129 replies to this topic

[MacClearly]

Dino Might, on 31 January 2017 - 02:48 PM, said:

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.

No it is the exact opposite.

[cazidin]

A dynamic CoF, or really, ANY CoF in this game simply won't work and PGI has gone on record saying that, even if they possessed the technical skill AND the resources to do it, they are completely uninterested.

[MacClearly]

cazidin, on 31 January 2017 - 07:47 PM, said:

A dynamic CoF, or really, ANY CoF in this game simply won't work and PGI has gone on record saying that, even if they possessed the technical skill AND the resources to do it, they are completely uninterested.

Yet people keep bringing it up as if it is even worthy of discussing. Just as it is my understanding that 8 vs 8 is off the table because of....well reasons.

[Mystere]

cazidin, on 31 January 2017 - 07:47 PM, said:

A dynamic CoF, or really, ANY CoF in this game simply won't work and PGI has gone on record saying that, even if they possessed the technical skill AND the resources to do it, they are completely uninterested.

Is this a serious comment? Your recent forum antics are causing me grave doubt?

Also, 3PV and Coolant Flush say other wise.

Edited by Mystere, 31 January 2017 - 08:27 PM.

[Dino Might]

The issue with using numbers from real world, (e.g., 5 MOA @ 600m capable AK-47, which I agree, is crappy in terms of precision), is that Battletech lore is rife with ridiculous numbers that defy general physics. While the principles associated with the systems should be the same (e.g., dynamic CoF is a good model for such weapons), the actual numbers most certainly should not - otherwise, why would a machine gun only have a 100-200m range? Why would an AC/20 only have a 270m effective range? Makes no sense compared to the numbers associated with modern small arms and artillery systems. But we ignore the numbers to make the game more interesting, to force close, withing visual range engagements and not a "shoot at the tiny dot in the distance."

If we talk about why the "advanced" mech weapon systems should have some inherent lack of precision (i.e., not perfect precision), the lore actually supports this idea - targetting systems and computers are lost tech. Myomer systems are only so precise, and the impacts of heat are significant on both pilot and machine in terms of movement, sensor, and targetting/aiming capabilities.

The dynamic CoF model adds to the immersion and makes it "more realistic," but we will continue to use Btech values for weapon ranges and damage so as not to completely change the game. The dynamic CoF system would make the game closer to the lore and make it more challenging and interesting.

As far as balancing engines, I agree, that's not the intent nor the result of such a system. But that doesn't mean we should not consider the system because of that. A change to the core mechanics of the game needs to come before new balance decisions, otherwise, everything you do beforehand could become worthless, as this system will necessarily force some new balancing considerations. The cool thing is that you could adjust certain mechs that are disadvantaged with hardpoint numbers or placement to have some advantages in reduced standard deviation at varying speeds, heat levels, etc. You could give different variants much more variety and also make the skill tree something unique. Do I choose reduced CoF per kph speed or reduced CoF per heat %? If I can't have both, and the impact of both is a reduced cyclic rate on weapons, then we have meaningful sidegrades that result in more specialization and some hard choices for each to make to suit his own playstyle.

If I had a month, I'd draw up a significant overhaul of most of the mech characteristics, with the instigating change being the dynamic CoF mechanic. It would make me really interested in playing again, because there would be more to learn. Once there is no more learning in a game, it's no longer interesting to me.

MacClearly, on 31 January 2017 - 04:26 PM, said:

No it is the exact opposite.

Why? Currently, what factors affect your weapon accuracy?
Under dynamic CoF, what factors affect your weapon accuracy?

Which system is more trivial to manage? You can't just say something contradictory and not support it. Your claim makes no sense whatsoever.

Edited by Dino Might, 31 January 2017 - 08:43 PM.

[cazidin]

MacClearly, on 31 January 2017 - 08:22 PM, said:

Yet people keep bringing it up as if it is even worthy of discussing. Just as it is my understanding that 8 vs 8 is off the table because of....well reasons.

Well, it IS worthy of discussion. I have no problem with that but I know that PGI WON'T implement this and they did that this game would be worse for it. I made a thread about a year ago called the short sightedness of convergence and detailed why I think this idea and other proposals would hurt gameplay.

Mystere, on 31 January 2017 - 08:26 PM, said:

Is this a serious comment? Your recent forum antics are causing me grave doubt?

Yes it is. I've made a lot of joke threads recently, because I feel that the forums needed it. Before that, I published a lot of serious and in-depth ideas for discussion, or explained WHY something simply will not work if I saw the idea come up a lot.

https://mwomercs.com...of-convergence/

Yeah, almost a full year, minus a week to this day. Was it really so long ago in people's memories that I made intelligent, well written and reasoned threads submitting my own ideas or criticizing others?

Edited by cazidin, 31 January 2017 - 08:47 PM.

[NighthawK1337]

Dino Might, on 31 January 2017 - 08:41 PM, said:

As far as balancing engines, I agree, that's not the intent nor the result of such a system. But that doesn't mean we should not consider the system because of that.

I agree too. This discussion is limited by the scope of the original post and title, had it been in it's own post, then I wouldn't bring up balance. But that's what OP wants, to use CoF or other precision variance as a balancing tool. Not a way to increase game depth or immersion. Whether we should consider it or not is up to whatever PGI can cook up. If they find a way not to screw it up then I'd support it. But until then I can't. Like what happened in Energy Draw.

Edited by NighthawK1337, 31 January 2017 - 08:50 PM.

[Dino Might]

I completely accept the argument that implementing dynamic CoF would cause a major uproar and most players wouldn't like it. That's because most players want simple mechanics. The fact that all we have is QP deathmatches is evidence of that.

But I think the proposal would make the game better, not necessarily more popular. I still contend that what most players want just flat out sucks in terms of gameplay. Simple, stupid, rinse and repeat point and click adventures. It's fun for a while, until you realize that you're doing the same thing over and over with so little variation that you might as well program a bot to do it - oh wait, that's what some people have already done!

As for me, I'll continue to suggest ideas for improvement, but until something is done, my MWO time has been repurposed for much greener pastures where I can actually use my game time to have fun and learn a lot more. I don't condemn the MWO playerbase for playing MWO, but I do resent them a little bit for not wanting to consider something more.

Edited by Dino Might, 31 January 2017 - 08:51 PM.

[NighthawK1337]

Dino Might, on 31 January 2017 - 08:49 PM, said:

I completely accept the argument that implementing dynamic CoF would cause a major uproar and most players wouldn't like it. That's because most players want simple mechanics. The fact that all we have is QP deathmatches is evidence of that.

But I think the proposal would make the game better, not necessarily more popular. I still contend that what most players want just flat out sucks in terms of gameplay. Simple, stupid, rinse and repeat point and click adventures. It's fun for a while, until you realize that you're doing the same thing over and over with so little variation that you might as well program a bot to do it - oh wait, that's what some people have already done!

As for me, I'll continue to suggest ideas for improvement, but until something is done, my MWO time has been repurposed for much greener pastures where I can actually use my game time to have fun and learn a lot more. I don't condemn the MWO playerbase for playing MWO, but I do resent them a little bit for not wanting to consider something more.

Well I do want melee and single player.

[Dino Might]

NighthawK1337, on 31 January 2017 - 08:53 PM, said:

Well I do want melee and single player.

Would love to see both of those implemented. And a mission editor, please! User created missions would provide a lot of replayability for this game. Heck, PGI could sponsor the best user created missions and actually have them as missions you can use to grind c-bills and xp - they playtest to make sure it's fair and challenging, then assign a c-bill/xp value to it and release it on a rotation. Each day there is a new bank of missions available. They could even start building up a story narrative. For single player, you are a mercenary, here are you available contracts for the day. Write a story arc to go along with it, where you can read the updates each day based on what previous missions were completed by players the previous day.

Edited by Dino Might, 31 January 2017 - 08:58 PM.

[Evil Goof]

Dino Might, on 31 January 2017 - 08:42 PM, said:

Why? Currently, what factors affect your weapon accuracy?
Under dynamic CoF, what factors affect your weapon accuracy?

Which system is more trivial to manage? You can't just say something contradictory and not support it. Your claim makes no sense whatsoever.

First of all you inserted yourself into a conversation, injected you idea about 'dynamic cof' which may or may not be inline with what the OP was talking about and using your own example took what I said out of context...now you are saying defend my position?

Are you legitimately confused about what was said or getting a couple of different conversions you have going on confused? If the answer is no to that question, what you did was ignorant and trying to bait me into a response won't work.

[Dino Might]

Evil Goof, on 01 February 2017 - 12:02 AM, said:

First of all you inserted yourself into a conversation, injected you idea about 'dynamic cof' which may or may not be inline with what the OP was talking about and using your own example took what I said out of context...now you are saying defend my position?

I am assuming you are MacClearly on his alt?
Forgive me for getting involved in this most non-public of forums.
ETA: The original post involved "ANY" means to adjust weapon accuracy. CoF was the example the OP opened.

Evil Goof, on 01 February 2017 - 12:02 AM, said:

Are you legitimately confused about what was said or getting a couple of different conversions you have going on confused? If the answer is no to that question, what you did was ignorant and trying to bait me into a response won't work.

Classic dismissal. Nice justification. Good day, Sir. Your position is irreproachable, obviously.

Edited by Dino Might, 01 February 2017 - 03:48 AM.

[Cold Darkness]

first of all: thread exploded. happy.

anyways, since nighthawk1337 brought it up:

a common misconception of battletech is, that it somehow represents futuretech compared to our moderntech. this is simply not true, because battletech was never based on modern tech.
its similar to the fallout universe in that it advanced tech from a different starting point. while some things are advanced to what we currently have, many others are not. if one would go with that point of view into battletech, battlemechs would not exist at all. instead youd at best have tanks with jump jets. and thats only happening if ground troops play any role in an environment where orbital bombardement would be ridiculously easy.

@ nighthawk1337

Quote

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.

while im all for an agility reduction, im not in it for those reasons. an agility reduction would do the exact opposite thing.

@ MacClearly

[ignoring the conversation between you and dino might, since you seemed to not like him jumping in there]
so what you say is: "i want my skill to dominate my shooting" and "i dont want shooting to be harder"
is that correct? (you can read " i " as whatever fits the bill.)

[NighthawK1337]

Cold Darkness, on 01 February 2017 - 06:24 AM, said:

first of all: thread exploded. happy.

anyways, since nighthawk1337 brought it up:

a common misconception of battletech is, that it somehow represents futuretech compared to our moderntech. this is simply not true, because battletech was never based on modern tech.
its similar to the fallout universe in that it advanced tech from a different starting point. while some things are advanced to what we currently have, many others are not. if one would go with that point of view into battletech, battlemechs would not exist at all. instead youd at best have tanks with jump jets. and thats only happening if ground troops play any role in an environment where orbital bombardement would be ridiculously easy.

http://www.sarna.net...geting_Computer
"Targeting Computers are sophisticated pieces of electronics that, unlike normal targeting systems, physically help MechWarriors target their opponents. Recoil compensators and gyroscopic stabilizers are used to prevent normal weapon drift from factors such as recoil and movement while the computer accounts for atmospheric and other conditions to present an accurate "lead" on the target."


Well whatever tech the BattleTech universe is behind real life tech, it ain't damn sure is weapons.

Cold Darkness, on 01 February 2017 - 06:24 AM, said:

@ nighthawk1337
while im all for an agility reduction, im not in it for those reasons. an agility reduction would do the exact opposite thing.

Speed remains the same but twitchy movement makes the gameplay closer to something like CS:GO. If you watched the MW5 trailer you'd see that having less agility would make it more immersive and give more emphasis on thoughtful movement.

Edited by NighthawK1337, 01 February 2017 - 12:17 PM.

[Cold Darkness]

NighthawK1337, on 01 February 2017 - 12:16 PM, said:

Well whatever tech the BattleTech universe is behind real life tech, it ain't damn sure is weapons.

you quoted out of an article that would be hard to comprehend to our youth. if you are not familiar with the first few computers, a computer weighting TONS is a pretty ridiculous thought. and in battletech, thats a sophisticated piece of tech.
oh, weapons? missiles, railguns possibly every modern mbt cannon. like, are you serious? the only really straight out superior mech weapons in battletech are the lasers and plasma and stuff, because we are not quite there yet.



Speed remains the same but twitchy movement makes the gameplay closer to something like CS:GO. If you watched the MW5 trailer you'd see that having less agility would make it more immersive and give more emphasis on thoughtful movement.

which is exactly why i am for an reduction of agility (like i stated). but it still doesnt help with the issue, because it means that you can evade and roll damage much less effectively, making it even easier to lose that sidetorso when you make even a small mistake.
the movement would feel much more fittingly sluggish, but the AIMING IS STILL THE SAME.

[Evil Goof]

Dino Might, on 01 February 2017 - 03:39 AM, said:

I am assuming you are MacClearly on his alt?
Forgive me for getting involved in this most non-public of forums.
ETA: The original post involved "ANY" means to adjust weapon accuracy. CoF was the example the OP opened.

[size=4]

Classic dismissal. Nice justification. Good day, Sir. Your position is irreproachable, obviously.

Sarcasm noted.

You don't get to inject your idea over top of another persons and then have the gull to say that an argument against something totally different doesn't apply. That is BS.

If you want to interject do so in a way that makes sense.

Not falling for your bait and switch.

[NighthawK1337]

Considering that the real life Railgun pretty much does the same thing with a Gauss from BattleTech but with a different mechanic then I'd consider us behind the hypervelocity weapons. Gauss uses coils while Railgun uses an electrified rail, but they both use it to propel a dense inert magnetic ammunition at hypersonic speeds. Also we can only put Railguns in ships, while my Kitfox can mount a Gauss.

http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Autocannon
Autocannon is a type of rapid-firing, auto-loading direct-fire, firing HEAP (High-Explosive Armor-Piercing) or kinetic rounds at targets in bursts. It is, basically, a giant "machine gun" that fires predominantly cased explosive shells though models firing saboted high velocity kinetic energy penetrators or caseless ordnance do exist. Among the earliest tank BattleMech scale weaponry produced, autocannons produce far less heat than energy weapons, but are considerably bulkier and are dependent upon limited stores of ammunition.
Autocannons range in caliber from 30mm up to 203mm and are loosely grouped according to their damage versus armor. The exact same caliber of shell fired in a 100 shot burst to do 20 damage will have a shorter effective range than when fired in a 10 shot burst to do 2 damage due to recoil and other factors. Autocannon are grouped into the following loose damage classes"

Battletech ACs are not like our real life Autocannons, they are more like Tank cannons but with an auto-loader instead of a manual crew. They even have the ammo switching down with the ACs. Different ammo sure but BattleTech tanks also mount ACs. Considering that real life autocannons can only fire about 20mm rounds in average, the largest Tank gun mounted on a usable MBT is about 127mm in caliber, I'm pretty sure we're behind that too. I won't count in Germany's supertanks because those didn't really work out.


Missiles? well there's no ICBMs in the BT universe but on the whole I'd say we're just on par on that in terms of smaller ones used in the battlefield.
http://www.sarna.net...rd_SRM_Launcher

Yes I am serious. BattleTech is a work of fiction.

Edited by NighthawK1337, 01 February 2017 - 02:39 PM.

[Evil Goof]

Cold Darkness, on 01 February 2017 - 06:24 AM, said:

@ MacClearly

[ignoring the conversation between you and dino might, since you seemed to not like him jumping in there]
so what you say is: "i want my skill to dominate my shooting" and "i dont want shooting to be harder"
is that correct? (you can read " i " as whatever fits the bill.)

I am not objecting to him wanting to join the discussion. I am objecting to his interjecting without at least staying on the topic you and I were bickering about.

My position is that how this game is right now is how I want it to continue to be.

I don't want a mechanic that shakes the hud when I am hot or because of an engine or anything else. I am able to play this game on low dpi settings and have fun because the engines in our mechs already tame overly twitch shooting. It's why 15 year old [redacted] kids aren't dominating the crap out of this game.

In your original idea you are saying that this would add strategy... Trying to go after components instead of wiping out the mech. If it is harder to pick off parts, how do you figure that in this scenerio it wouldn't be ct only because it is harder to pick off???

Another huge deal for me is that this franchise was one of the first to allow for blowing off arms and legs. Making it difficult to do so would be infurating for those of us old enough to remember that aspect as being one of the biggest draws. So legging lights and circling for a back st or ct is a big part of this game and always has been (the ones I played at least).

Then if we have some mechanic that messes with it you think it will help lights...sure it will they would tank damage and just run up behind you and core you out because at zero distance they'd be hitting one spot...

So yeah I hate the idea. I get why they put something in to curb poptarting. There is no need however to expand that to XL engines or any other equipment.

[Sjorpha]

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

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.

There is nothing hypothetical about this. We already have low accuracy weapons in the game, srms, lrms, lbx, ssrm etc. We already know the effect of their low accuracy on engine balance in IS vs Clan brawls.

All these weapons amplify the engine imbalance, in fact the engine imbalance is most noticable in brawls with inaccurate weapons. The more spread the damage is the more the Clan XL shines. You have provided no explanation or evidence for why a global reduction of accuracy would have the complete opposite effect of the inaccurate weapons already in the game.

The same is true of good old fashioned bad aim, the IS/Clan XL imbalance is amplified between bad players.

You can't be suggesting that all weapons become less accurate than the most inaccurate weapon in the game, the SRM6, because no one would take you seriously at that point. The SRM6 is so inaccurate that it's ineffective beyond 150m, so basically you would be saying "from now on no fighting beyond 150m". We know the SRM6 does not improve engine balance and actually makes it worse. So you have no real window for where inaccuracy would improve engine balance. There isn't some magical special kind of inaccuracy that has the opposite effect of the current inaccuracy.

There are good arguments for dynamic CoF, in fact so good that I'm in favor of it and have argued for it in the past, but some backwards notion that it would magically improve engine balance isn't one of them.

CoF system would make IS vs Clan XL engine balancing even more urgent that it already is. Actually that is one of the reasons to implement it, PGI needs more pressure on them to balance IS and Clan tech properly.

Also like any other global increase to TTK it would increase the gap between low and high skill players and increase the snowballing effect leading to more matches being stomps, but those are both good things in my book.

Edited by Sjorpha, 01 February 2017 - 03:44 PM.

[Dino Might]

Evil Goof, on 01 February 2017 - 02:43 PM, said:

I am not objecting to him wanting to join the discussion. I am objecting to his interjecting without at least staying on the topic you and I were bickering about.

My position is that how this game is right now is how I want it to continue to be.

I don't want a mechanic that shakes the hud when I am hot or because of an engine or anything else. I am able to play this game on low dpi settings and have fun because the engines in our mechs already tame overly twitch shooting. It's why 15 year old [redacted] kids aren't dominating the crap out of this game.

In your original idea you are saying that this would add strategy... Trying to go after components instead of wiping out the mech. If it is harder to pick off parts, how do you figure that in this scenerio it wouldn't be ct only because it is harder to pick off???

Another huge deal for me is that this franchise was one of the first to allow for blowing off arms and legs. Making it difficult to do so would be infurating for those of us old enough to remember that aspect as being one of the biggest draws. So legging lights and circling for a back st or ct is a big part of this game and always has been (the ones I played at least).

Then if we have some mechanic that messes with it you think it will help lights...sure it will they would tank damage and just run up behind you and core you out because at zero distance they'd be hitting one spot...

So yeah I hate the idea. I get why they put something in to curb poptarting. There is no need however to expand that to XL engines or any other equipment.

I'm wondering how my post was not inline with the discussion you two were having. Just because I challenged your bogus analogy about t-ball rules, you took offense, which is ridiculous. Not only was your analogy wrong and unsubstantiated, but your entire argument boils down to, "I like it this way." Well, our justification is, "we like it this way," AND that it would add more immersion, challenge, and balance adjustment opportunities to the game.

From a purely technical perspective, our way is preferable for those who don't want simple point and click adventures. You, however, are likely in the majority with the rest of the players who simply want that and that alone. So be it.

And as for your offended reaction, I have no idea where or how that came from. You sound like you take any challenge to your ideas personally. Nothing you have said in response to me has made much sense. I guess I'm just too simple-minded, but you'll really need to spell it out to me in order for me to understand where you are coming from.

ETA: you hate on RNG, he offers non-RNG solution, you s*** all over that as well under the auspice that moving while shooting is hard in MWO and so anything that makes shooting harder makes this game like t-ball. I call BS and restate why the RNG solution is preferable, you get all uppity. Do I have that replay correct?

Unless you are also MadIrish and/or some other identities in here, I'm really not seeing where I missed what's going on...wait a sec...Caz, is this you trolling me on multiple Alts???

Edited by Dino Might, 01 February 2017 - 05:44 PM.