129 replies to this topic

[NighthawK1337]

Cold Darkness, on 29 January 2017 - 02:36 PM, said:

increasing burn times and slowing projectiles and increasing burstfire ammount of the cac family will allow more interaction between both partys of a firefight. this allows the player on the recieving end to actively react to fire instead of having to predict fire. it is a very simple fix with big results if done correctly. for the majority of the playerbase, this change would also not impact how the gameplay feels. of course, this could potentially lead to problems with accel/deccel quirks, but those are mostly on ridiculous levels anyways and they are just as easy to fix.

How did this become a controllable variable by the player then? You're only thinking of the person in the recieving end yet we were talking about how something in the control of firing the weapon.

Cold Darkness, on 29 January 2017 - 02:36 PM, said:

and this is what my beef is about. i did not suggest such things, so there is no need to assume that i did.

Yes you did I'm gonna quote it again.

Cold Darkness, on 26 January 2017 - 01:50 AM, said:

NighthawK1337, on 25 January 2017 - 05:21 PM, said:

We should focus more on controllable variables......

i recall suggesting something for that. quite alot of that actually.

Cold Darkness, on 29 January 2017 - 02:36 PM, said:

the problem with that is, that it will still feel unfair to the crowd that is against rng based mechanics. it doesnt matter if you can control it by adjusting movement. although, it would offer an interesting tradeoff between more offensive (standing) or defensive (moving) gameplay instead of having both at once. it might get really boring real fast, though.

Yes it matters, It matters a great deal, this is the line between player skill and luck.

Cold Darkness, on 29 January 2017 - 02:36 PM, said:

"Hah" not if it isnt used as such. its amazing how much impact a single word can have when added to 3 lines of text right? but i am quite sure you are aware of how it reads, considering you removed it, which you most likely wouldnt have bothered doing otherwise. but this is pointless now. it doesnt advance the discussion, so yeah, whatever.

Cold Darkness, on 29 January 2017 - 02:36 PM, said:

anyways, for the more relevant things.
yes, ISXL durability is indeed VERY dependent on overall weapon accuracy (not used as a specific scientific term, tyvm). this is the basis for this topic.
if you disagree with this statement, feel free to state why you think that this statement is false.

You can say the same thing about every engine. Since I dunno, destroying the CT will kill every mech?
The statement is not 100% false, it is a factor but it is not

Cold Darkness, on 29 January 2017 - 02:36 PM, said:

VERY

biggest factor like you purport it is.

I'll put what the others and I said in a list why a lot of people disagree with you in general so you won't have trouble reading (understanding) it since you have a hard time with that.
*It BAAAAAAD to force people to miss because it takes the skill out
*There are SIMPLER and BETTER solutions already suggested by other people like just the dying penalty from 3 engine slots to 4 or LFE
*All your suggestions are already there
*Adding another unnecessary mechanic will just make balance worse
*you need reading lessons

[Cold Darkness]

@ MacClearly
non rng based solution that is suggested for your crowd:
by increasing burn times, cac bursts, slower projectiles and other tweaks to current weapon systems you can effectively allow more reactive counterplay to all weapons outside of engagement range and usage of cover. it offers options to avoid damage completly by actively dodging projectiles fired at mid to long ranges and to better roll damage of low burn time weapons.

these are benefits for the mech that is being shot at, but it also means that you need much more skill to get your damage exactly where you want it to be.

i understand your statement. what i do not understand is why you go on about rng when i offered an alternative for this very reason.



@ nighthawk1337

Quote

How did this become a controllable variable by the player then? You're only thinking of the person in the recieving end yet we were talking about how something in the control of firing the weapon.

"controlloable variables"

fine, i accept that this is totally my fuckup. i was focused on the controllable part, excluding variables entirely. it was my mistake, this is correct.
but why exactly did you get stuck at this instead of just pointing it out?
in case that you still have not noticed: i am actually interested in trying to get this thread into a decent discussion.

***not to take to serious: you can view the defending mechs behaviour as a variable if you want to.

anyways:
you are correct with the focus on the person on the person on the recieving end. these changes will obviously benefit them. this is how it is supposed to make the ISXL less fragile afterall. it allows for counterplay, which is more engaging for both partys.

Quote

Yes it matters, It matters a great deal, this is the line between player skill and luck.

so your answer to the concerns about rng of a brawling player is: "it is not luckbased because you could have stopped to take your shot"? pretty sure that this would produce the same reaction like just adding in CoF would. just from a SLIGHTLY smaller crowd.

Quote

You can say the same thing about every engine. Since I dunno, destroying the CT will kill every mech?
The statement is not 100% false, it is a factor but it is not



VERY

biggest factor like you purport it is.

a ) i did not state that it is the biggest factor.
b ) it is indeed a VERY big factor. just for fun: imagine how it would be if focusing your damage on single components wasnt as easy as it is. yeah, suddenly suddenly that ISXL is alot less fragile. who would have thought.

even if you disagree that it is a very big factor, that doesnt mean your main goal should be to point at things that are being discussed elsewhere or to try your hardest to shut this thread down. it should result in exploring more possibilitys. it is a general discussion about possibilitys to reach a set goal in a certain way, not a feature suggestion thread.


also:

Quote

*It BAAAAAAD to force people to miss because it takes the skill out

since this is a valid counterargument, i also proposed a non rng based solution.

*There are SIMPLER and BETTER solutions already suggested by other people like just the dying penalty from 3 engine slots to 4 or LFE

i pointed out that there are other threads discussing those "easier" solutions and i wrote why LFE is not a solution to the problem and why removing single sidetorso destruction is a bad idea. im also still waiting for you to post the counterargument to this statement, since you brought this up and obviously disagree with me.

*All your suggestions are already there

a ) rng based suggestions in the beginning are not implemented.
b ) because i am not you, i will just proceed to read this in its intended context. i am suggesting changes in the current weaponstats with a specific goal in mind. as long as this goal is not reached or otherwise made irrelevant by whatever might be done about the problem in the future, these things are also not what we currently have.

*Adding another unnecessary mechanic will just make balance worse

valid concern. its as hard to disprove it as it is hard to prove it. i also suggested things that will not add mechanics.

*you need reading lessons

if you feel like you need to supersize stuff, make sure it wasnt adressed before

edit: i removed the annoying smileys thate are b )

Edited by Cold Darkness, 30 January 2017 - 03:09 PM.

[Dino Might]

I still love how players scream about taking away skill if you introduce RNG mechanics where you need to manage heat and movement as well as aim to score accurate hits. Instead, they think it takes more skill when you only have to manage aim and nothing else.

This is like saying a BVR fight with AMRAAMS and modern radar/RWR takes tons of skill as compared to no-skill WWII dogfights. No way in heck! Those guys in WWII had to manage energy, manifold and oil pressure and temp, AoA, prop pitch & engine RPM, rudder, ailerons, sight adjustments for range and wingspan, limited fuel, very limited ammunition, and all in limited visibility and situational awareness (oh, and no sensors but eyeballs). Comparatively, the BVR fight is energy management and radar work.

Sure, both can be challenging versus a worthy adversary, but one clearly has a higher skill ceiling - the one with more to manage.

[MacClearly]

Cold Darkness, on 30 January 2017 - 03:07 PM, said:

@ MacClearly
non rng based solution that is suggested for your crowd:
by increasing burn times, cac bursts, slower projectiles and other tweaks to current weapon systems you can effectively allow more reactive counterplay to all weapons outside of engagement range and usage of cover. it offers options to avoid damage completly by actively dodging projectiles fired at mid to long ranges and to better roll damage of low burn time weapons.

these are benefits for the mech that is being shot at, but it also means that you need much more skill to get your damage exactly where you want it to be.

i understand your statement. what i do not understand is why you go on about rng when i offered an alternative for this very reason.

Read very carefully what I am saying. I have not once mentioned rng. You have brought it up repeatedly. I have said very clearly that your idea is not something that people want and you have zero proof that it will improve anything.

It is a bad idea.

[NighthawK1337]

Dino Might, on 30 January 2017 - 03:51 PM, said:

I still love how players scream about taking away skill if you introduce RNG mechanics where you need to manage heat and movement as well as aim to score accurate hits. Instead, they think it takes more skill when you only have to manage aim and nothing else.

This is like saying a BVR fight with AMRAAMS and modern radar/RWR takes tons of skill as compared to no-skill WWII dogfights. No way in heck! Those guys in WWII had to manage energy, manifold and oil pressure and temp, AoA, prop pitch & engine RPM, rudder, ailerons, sight adjustments for range and wingspan, limited fuel, very limited ammunition, and all in limited visibility and situational awareness (oh, and no sensors but eyeballs). Comparatively, the BVR fight is energy management and radar work.

Sure, both can be challenging versus a worthy adversary, but one clearly has a higher skill ceiling - the one with more to manage.

You like aircraft games too? Nice.

RNG itself isn't inherently bad, but how it is implemented. RNG that's always there for one is bad. Penalties while moving is justifiable, however being omnipresent is not. Okay another aircraft analogy, say you're piloting a F-117 Nighthawk on a stealth bombing run, there's a minimum altitude that you must maintain to keep hidden from enemy radar, wouldn't you feel bad if the enemy radar strength isn't constant and the minimum altitude varies constantly throughout the mission and it doesn't tell you? Having warnings is nice, having mountainous terrain that you need to maneuver with is good for challenge but having that minimum altitude change nonstop randomly that you can't predict or know is unfair. Maybe if you get random updrafts from the sea winds, but then you can fly over land. There's nothing you can do about the enemy radar except maybe blow it up, but then that's probably the mission end right there.



I'm gonna quote Yahtzee on this one

Yahtzee' said:

"So what you're saying is that the gameplay mechanic of directing your huge ferret osprey around is quite challenging, almost like it's some kind of, say, video game." I see your point, Joseph Mengele, but a challenge isn't fair if the elements don't act consistently. For example, our fairy friend is supposed to catch things that fly towards his mouth, but half the time the neuron apparently doesn't fire and he just zones out like he's thinking about Jaffa Cakes. . This is very hilarious when you're trying to chuck him a treat and it bounces off his head with a hollow clunk; not so funny when the thing he's supposed to be catching is YOU in what is probably supposed to be a heartwarming moment of relationship building at the climax of a platforming puzzle. As you leap desperately away from a collapsing ledge and fall towards the adorable Mr. Touchyface with arms outstretched, the cinematic slowmotion activates as he cranes his neck forwards, and proceeds to heroically gormlessly stare at you, confused that you didn't bring him a biscuit as you plummet past his nose to your death."

sauce: http://www.escapistm...Guardian-Review


I'd say the thing to note here is RNG but fair. Having control when and where RNG is present is where skill begins and luck ends. It's how you control the circumstances that matter. Having it omnipresently there isn't.

Modern shooters allow crouching, prone position and cover to reduce the otherwise omnipresent CoF in games because having no way to mitigate the recoil or having little to no control isn't like shooting a gun but like playing the slots. Sniping in BF3 have bullet drop but no wind(if I remember correctly) because there's no wind indicator and a spotter.

If MWO implements CoF it must introduce a mechanic that counteracts CoF besides going within 100m of the target otherwise it's very unfair to the players. I think this is the reason for the damage drop-off mechanic. They wanted to have an optimal range for the weapons but having predictable damage output with respect to range.

But then it makes stuff more complicated than it already is if they added CoF and is bad for balance considering that PGI is already having a bad time doing so. For example having moving penalties is okay in theory but will hurt brawlers, which makes sniping and hill humping the only viable tactic, which is bad for variety. And like MacClearly said, people already don't want CoF.

Edited by NighthawK1337, 30 January 2017 - 08:26 PM.

[MadIrish]

Just reduce the tonnage of IS equipment so we can use Standard Engines and equip decent alphas comparable to clan mechs.

[Dino Might]

Nighthawk, I think every CoF advocate is in favor of a dynamic CoF. It's not a flat, uniform distribution. It is a Gaussian distribution with a varying standard deviation (i.e., a way to mitigate the cone by doing things like staying cool, slowing down, not firing too many weapons at once, etc.). Thus, at any given moment, you have to weigh the costs of firing your weapons versus the probability to hit. If you are full-deflection max speed, high heat, flailing about, your cone of fire should be larger than if you are stationary and cool. How much larger? We'd need to do some play testing, but the practice is sound.

As for your F117 analogy, I wouldn't want a simple mission where only altitude affects detection performance. I want to have to be concerned with the enemy radar locations, types, my aspect angle to them, my speed, IR signature, terrain masking, and consider the AA threats and tactics of the operators (e.g., turning off radar, using only track radar with search handed off from another unit). Having a more complex environment is more immersive and more challenging. For me, that is more fun. Others may disagree. I like my "thinking man's shooter" to involve thinking. I've never once needed to use a sufficient level of thinking in this game.

Edited by Dino Might, 30 January 2017 - 10:30 PM.

[NighthawK1337]

Dino Might, on 30 January 2017 - 10:29 PM, said:

Nighthawk, I think every CoF advocate is in favor of a dynamic CoF. It's not a flat, uniform distribution. It is a Gaussian distribution with a varying standard deviation (i.e., a way to mitigate the cone by doing things like staying cool, slowing down, not firing too many weapons at once, etc.). Thus, at any given moment, you have to weigh the costs of firing your weapons versus the probability to hit. If you are full-deflection max speed, high heat, flailing about, your cone of fire should be larger than if you are stationary and cool. How much larger? We'd need to do some play testing, but the practice is sound.

As for your F117 analogy, I wouldn't want a simple mission where only altitude affects detection performance. I want to have to be concerned with the enemy radar locations, types, my aspect angle to them, my speed, IR signature, terrain masking, and consider the AA threats and tactics of the operators (e.g., turning off radar, using only track radar with search handed off from another unit). Having a more complex environment is more immersive and more challenging. For me, that is more fun. Others may disagree. I like my "thinking man's shooter" to involve thinking. I've never once needed to use a sufficient level of thinking in this game.

That's because PGI didn't added active and passive radar like in MW:LL, I wished they valued information warfare more.
That was a simplified sample mission from Heatseeker (PSP), that's what just at the top of the hat thinking. But the point was you won't like it when you're penalized for something that's out of your control right? Either way, solutions to a fundamental equipment difference isn't RNG. You wouldn't add radar random strength just to balance difference in stealth capability. You balance the stealth equipment on your planes.

[Sjorpha]

Dino Might, on 30 January 2017 - 10:29 PM, said:

Nighthawk, I think every CoF advocate is in favor of a dynamic CoF. It's not a flat, uniform distribution. It is a Gaussian distribution with a varying standard deviation (i.e., a way to mitigate the cone by doing things like staying cool, slowing down, not firing too many weapons at once, etc.). Thus, at any given moment, you have to weigh the costs of firing your weapons versus the probability to hit. If you are full-deflection max speed, high heat, flailing about, your cone of fire should be larger than if you are stationary and cool. How much larger? We'd need to do some play testing, but the practice is sound.

Dynamic CoF could be a great addition to this game, having to think about your movement in relation to accuracy would be interesting.

My problem with Cold Darkness isn't the idea of introducing a dynamic CoF, but that he somehow imagines this would make engines more balanced, which is just nonsense. If anything it would amplify the imbalance.

Quote

As for your F117 analogy, I wouldn't want a simple mission where only altitude affects detection performance. I want to have to be concerned with the enemy radar locations, types, my aspect angle to them, my speed, IR signature, terrain masking, and consider the AA threats and tactics of the operators (e.g., turning off radar, using only track radar with search handed off from another unit). Having a more complex environment is more immersive and more challenging. For me, that is more fun. Others may disagree. I like my "thinking man's shooter" to involve thinking. I've never once needed to use a sufficient level of thinking in this game.

That seems to prove his point, for all that complexity to actually lead to more thinking it has to be predictable effects you can master control of rather than just randomness.

[Vanguard319]

NighthawK1337, on 25 January 2017 - 08:19 PM, said:

Reduced precision when moving could be good but it's bordering on the CoF territory and then the goal was to help the IS XL's side torso vulnerabilities. Since Snipers and Hill humpers tend to not move a whole lot during firing compared to Brawlers, I'd say that it will do more harm than good at the moment since Snipers are more often the source of pinpoint damage. Brawlers nowadays are a dying breed, this will make them a little bit closer to being extinct.

Considering a Night Gyr reduced my SMN's CT from 100% to destroyed in one salvo at close range and in one pass recently, I have to disagree when you say brawlers are a dying breed. The fact is PGI has never done anything to address the PPFLD issue, and it's only going to get worse with the new weapons and tech coming.

Edited by Vanguard319, 31 January 2017 - 10:26 AM.

[Cold Darkness]

MacClearly, on 30 January 2017 - 04:06 PM, said:

Read very carefully what I am saying. I have not once mentioned rng. You have brought it up repeatedly. I have said very clearly that your idea is not something that people want and you have zero proof that it will improve anything.

It is a bad idea.

Quote

Somehow you have convinced yourself that removing accuracy would increase skill. That doesn't make sense. Buffing armour or reducing damage to increase TTK at least makes sense as it doesn't wreck the players ability to aim. If by increasing skill you mean by making it easier to spread damage by torso twisting, I contend that quickly and accurately aiming and firing is a lot more skillful than moving your mouse side to side.

by your statement you also imply that landing an AC 10 shot on 450 meters is not harder to do then landing a gauss or AC2 round on 450 meters range. or did you base your statement on RNG being involved when you wrote "removing accuracy" ?

i am not arguing that aiming is harder then spreading damage. i am saying that by involving your opponent in the firefight, it becomes more skillful, because your enemy is now playing against you. this just does not happen in the current game in some cases.


@ nighthawk1337

Quote

But then it makes stuff more complicated than it already is if they added CoF and is bad for balance considering that PGI is already having a bad time doing so.

considering how the game evolved in the past year, id disagree with that. pgi gets considerably better at overshooting the balance swings less every time. of course, this still means that balance swings ridiculously. but id blame that mostly on to many changes at once, followed by month of little to no additional adjustments.
in any case, even a cof mechanic could actually be more managable to the way the pgi guys work, which we wouldnt know unless they actually tried it. to reason that balance would be bad because the current balance is bad is not a valid statement if you want to proceed in any direction.

@Sjorpha

Quote

My problem with Cold Darkness isn't the idea of introducing a dynamic CoF, but that he somehow imagines this would make engines more balanced, which is just nonsense. If anything it would amplify the imbalance.

the CXL is more likely to get his whole torso area stripped before dieing or being killed by CT death in the current game. while such changes WOULD benefit those mechs, too, their effect would be MUCH less noticeable compared to a mech with an IS XL engine. your concern would be true without a doubt if both mechs stared each other down, but that is not really representative for the game is being played.

[Mystere]

NighthawK1337, on 30 January 2017 - 11:59 PM, said:

That's because PGI didn't added active and passive radar like in MW:LL, I wished they valued information warfare more.
That was a simplified sample mission from Heatseeker (PSP), that's what just at the top of the hat thinking. But the point was you won't like it when you're penalized for something that's out of your control right? Either way, solutions to a fundamental equipment difference isn't RNG. You wouldn't add radar random strength just to balance difference in stealth capability. You balance the stealth equipment on your planes.

I have a serious question. Do you know what a gaussian distribution is?

Sjorpha, on 31 January 2017 - 12:38 AM, said:

That seems to prove his point, for all that complexity to actually lead to more thinking it has to be predictable effects you can master control of rather than just randomness.

Military organizations around the world do not seem to have a problem with the concept of CEP and related things. Why do gamers, especially in MWO?

Edited by Mystere, 31 January 2017 - 12:47 PM.

[Ori Disciple]

Hey Mystere, is there a reason you used Gaussian instead of like just calling it a bell curve/normal distribution? Not trying to be rude, but I'm just curious?

[Dino Might]

Ori Disciple, on 31 January 2017 - 01:15 PM, said:

Hey Mystere, is there a reason you used Gaussian instead of like just calling it a bell curve/normal distribution? Not trying to be rude, but I'm just curious?

That's the name for the distribution, because Gauss was the guy (well, one of two) who developed the equations for it and showed that this distribution is well-suited for modeling natural errors. This is still used in most simulations and models today for modeling natural variance in outputs, which is why it's perfect for MWO - MWO being a "simulation" of combat systems.

I agree that a dynamic CoF implementation would actually increase the skill cap and widen the margin between the best and worst players. With the current player base, that may actually make game balance worse. But it would make the game much more interesting, and hopefully, entice new players. Given the continued diatribe from the vocal majority, however, I doubt current gaming generations really want an interesting and challenging game. They'd rather have point and click adventures. So be it.

Nighthawk, I agree, we don't want the results to be completely out of our control, but the dynamic CoF proposal advocates nothing of the sort. If I am to model natural variance, however, the best I can do is with sampling a statistical distribution. I don't (nobody does) have the computing power to have a perfectly deterministic system that bears any resemblence to reality. So we make do with statistical sampling. Weapon designers actually use this sampling to simulate their weapons' capability before building them. It is an inherent assumption in the development, testing, and eventual tactical employment of weapon systems around the world. I could almost venture to say that if you give me any modern aimed/guided weapon system, the designers modeled Pk or Phit with statistical sampling (i.e., dynamic CoF).

ETA: I'm not talking out of my rear end - I taught a class on Mathematical Modeling of Naval Weapon Systems

Edited by Dino Might, 31 January 2017 - 01:41 PM.

[Mystere]

Ori Disciple, on 31 January 2017 - 01:15 PM, said:

Hey Mystere, is there a reason you used Gaussian instead of like just calling it a bell curve/normal distribution? Not trying to be rude, but I'm just curious?

I'm more used to it, that's all. But I do use the equivalent terms from time to time.

Also, I seem to recall people mistaking "normal distribution" for "even distribution" or "purely random".

Edited by Mystere, 31 January 2017 - 01:47 PM.

[MacClearly]

Cold Darkness, on 31 January 2017 - 12:37 PM, said:

by your statement you also imply that landing an AC 10 shot on 450 meters is not harder to do then landing a gauss or AC2 round on 450 meters range. or did you base your statement on RNG being involved when you wrote "removing accuracy" ?

i am not arguing that aiming is harder then spreading damage. i am saying that by involving your opponent in the firefight, it becomes more skillful, because your enemy is now playing against you. this just does not happen in the current game in some cases.

Is there something wrong with you?

I have not mentioned RNG at all.

I have said in plain english that any idea removing accuracy is clearly not what people want and that is why even though people continually bring it up, it get blown away very quickly.

Read this word for word and take it literally. No mechanic that interferes with aiming based on engine or any other means is a good solution. Moving and shooting is already hard and obviously they felt the need to add shake while jumping. I say this only to head you off before you go twisting in circles. Stop trying to figure out what I am implying when I am being extremely direct.

Edit for extra emphasis;

Your idea is the equivalent of proposing to MLB that they should implement t-ball rules to make the game better.

Edited by MacClearly, 31 January 2017 - 02:30 PM.

[Dino Might]

MacClearly, on 31 January 2017 - 02:24 PM, said:

Is there something wrong with you?

I have not mentioned RNG at all.

I have said in plain english that any idea removing accuracy is clearly not what people want and that is why even though people continually bring it up, it get blown away very quickly.

Read this word for word and take it literally. No mechanic that interferes with aiming based on engine or any other means is a good solution. Moving and shooting is already hard and obviously they felt the need to add shake while jumping. I say this only to head you off before you go twisting in circles. Stop trying to figure out what I am implying when I am being extremely direct.

Edit for extra emphasis;

Your idea is the equivalent of proposing to MLB that they should implement t-ball rules to make the game better.

Shooting while moving is not hard, but that is a subjective argument. What can be stated factually is that aim is only dependent on one factor: where you mouse cursor is. That is analagous to implementing t-ball rules in a combat game to make it easier.

Not sure the argument you two are having, but the dynamic CoF proposal is simply a move away from "t-ball rules" into a more complex and challenging environment.

[NighthawK1337]

Mystere, on 31 January 2017 - 12:45 PM, said:

I have a serious question. Do you know what a gaussian distribution is?

Actually yeah. Used them a lot in Digital Signal Processing, Statistics, etc. I don't know why you asked.
Gaussian is still random,
"Normal distributions are important in statistics and are often used in the natural and social sciences to represent real-valued random variables whose distributions are not known."

Mystere, on 31 January 2017 - 12:45 PM, said:

Military organizations around the world do not seem to have a problem with the concept of CEP and related things. Why do gamers, especially in MWO?

Sniper systems use Minute of Angle for precision measurements at a range. Current experimental laser weaponry is not affected by such. However even the poorest AK47 in the world has at most 5 minute of angle at 600m, that's about the size of a human torso. Are you telling me that advanced military mechs in the far future will have shoddy aiming that will miss a mech the size of a building when they're already packing advanced targeting systems? I would say that it's possible with damaged mech but not with perfectly functional ones.

TrackingPoint XS1


If you're gonna quote realism, I'm also gonna quote realism.

Dino Might, on 31 January 2017 - 01:40 PM, said:

Nighthawk, I agree, we don't want the results to be completely out of our control, but the dynamic CoF proposal advocates nothing of the sort. If I am to model natural variance, however, the best I can do is with sampling a statistical distribution. I don't (nobody does) have the computing power to have a perfectly deterministic system that bears any resemblence to reality. So we make do with statistical sampling. Weapon designers actually use this sampling to simulate their weapons' capability before building them. It is an inherent assumption in the development, testing, and eventual tactical employment of weapon systems around the world. I could almost venture to say that if you give me any modern aimed/guided weapon system, the designers modeled Pk or Phit with statistical sampling (i.e., dynamic CoF).

Discussions in this thread was proposing CoF and other "Precision" deviation mechanics to balance engines, which is I think is complete BS since it is fundamentally an equipment problem, where the mechanic of isXL death is disproportional to cXL survivability. I am not averse to controllable RNG, but having CoF on all the time is also unrealistic. Even with current equipment the statistics of contact in the first shot is so high. Our aiming system now is so accurate that we even have a real life AMS and LAMS that could shoot down missiles. MARK I, a really old computer was used to calculate ballistics trajectory more than half a century ago with less computing power than your average smartphone. Current sniper systems like the one in the video is so good that it makes long range shooting almost trivial.

Other modern shooters like Battlefield add CoF because the player is supposed to be a normal human without advanced technology, shooters that have advanced technology tend to remove CoF with abilities like in Deus Ex.

Say we implement CoF, but follow realism, at most it'll miss the mark a few inches at the average engagement ranges say 400-600m, it would need to be at a large enough distribution so that OPs proposal to make it that XL STs wouldn't get picked off at a consistent rate. But then that's too unrealistic barring the far future setting. At most a realistically implemented CoF in MWO will just affect PPCs and Gauss at about 1000+ meters. Also assuming that both Clan and IS gets CoF, TTK would increase but Clans would still have survivable ST loss, which doesn't fix the fundamental tech disparity.

Another thing would be like Besh said in a previous post, if we're adding CoF for the purpose of realism, then the next we'll hear is auto aiming from Targeting Computers for the same purpose of realism.

If the main goal is balance, then adding a mechanic to balance another would be bad if the new mechanic interacts with everything else as well.

If the goal is to make the game more complex then CoF would make it more complex but it being necessary to make it interesting is questionable. MWO lacking interesting things isn't tied to just the mechanics but fundamentally because it didn't have stuff from the previous Mechwarrior games like a proper single player campaign. Even copying mechanics from MW:LL would yield better "interest" than a CoF system. For instance being able to eject and drop in a battle suit, commandeer another mech, pilot tanks, etc. Also the aforementioned radar system instead of the Jesus box we have now.

Peek-a-boo Warriors Online would benefit more to an agility reduction and/or map revamps if we want to avoid the "point and click" thing entirely. Adding CoF to force balance would just make it "point, click and miss."
If you're comparing MWO to a point and click game, Monkey Island for example, then MWO with a CoF is Monkey Island with a bad mouse.

Dino Might, on 31 January 2017 - 01:40 PM, said:

ETA: I'm not talking out of my rear end - I taught a class on Mathematical Modeling of Naval Weapon Systems

Nice. Electronics Engineer here.

Vanguard319, on 31 January 2017 - 10:23 AM, said:

Considering a Night Gyr reduced my SMN's CT from 100% to destroyed in one salvo at close range and in one pass recently, I have to disagree when you say brawlers are a dying breed. The fact is PGI has never done anything to address the PPFLD issue, and it's only going to get worse with the new weapons and tech coming.

1 salvo? not 1 alpha? Did you get hit in the back? a Night Gyr packing 2 UAC20s that don't jam only deals about 80 damage at 1 salvo, that's the most powerful brawling build for the Night Gyr I can think of. PPFLD Night Gyr only gets 50 alpha at most. Summoners with front loaded armor gets 70+ armor and about 30+ structure. Assuming you were also brawling and twisting, how did you go from 100% to death in 1 salvo?
Back at the start of MWO we had more than half the team packing a brawler build, now we only get 2-3 brawlers at most. Now range and hill humping is the norm, I would say that brawlers are a lot less than before.
I didn't say that they didn't exist anymore.

Edited by NighthawK1337, 31 January 2017 - 04:05 PM.

[Mystere]

NighthawK1337, on 31 January 2017 - 03:30 PM, said:

Are you telling me that advanced military mechs in the far future will have shoddy aiming that will miss a mech the size of a building when they're already packing advanced targeting systems?

weapon accuracy +
mechanical limitations (i.e. weapon platform) +
movement +
environment +
etc.

They all add up. Replace "mechanical limitations" with "human" and your 5 MOA AK-47 gets worse, much worse.

Dino Might, on 31 January 2017 - 01:40 PM, said:

ETA: I'm not talking out of my rear end - I taught a class on Mathematical Modeling of Naval Weapon Systems

NighthawK1337, on 31 January 2017 - 03:30 PM, said:

Nice. Electronics Engineer here.

Nice.

Physicist, engineer, <classified>

Edited by Mystere, 31 January 2017 - 03:55 PM.

[NighthawK1337]

Mystere, on 31 January 2017 - 03:53 PM, said:

weapon accuracy +
mechanical limitations (i.e. weapon platform) +
movement +
environment +
etc.

They all add up. Replace "mechanical limitations" with "human" and your 5 MOA AK-47 gets worse, much worse.

That's at worst, average is about 2.5-3.
That MOA was with a human shooter, assuming the Gyro of the mech works as intended, it could be compared to a Ransom Rest on top of a revving car engine. Which would make the mech a much more suitable shooting platform than a human with jittery hands.
And like I said would not affect balance like OP proposed.


Maybe recoil could make it work like that after a few shots but lasers and missiles won't have recoil (since missiles use back vents), and if my lore knowledge didn't fail me, recoil is compensated also by the Gyro.
PPCs for some reason have recoil which is weird....

I just thought about CoF tied to recoil. Maybe that is justifiable but then it only applies after a few shot. Considering that PGI already murdered UACs with jam times and weapon cooldowns is too long anyway, its kinda pointless to consider since we don't have RACs with continous fire yet.

Edited by NighthawK1337, 31 January 2017 - 04:23 PM.