even stronger (which are a reason conquest was used over skirmish in comp). Being able to run and gun accurately is part of what allows pushes or noob-rushes to actually be threatening.

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.

[Fut]

1453 R, on 15 June 2016 - 11:55 AM, said:

Cone of Failure means weapons mostly just ignore the crosshair altogether and do whatever they like, regardless of player action or input.

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.

1453 R, on 15 June 2016 - 11:55 AM, said:

Reticle bounce, i.e. 3PV reticle sway in relation to 'Mech movement, is not randomization. At any given instant a player may choose to fire, their weapons will be directed at the point on the screen where their reticle is. The skill, in this case, is learning to compensate for the natural motion of the reticle and/or hold your fire until the correctinstant.

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.

Edited by Fut, 15 June 2016 - 12:28 PM.

[Bishop Steiner]

Levi Porphyrogenitus, on 15 June 2016 - 12:18 PM, said:

If speed impacts precision (which it should), then it cannot be based on raw speed, or lights will die. It must be based on throttle %. If you need a lore reason, gyros are linked to your engine. As your engine rating goes up, your gyro also improves to compensate. Pushing your engine to its limits will always strain the gyro, though, making higher throttle settings similarly impactful regardless of absolute velocity numbers.

Agreed. I've always always always since closed beta have stated that:

Speed induced CoF should begin at 75% throttle and get worse.
Heat induced effects start at 50% heat scale but start to spike at 75% (reducing spam alphas)
Range induced don't begin within optimal range, but do get larger between optimal and maximum range.
Jump induced is much like now, but extends about .5 to 1 second after thrust is cut (anti poptart measure)

Below these threshholds, you have basic reticle sway based on movement, which is predicable and manageable, and possibly recoil/impact effects. (which should be seriously rethought in use as chainfiring LRM5s shoudl NOT ipact cockpit shake worse than getting nailed by twin gauss/ac20

Heck, in TT a heavy enough hit staggered a mech with a chance of falling over. I wouldn't go that far, but people worried about their ac20 being obsolete? Well when you nail the other guy and screw up HIS aim, seems ok to me.

[1453 R]

Levi Porphyrogenitus, on 15 June 2016 - 11:43 AM, said:

You may note that in none of my posts have I ever advocated a baseline level of imprecision.

Want to dump 100 damage from 10 PPCs into a single pixel? Be stationary, with 0 heat, and untouched by enemy fire. You may explode after you fire from the heat scale penalties you incur, but man will that shot hit like a truck.

Sniping under a system like the one I propose would not only be viable, it'd be important as part of a toolbox. It'd also make suppression of snipers a big deal, far more than it is currently. If the enemy sniper is controlling his mobility and heat variables, then impose some stability variables by applying impulse to him (oh look, AC2s now have a role!).

The issue is that as the game exists today, sniping is only just, barely, marginally effective when done piecemeal. 'Long range decks' in Commodity Warfare or competitive play are designed mostly to cluster-gagglef*** anything that pokes its noodle with a dozen 'Mechs' long-distance weapons, but taken one-for-one, 'sniper' weapons in this game have only the very thinnest of advantages over short-range stuff. Your ER lasers and your Gauss Rifles don't actually hit any harder than close-range weapons - precisely and overwhelmingly the opposite, in fact - nor does long-range fire from one or two sources generally seriously threaten the integrity of a close-range fighter which is taking reasonable actions to preserve itself from long-range threats. Even the best 'long-range' fits - generally AC/5 machines - are the best 'long-range' fits only because their weapons are just as effective in close.

We're going to ignore LRMs altogether for the moment because obvious reasons.

In regular ordinary play (as opposed to tightly controlled, strongly premeditated World Tournament ultracomp drops where people have to cut joints off their fingers if they miss a shot), 'sniping' isn't really a thing. It only appears to be a thing because a dismayingly large number of players get nervous and Timid when they take any sort of incoming fire. A single sniper is not really capable of staving off the approach of a single brawling-range machine of equivalent tonnage/general combat capabilities, with a very small handful of exceptions.

Eliminating a sniper's ability to move (because if he moves he can't shoot), and/or reducing his ability to accurately land fire against madly evading, cover-hugging brawlers looking to ingest his facial region while simultaneously trying to evade himself...well, what you end up doing is pushing an already mostly marginal style out of favor altogether.

The same problem, magnified to whatever degree Mystere finally decides on, is why I keep telling people that pushing Cone of Failure can only inevitably lead to SRM Supercruisers becoming crushingly dominant. SRM Supercruisers are already competitive in today's environment, even though they suffer from what would be for any other weapon an absolutely debilitating level of RNG Cone of Failure spread. Other stuff only even halfway works against SRM Supercruisers because they can hit SRM Supercruisers from outside the SRM guy's effective range and, hopefully, pick apart body sections weakened by distance fire. Eliminate a player's ability to effectively engage an SRM Supercruiser outside SRM range, and how, exactly, does one propose to combat the fact that SRM Supercruisers have something like five times the raw WAAAAGH potential of any other possible weapon set-up inside their given range?

[Bishop Steiner]

Levi Porphyrogenitus, on 15 June 2016 - 11:43 AM, said:

You may note that in none of my posts have I ever advocated a baseline level of imprecision.

Want to dump 100 damage from 10 PPCs into a single pixel? Be stationary, with 0 heat, and untouched by enemy fire. You may explode after you fire from the heat scale penalties you incur, but man will that shot hit like a truck.

Sniping under a system like the one I propose would not only be viable, it'd be important as part of a toolbox. It'd also make suppression of snipers a big deal, far more than it is currently. If the enemy sniper is controlling his mobility and heat variables, then impose some stability variables by applying impulse to him (oh look, AC2s now have a role!).

and would make one have to decide, situationally...is the added accuracy worth the added chance of taking damage? If anything it would enhance thinking, planning, tactics, etc.

[Mystere]

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™.

And here you go again.

Stop letting your posterior do the talking, or at the very least stop talking through it.

All(?) convergence ideas presented so far have zero inaccuracy built in, none, nada, nil, zilch. All shots are meant to go where they are supposed to. Only those who do not know geometry and trigonometry will think so -- like any and all 1-dimensional entities.

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

In the MWO Mystere wants ..

... and more talking from the posterior. <smh>

Edited by Mystere, 15 June 2016 - 12:56 PM.

[Moldur]

Whatever changes do or don't come, I hope everyone knows that the people maximizing their advantage and killing everyone else will continue to do so. Changing the mechanics won't make people better or worse unless we assume the guy on the other side of the keyboard is a caveman going "unga bunga, me put 3 LPL + 6 ML, if no work, me shrivel up and die. Ooga ooh ah ah"

[Mystere]

1453 R, on 15 June 2016 - 11:55 AM, said:

Reticle bounce, i.e. 3PV reticle sway in relation to 'Mech movement, is not randomization. At any given instant a player may choose to fire, their weapons will be directed at the point on the screen where their reticle is. The skill, in this case, is learning to compensate for the natural motion of the reticle and/or hold your fire until the correct instant.

Cone of Failure means weapons mostly just ignore the crosshair altogether and do whatever they like, regardless of player action or input.

One of those involves learning a new skill set. The other is Cone of Failure.

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 logic you are using, by the way>