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.
You have no evidence or proof that it would give more immersion. You simply said my analogy was wrong and interjected with dynamic cof which you didn't bother to explain. So you are wrong and you are ignorant (in regards to manners not knowledge in this case to be clear).
On top of that you seem intent on trying to have a discussion with me after I have called foul. You didn't explain what kind of mechanic this cof is or how it was related. You have not proven that not being able to accurately aim would up the skill level and the OP's point was that it would make torso twisting more effective. So by not following along, you are saying innaccurrate weapons will basically increase ttk and make torso twisting easier. That is where my analogy is based on not applied to whatever mechanic you are thinking of but haven't described.
So you saying my analogy is wrong because of your example and not what the OP and I were discussing t'd me off. You can clearly see that. Now I admit that I am falling for your bs game in engaging you and defending my analogy which you are saying is wrong by applying it to something else.
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.
Unsubstaniated and infammatory statement.
In making it harder to aim, and easier to spread damage all over your mech, a player would likely live longer. Depending on the mechanic used however, those with incredible reflexes might succeed due to clicking in milliseconds when the cursor is over the desired component. Radomized shots however would be completely different and it that case you would simply and lazily flop your cursor in the general centre mass and hope for the best. You point hasn't explained where the depth you are talking about comes from. It certainly doesn't explain or outline the increased complexity either or how it is any less point and click.
Another point here, and key to why I find it unpleasant to try and communicate with someone who has poor social skills, is the way you are framing your point as supperior. Our way is complex and superior, whilst the rest of you dummies like it your way. Gees I wonder why it is I didn't want to get sucked into a debate with someone not presenting just an idea, but his superior intellect with 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.
I have tried above but I do not think you will accept it or understand why. I don't mean that in an attack on your intelligence. Personally I think it is the opposite of smart to make unsubstantiated assumptions about the intelligence of others. My objection is the bait and switch and the misapplication of what my analogy was referring to. I also think you are a bit condescending.
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?
I guess moving and shooting are easy for you. By easy I mean hitting stuff on the move with PPC's (them and you), holding your laser on a component instead of beaming it all over a mech, especially from a distance. Timing ballistics and leads as well. Guass with the mechanic is actually a bit of a pain for me to fire and hit stuff while I am on the move. Since you are great apparently, this is not hard for you. Do you even play this game at all anymore? Under you own alt perhaps? You don't seems to be represented but for a very few games over a couple of seasons on the leaderboards....
As far as the RNG if you had been following along, the OP seemed to think I brought it up when I didn't. I made a clear statement to clarify for him that I had not mentioned it and that he had.
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???
I am MacClearly and Evil Goof. No one has time or thinks that you're important enough to troll over many accounts (or maybe they do and my dislike for your attempted railroad has clouded my judgement). The stupidest thing that I have done in a while is allowing myself to get sucked into actually having a conversation with you. Do you have anyone left to debate this with? Do you get something from trying to engage with people who are basically telling you to f off? Do you think that how this has gone over that you and I are somehow going to have a productive conversation or exchange of ideas? Do you think that there is any point at all in you and I continuing this?
From my experience, when someone says they are pissed off by something I did, even if I don't believe they are correct, there is very little chances of anything productive coming out of trying to continue to argue with them.
0
129 replies to this topic
#102
-
-
- FP Veteran - Beta 2
- 4,259 posts
Member
Posted 01 February 2017 - 07:02 PM
Dino Might, on 01 February 2017 - 05:35 PM, said:
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???
Sir. I do not troll. I'm a smartmouth with an acerbic wit, but I only try to spread happiness, not anger on these forums. Also. I only have one account.
#103
-
-
- Ace Of Spades
- 373 posts
Member
- LocationInner Sphere, Terra, Asia, Philippines
Posted 01 February 2017 - 07:09 PM
cazidin, on 01 February 2017 - 07:02 PM, said:
but I only try to spread happiness
I can attest to this.
I love watching him and Restos have a GIF battle.
#104
-
-
- Little Helper
- 2,030 posts
Member
Posted 01 February 2017 - 08:12 PM
Sorry for the supposition Caz, no intent to besmirch your charming wit.
As for EvilGoof and/or MacClearly:
To further reiterate:
I am not misunderstanding this statement. Maybe you didn't mean it this way, but the OP provided ideas for adjusting weapon precision (i.e., no perfect precision), and you said that "no mechanic that interferes with aiming based on engine or other means is a good solution...." You then say that his idea is advocating t-ball rules. I call BS. A mechanic that affects precision based on the means proposed is not advocating a simplification of the game that will lower the skill ceiling (the implied meaning of your t-ball comment). He proposed a CoF idea as well as a non-RNG based solution, and both of these would naturally raise the skill ceiling of the game by making it more complex. I interjected with my dynamic CoF idea to recommend that as the solution, and I called out your t-ball analogy as hokum, making you pissed off, for some odd reason.
I have explained how dynamic CoF works here and in other threads, but have not used specific numbers. Consider - a normal or Gaussian distribution (ring a bell?) that determines point of impact based on point of aim, where the standard deviation takes into account movement speed, heat level, and number of weapons fired. If you require an in-depth explanation with exact values for everything, that I cannot give because I don't have development tools available to me to figure out what the best balance of those values would be for any given mech.
But the fact remains that it makes the shooting aspect of the game more complex, which means it will require more skill. I have stated this already, and you clearly ignore the points discussed while claiming to have a monopoly on rational thought, when in fact you are using anything but.
I do not play this game much anymore, because there's nothing new to do. I continue to suggest ways to make it better, but I'm not going to grind games for damage/points/leaderboard score, because I've already achieved the amount of "success" as defined by this game that I deem sufficient. If there were something new and interesting in the gameplay, I would come back in force, but as of now, it's the same game that has been stale for the past 2+ years. If you doubt my experience, I can provide you ample screenshots and videos of play from way back when to help convince you that I know what I'm talking about. But...it really shouldn't matter, should it? Facts stand on their own merit, regardless of who states them.
You claim that my claims are unsubstantiated, but I suggest that these things are obvious by inspection. If you require me to reiterate, I can provide the following:
Current system requires two factors (point of aim, enemy movement) to determine hit location.
Proposed system requires more factors (point of aim, own movement, enemy movement, heat level, weapon grouping) to determine hit location. That is necessarily a more complex system. I contend that managing more complex systems is more difficult. If you disagree with this, I don't understand how we can continue this conversation, as you are hopelessly opposed to understanding my basic premise. This more complex system allows for a wider range of skill inputs, whereas the current system in place has a very limited skill ceiling (the only thing that matters is how steady your hand is). With the proposed system, we have to think a lot more and control more inputs to make shots with a desired level of precision.
On the one hand, you claim this (as you stated that any such system that affects weapon accuracy) makes it into t-ball rules, and on the other, you say that shooting is already difficult enough, so this system will make it more difficult. That is a contradiction.
The change to a dynamic CoF system will increase the skill disparity, and while players may tend to live longer, the better players will gain even more of an advantage due to landing more shots per second within critical areas. The fights will be longer, and that will actually put more of a premium on shooting skill.
Consider a OHOK system. Anybody who gets off a lucky shot can kill another player regardless of skill. But in a MHOK system, the more hits required to take down a target, the less chance a lucky shot has of affecting the outcome, and the better shooter will win much more often.
I'm sorry that you're pissed off for me trying to engage you in discussion and challenging your suppositions. If you get that offended by someone calling BS on what you say, you probably ought not to engage in any kind of public discussion. Grow up and recognize that in adult conversations, you need to be able to have your ideas challenged and support them. Getting all pissy and refusing to consider someone else's view is the mark of a child. If you want to actually engage me in discussion, offer some rational challenges to my statements and not blanket, "you don't know what you're talking about," BS.
----
Someone please let me know if I've gone completely mad here. I can't understand why this guy is so pissed and took such an instant dislike to me. Granted, after he started down the road of being adversarial, I was condescending, particularly because of his childish behavior. So I am certainly at fault for exacerbating the issue. But did I really come off as a complete rear-end in our first encounter? I really can't understand this fella.
As for EvilGoof and/or MacClearly:
To further reiterate:
Quote
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.
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.
I am not misunderstanding this statement. Maybe you didn't mean it this way, but the OP provided ideas for adjusting weapon precision (i.e., no perfect precision), and you said that "no mechanic that interferes with aiming based on engine or other means is a good solution...." You then say that his idea is advocating t-ball rules. I call BS. A mechanic that affects precision based on the means proposed is not advocating a simplification of the game that will lower the skill ceiling (the implied meaning of your t-ball comment). He proposed a CoF idea as well as a non-RNG based solution, and both of these would naturally raise the skill ceiling of the game by making it more complex. I interjected with my dynamic CoF idea to recommend that as the solution, and I called out your t-ball analogy as hokum, making you pissed off, for some odd reason.
I have explained how dynamic CoF works here and in other threads, but have not used specific numbers. Consider - a normal or Gaussian distribution (ring a bell?) that determines point of impact based on point of aim, where the standard deviation takes into account movement speed, heat level, and number of weapons fired. If you require an in-depth explanation with exact values for everything, that I cannot give because I don't have development tools available to me to figure out what the best balance of those values would be for any given mech.
But the fact remains that it makes the shooting aspect of the game more complex, which means it will require more skill. I have stated this already, and you clearly ignore the points discussed while claiming to have a monopoly on rational thought, when in fact you are using anything but.
I do not play this game much anymore, because there's nothing new to do. I continue to suggest ways to make it better, but I'm not going to grind games for damage/points/leaderboard score, because I've already achieved the amount of "success" as defined by this game that I deem sufficient. If there were something new and interesting in the gameplay, I would come back in force, but as of now, it's the same game that has been stale for the past 2+ years. If you doubt my experience, I can provide you ample screenshots and videos of play from way back when to help convince you that I know what I'm talking about. But...it really shouldn't matter, should it? Facts stand on their own merit, regardless of who states them.
You claim that my claims are unsubstantiated, but I suggest that these things are obvious by inspection. If you require me to reiterate, I can provide the following:
Current system requires two factors (point of aim, enemy movement) to determine hit location.
Proposed system requires more factors (point of aim, own movement, enemy movement, heat level, weapon grouping) to determine hit location. That is necessarily a more complex system. I contend that managing more complex systems is more difficult. If you disagree with this, I don't understand how we can continue this conversation, as you are hopelessly opposed to understanding my basic premise. This more complex system allows for a wider range of skill inputs, whereas the current system in place has a very limited skill ceiling (the only thing that matters is how steady your hand is). With the proposed system, we have to think a lot more and control more inputs to make shots with a desired level of precision.
On the one hand, you claim this (as you stated that any such system that affects weapon accuracy) makes it into t-ball rules, and on the other, you say that shooting is already difficult enough, so this system will make it more difficult. That is a contradiction.
The change to a dynamic CoF system will increase the skill disparity, and while players may tend to live longer, the better players will gain even more of an advantage due to landing more shots per second within critical areas. The fights will be longer, and that will actually put more of a premium on shooting skill.
Consider a OHOK system. Anybody who gets off a lucky shot can kill another player regardless of skill. But in a MHOK system, the more hits required to take down a target, the less chance a lucky shot has of affecting the outcome, and the better shooter will win much more often.
I'm sorry that you're pissed off for me trying to engage you in discussion and challenging your suppositions. If you get that offended by someone calling BS on what you say, you probably ought not to engage in any kind of public discussion. Grow up and recognize that in adult conversations, you need to be able to have your ideas challenged and support them. Getting all pissy and refusing to consider someone else's view is the mark of a child. If you want to actually engage me in discussion, offer some rational challenges to my statements and not blanket, "you don't know what you're talking about," BS.
----
Someone please let me know if I've gone completely mad here. I can't understand why this guy is so pissed and took such an instant dislike to me. Granted, after he started down the road of being adversarial, I was condescending, particularly because of his childish behavior. So I am certainly at fault for exacerbating the issue. But did I really come off as a complete rear-end in our first encounter? I really can't understand this fella.
Edited by Dino Might, 01 February 2017 - 08:30 PM.
#105
-
-
- Little Helper
- 2,030 posts
Member
Posted 01 February 2017 - 08:33 PM
Evil Goof, on 01 February 2017 - 06:51 PM, said:
You have no evidence or proof that it would give more immersion. You simply said my analogy was wrong and interjected with dynamic cof which you didn't bother to explain. So you are wrong and you are ignorant (in regards to manners not knowledge in this case to be clear).
On top of that you seem intent on trying to have a discussion with me after I have called foul. You didn't explain what kind of mechanic this cof is or how it was related. You have not proven that not being able to accurately aim would up the skill level and the OP's point was that it would make torso twisting more effective.
Ah, I think I FINALLY know what you're talking about MacClearly. You think dynamic CoF works by jittering your reticle around? Not at all. Your point of aim is completely unaffected. Your cursor behaves exactly how it is now. When you fire, the actual projectile or beam then has some angular deviation based on a normal distribution about that point of aim.
Maybe this is where we are at such odds, because you think it's like JJ shake. No, the proposal is one that is used in myriad other shooting games, where point of aim is entirely controlled in a deterministic sense, but point of impact is based on the dynamic CoF.
Does this help?
Quote
So by not following along, you are saying innaccurrate weapons will basically increase ttk and make torso twisting easier. That is where my analogy is based on not applied to whatever mechanic you are thinking of but haven't described.
And I said your analogy was wrong because it only considers one minor aspect of the game (torso twisting). So what if it makes it easier to spread damage? It will still make it harder to deal precise damage, and in that case, makes the skill ceiling higher.
My proof is in EVERY shooting competition EVER that consists of a string of fire with multiple shots. If you want to model outcomes of shooting competitions, you can assess each shooters skill by assessing their past targets, and assigning a CoF to their point of aim, with standard deviation based on their grouping performance.
The shooters who are better will have a smaller standard deviation (i.e. smaller cone) and land more shots in the x-ring and higher scoring rings than shooters who are worse, who have a higher standard deviation. Over the course of 10 or 20 or 40 shots, the better shooters pull ahead of the worse shooters by a greater margin because they are landing more shots in the higher scoring rings. This is basic marksmanship 101 - you want to shoot better, you need to reduce your variance first, then you adjust point of impact by changing your point of aim.
My proof is literally real life shooting as well as statistical assessment and modeling of the sport.
Edited by Dino Might, 01 February 2017 - 08:39 PM.
#106
-
-
- The Silent Killer
- 162 posts
Member
Posted 01 February 2017 - 10:07 PM
As for EvilGoof and/or MacClearly:
To further reiterate:
That you responded to what I said tells me all that I need to know. You are only interested in arguing. You don't even care that it is pointless and will not accomplish anything. You also want to do so with someone who has said outright that they are put off by you and don't want to communicate or debate with you.
I am not misunderstanding this statement. Maybe you didn't mean it this way, but the OP provided ideas for adjusting weapon precision (i.e., no perfect precision), and you said that "no mechanic that interferes with aiming based on engine or other means is a good solution...." You then say that his idea is advocating t-ball rules. I call BS. A mechanic that affects precision based on the means proposed is not advocating a simplification of the game that will lower the skill ceiling (the implied meaning of your t-ball comment). He proposed a CoF idea as well as a non-RNG based solution, and both of these would naturally raise the skill ceiling of the game by making it more complex. I interjected with my dynamic CoF idea to recommend that as the solution, and I called out your t-ball analogy as hokum, making you pissed off, for some odd reason.
What exactly is the means proposed?
You keep repeatedly stating that it would make the game more complex. I have given two examples why I disagree.
You are ignoring that I said spreading damage and making torso twisting easier is what my analogy is in reference to....
I have explained how dynamic CoF works here and in other threads, but have not used specific numbers. Consider - a normal or Gaussian distribution (ring a bell?) that determines point of impact based on point of aim, where the standard deviation takes into account movement speed, heat level, and number of weapons fired. If you require an in-depth explanation with exact values for everything, that I cannot give because I don't have development tools available to me to figure out what the best balance of those values would be for any given mech.
I have not researched your idea of how dynamic CoF works nor is there any compelling reason for me to consider you an expert in CoF. I am not asking for exact value as you haven't bothered to say exactly how you might even apply your idea...no examples, no anything. So engine vibration, recoil mechanics, simulated weapon movement while aiming...nothing, zero, nada, zilch. You wonder why I am not happy with your jumping in and arguing, well because you are not explaining how you are agreeing with the OP and his idea or providing any reasoning or examples to why. You are basically spamming terms and saying they are and more complex without saying why.
But the fact remains that it makes the shooting aspect of the game more complex, which means it will require more skill. I have stated this already, and you clearly ignore the points discussed while claiming to have a monopoly on rational thought, when in fact you are using anything but.
FFS, why do you think this creates more complexity? What on earth makes it require more skill? Yes you have stated this but not bothered to do anything other than state it. How is that rational? How are you not able to understand that you just stating that, that is the way it is would not be acceptable to me? I even have gone against my better judgement and starting arguing back to you and all you are basically saying is because I said so.... Do you really not get why this is not fun for me? Or even interesting? This kind of arguing is infurating and a huge waste of time. What is your goal here? You want me and you to be enemies? Are you looking for a nemisis?
I do not play this game much anymore, because there's nothing new to do. I continue to suggest ways to make it better, but I'm not going to grind games for damage/points/leaderboard score, because I've already achieved the amount of "success" as defined by this game that I deem sufficient. If there were something new and interesting in the gameplay, I would come back in force, but as of now, it's the same game that has been stale for the past 2+ years. If you doubt my experience, I can provide you ample screenshots and videos of play from way back when to help convince you that I know what I'm talking about. But...it really shouldn't matter, should it? Facts stand on their own merit, regardless of who states them.
Great accept for that tiny little part of you not clearly providing any evidence or reasoning behind your facts that would make me even consider that you may have a point. Just it is that way because you say it is.
This also makes me wonder why someone disengaged from the game is trolling it's forums trying to argue with random people.
You claim that my claims are unsubstantiated, but I suggest that these things are obvious by inspection. If you require me to reiterate, I can provide the following:
Current system requires two factors (point of aim, enemy movement) to determine hit location.
Proposed system requires more factors (point of aim, own movement, enemy movement, heat level, weapon grouping) to determine hit location. That is necessarily a more complex system. I contend that managing more complex systems is more difficult. If you disagree with this, I don't understand how we can continue this conversation, as you are hopelessly opposed to understanding my basic premise. This more complex system allows for a wider range of skill inputs, whereas the current system in place has a very limited skill ceiling (the only thing that matters is how steady your hand is). With the proposed system, we have to think a lot more and control more inputs to make shots with a desired level of precision.
Really? Because what you just described up there (which isn't obvious to me by inspection I guess cause I dum which makes it even weirder that you are still wanting to engage), doesn't describe more complex user inputs. You skipped that part of how you propose the user is managing aim, movement, enemy, heat, weapon grouping (lets throw in weapons loction for fun).
I disagree that current bouncing up and down while the mech is moving isn't already a part of what you discribe above.
Back to the interface or user input part. Now so you don't just take this as me being glib (actually I don't really care what you think it is more in case someone else is reading, they see that I was at least trying to be reasonable) I will outline an example of what I don't want to see or what I think could go wrong with this proposal. If you are refering to a series of 'controls' that the user must enter or press to get that precision, how variable is it and what is the means or information that the pilot is reacting too? More screens and reticule indicators? Why this doesn't sound good to me without something other than an extremely vague outline you are providing is that I am picturing this game going from a FPS to a mech version of Dance, Dance, Revolution. Where you have replaced aiming with hammering in key sequences based on prompts or read outs.... Sorry but I don't want Dance, Dance Mechwarrior. Maybe you are being to vague and I am not fully appreciating what you are not explaining.
On the one hand, you claim this (as you stated that any such system that affects weapon accuracy) makes it into t-ball rules, and on the other, you say that shooting is already difficult enough, so this system will make it more difficult. That is a contradiction.
No you continue to try and change the context but I am absolutely not letting you misinterpret or misrepresent what I have said and am now about to explain again.
-The point was weapons that aren't accurate make spreading damage easier making torso twisting even easier than it already is.
-In that context to which my analogy was applied and not being based on your version which wasn't explained, I said that would make the game easier.
For added emphasis and clarity, this was not in reference to the convoluted system you had not yet explained or described. The original example listed making weapons inaccurate and not the added Dance, Dance Mechwarrior mechanics or any other suggested added complexity. IT ONLY WAS SAID THAT MAKE THE WEAPONS NOT AS ACCURATE TO MAKE TORSO TWISTING EASIER. THE OP DID NOT MAKE ANY MENTION TO ADDED INPUT TO ADD TO THE COMPLEXITY OF THE CONTROLS OR ANY ADDITIONAL VARIABLES.
So I am not sure if this boils down to you assuming that I was to somehow know that your system or idea or implementation? It still is very different then what the original discussion was with me and another person. So you saying I am wrong and applying it to being wrong versus your example which is very different is where I am calling foul. Doing this over and over without regard for the context of the analogy is frustrating. Like a shifting set of rules.
I'm sorry that you're pissed off for me trying to engage you in discussion and challenging your suppositions. If you get that offended by someone calling BS on what you say, you probably ought not to engage in any kind of public discussion. Grow up and recognize that in adult conversations, you need to be able to have your ideas challenged and support them. Getting all pissy and refusing to consider someone else's view is the mark of a child. If you want to actually engage me in discussion, offer some rational challenges to my statements and not blanket, "you don't know what you're talking about," BS.
I absolutely don't want to engage you in conversation because you assume I know what you are talking about. You interject your own idea which is different than what we were originally talking about. You only just provided some examples in the above response.
Yes I am going to get pissed off I am discussing naturally aspirated engines with someone and a random guy comes in wanting to talk about turbos. Then tell me I am wrong about which header I would choose for my V8 because it would not fit his turbo and his turbo was better. On top of this he didn't actually say turbo or describe what he was talking about just saying power adder until I dragged out of him that he was actually talking about turbos.
So if by not liking you interupting with something very different, and saying I am wrong without even describing what it was you were talking about (until just now) makes me a child in your eyes I can accept that. Especially since you were describing something different (remember no previous mention of added aiming mechanics or input) to say that my point was wrong.
Also would like to remind you that as a child who doesn't like the way you have ambushed the conversation or that you are not able to appreciate your point wasn't communicated nor was it the same as the original conversation, I am wholly uninterested in debating or engaging you. I am the child who actually stated as much. I recognized that there was nothing to be gained and that it wouldn't be productive. As an incredibly immature child at that, I also see that I can never offer rational explanations or challenges to your statements because they are not what was originally being discussed (they are more complex) and it is pulling teeth to get you to fill me in...especially since I don't really want to do this with you in the first place. Do you recall when this child told you that he was basically telling you to f off? Yet you still want to engage? Really?
I am willing to bet that dispite how horrible this is going and pointless it is, you are going to respond anyway. Maybe I am baiting you by including everything before the last paragraph. It is likely going to fall squarely on my shoulders to disengage but I will probably do so by not responding to what you write and instead by being childlike. I wonder how long it would take you to get bored of that?
Oh and you can absolutely consider this a challenge to your supperior maturity to choose to not respond to me.
To further reiterate:
That you responded to what I said tells me all that I need to know. You are only interested in arguing. You don't even care that it is pointless and will not accomplish anything. You also want to do so with someone who has said outright that they are put off by you and don't want to communicate or debate with you.
I am not misunderstanding this statement. Maybe you didn't mean it this way, but the OP provided ideas for adjusting weapon precision (i.e., no perfect precision), and you said that "no mechanic that interferes with aiming based on engine or other means is a good solution...." You then say that his idea is advocating t-ball rules. I call BS. A mechanic that affects precision based on the means proposed is not advocating a simplification of the game that will lower the skill ceiling (the implied meaning of your t-ball comment). He proposed a CoF idea as well as a non-RNG based solution, and both of these would naturally raise the skill ceiling of the game by making it more complex. I interjected with my dynamic CoF idea to recommend that as the solution, and I called out your t-ball analogy as hokum, making you pissed off, for some odd reason.
What exactly is the means proposed?
You keep repeatedly stating that it would make the game more complex. I have given two examples why I disagree.
You are ignoring that I said spreading damage and making torso twisting easier is what my analogy is in reference to....
I have explained how dynamic CoF works here and in other threads, but have not used specific numbers. Consider - a normal or Gaussian distribution (ring a bell?) that determines point of impact based on point of aim, where the standard deviation takes into account movement speed, heat level, and number of weapons fired. If you require an in-depth explanation with exact values for everything, that I cannot give because I don't have development tools available to me to figure out what the best balance of those values would be for any given mech.
I have not researched your idea of how dynamic CoF works nor is there any compelling reason for me to consider you an expert in CoF. I am not asking for exact value as you haven't bothered to say exactly how you might even apply your idea...no examples, no anything. So engine vibration, recoil mechanics, simulated weapon movement while aiming...nothing, zero, nada, zilch. You wonder why I am not happy with your jumping in and arguing, well because you are not explaining how you are agreeing with the OP and his idea or providing any reasoning or examples to why. You are basically spamming terms and saying they are and more complex without saying why.
But the fact remains that it makes the shooting aspect of the game more complex, which means it will require more skill. I have stated this already, and you clearly ignore the points discussed while claiming to have a monopoly on rational thought, when in fact you are using anything but.
FFS, why do you think this creates more complexity? What on earth makes it require more skill? Yes you have stated this but not bothered to do anything other than state it. How is that rational? How are you not able to understand that you just stating that, that is the way it is would not be acceptable to me? I even have gone against my better judgement and starting arguing back to you and all you are basically saying is because I said so.... Do you really not get why this is not fun for me? Or even interesting? This kind of arguing is infurating and a huge waste of time. What is your goal here? You want me and you to be enemies? Are you looking for a nemisis?
I do not play this game much anymore, because there's nothing new to do. I continue to suggest ways to make it better, but I'm not going to grind games for damage/points/leaderboard score, because I've already achieved the amount of "success" as defined by this game that I deem sufficient. If there were something new and interesting in the gameplay, I would come back in force, but as of now, it's the same game that has been stale for the past 2+ years. If you doubt my experience, I can provide you ample screenshots and videos of play from way back when to help convince you that I know what I'm talking about. But...it really shouldn't matter, should it? Facts stand on their own merit, regardless of who states them.
Great accept for that tiny little part of you not clearly providing any evidence or reasoning behind your facts that would make me even consider that you may have a point. Just it is that way because you say it is.
This also makes me wonder why someone disengaged from the game is trolling it's forums trying to argue with random people.
You claim that my claims are unsubstantiated, but I suggest that these things are obvious by inspection. If you require me to reiterate, I can provide the following:
Current system requires two factors (point of aim, enemy movement) to determine hit location.
Proposed system requires more factors (point of aim, own movement, enemy movement, heat level, weapon grouping) to determine hit location. That is necessarily a more complex system. I contend that managing more complex systems is more difficult. If you disagree with this, I don't understand how we can continue this conversation, as you are hopelessly opposed to understanding my basic premise. This more complex system allows for a wider range of skill inputs, whereas the current system in place has a very limited skill ceiling (the only thing that matters is how steady your hand is). With the proposed system, we have to think a lot more and control more inputs to make shots with a desired level of precision.
Really? Because what you just described up there (which isn't obvious to me by inspection I guess cause I dum which makes it even weirder that you are still wanting to engage), doesn't describe more complex user inputs. You skipped that part of how you propose the user is managing aim, movement, enemy, heat, weapon grouping (lets throw in weapons loction for fun).
I disagree that current bouncing up and down while the mech is moving isn't already a part of what you discribe above.
Back to the interface or user input part. Now so you don't just take this as me being glib (actually I don't really care what you think it is more in case someone else is reading, they see that I was at least trying to be reasonable) I will outline an example of what I don't want to see or what I think could go wrong with this proposal. If you are refering to a series of 'controls' that the user must enter or press to get that precision, how variable is it and what is the means or information that the pilot is reacting too? More screens and reticule indicators? Why this doesn't sound good to me without something other than an extremely vague outline you are providing is that I am picturing this game going from a FPS to a mech version of Dance, Dance, Revolution. Where you have replaced aiming with hammering in key sequences based on prompts or read outs.... Sorry but I don't want Dance, Dance Mechwarrior. Maybe you are being to vague and I am not fully appreciating what you are not explaining.
On the one hand, you claim this (as you stated that any such system that affects weapon accuracy) makes it into t-ball rules, and on the other, you say that shooting is already difficult enough, so this system will make it more difficult. That is a contradiction.
No you continue to try and change the context but I am absolutely not letting you misinterpret or misrepresent what I have said and am now about to explain again.
-The point was weapons that aren't accurate make spreading damage easier making torso twisting even easier than it already is.
-In that context to which my analogy was applied and not being based on your version which wasn't explained, I said that would make the game easier.
For added emphasis and clarity, this was not in reference to the convoluted system you had not yet explained or described. The original example listed making weapons inaccurate and not the added Dance, Dance Mechwarrior mechanics or any other suggested added complexity. IT ONLY WAS SAID THAT MAKE THE WEAPONS NOT AS ACCURATE TO MAKE TORSO TWISTING EASIER. THE OP DID NOT MAKE ANY MENTION TO ADDED INPUT TO ADD TO THE COMPLEXITY OF THE CONTROLS OR ANY ADDITIONAL VARIABLES.
So I am not sure if this boils down to you assuming that I was to somehow know that your system or idea or implementation? It still is very different then what the original discussion was with me and another person. So you saying I am wrong and applying it to being wrong versus your example which is very different is where I am calling foul. Doing this over and over without regard for the context of the analogy is frustrating. Like a shifting set of rules.
I'm sorry that you're pissed off for me trying to engage you in discussion and challenging your suppositions. If you get that offended by someone calling BS on what you say, you probably ought not to engage in any kind of public discussion. Grow up and recognize that in adult conversations, you need to be able to have your ideas challenged and support them. Getting all pissy and refusing to consider someone else's view is the mark of a child. If you want to actually engage me in discussion, offer some rational challenges to my statements and not blanket, "you don't know what you're talking about," BS.
I absolutely don't want to engage you in conversation because you assume I know what you are talking about. You interject your own idea which is different than what we were originally talking about. You only just provided some examples in the above response.
Yes I am going to get pissed off I am discussing naturally aspirated engines with someone and a random guy comes in wanting to talk about turbos. Then tell me I am wrong about which header I would choose for my V8 because it would not fit his turbo and his turbo was better. On top of this he didn't actually say turbo or describe what he was talking about just saying power adder until I dragged out of him that he was actually talking about turbos.
So if by not liking you interupting with something very different, and saying I am wrong without even describing what it was you were talking about (until just now) makes me a child in your eyes I can accept that. Especially since you were describing something different (remember no previous mention of added aiming mechanics or input) to say that my point was wrong.
Also would like to remind you that as a child who doesn't like the way you have ambushed the conversation or that you are not able to appreciate your point wasn't communicated nor was it the same as the original conversation, I am wholly uninterested in debating or engaging you. I am the child who actually stated as much. I recognized that there was nothing to be gained and that it wouldn't be productive. As an incredibly immature child at that, I also see that I can never offer rational explanations or challenges to your statements because they are not what was originally being discussed (they are more complex) and it is pulling teeth to get you to fill me in...especially since I don't really want to do this with you in the first place. Do you recall when this child told you that he was basically telling you to f off? Yet you still want to engage? Really?
I am willing to bet that dispite how horrible this is going and pointless it is, you are going to respond anyway. Maybe I am baiting you by including everything before the last paragraph. It is likely going to fall squarely on my shoulders to disengage but I will probably do so by not responding to what you write and instead by being childlike. I wonder how long it would take you to get bored of that?
Oh and you can absolutely consider this a challenge to your supperior maturity to choose to not respond to me.
Edited by Evil Goof, 01 February 2017 - 10:51 PM.
#107
-
-
- The Silent Killer
- 162 posts
Member
Posted 01 February 2017 - 10:37 PM
Ah, I think I FINALLY know what you're talking about MacClearly. You think dynamic CoF works by jittering your reticle around? Not at all. Your point of aim is completely unaffected. Your cursor behaves exactly how it is now. When you fire, the actual projectile or beam then has some angular deviation based on a normal distribution about that point of aim.
Maybe this is where we are at such odds, because you think it's like JJ shake. No, the proposal is one that is used in myriad other shooting games, where point of aim is entirely controlled in a deterministic sense, but point of impact is based on the dynamic CoF.
Does this help?
Oh it does add context to what it was you were not describing nor was I assuming what you meant... sounds awkward huh? For good reason. You see this and your response above this response (uugh...) does shed some light on the added complexity of what you are describing. Which in case you missed it, I didn't know what you were talking about exactly only that it didn't seem the same as the OP.
Unfortunately however, the OP simply said any mechanic even a small one to make aiming less accurate would be better for the game and help (ie make easier) spread damage. No complex system of aim management to allow for accurate aim was discribed by the OP. But man am I ever stupid for not knowing your completely different (or at least more detailed and complex aiming system or described as increase input) made my analogy wrong.
No worries though as after typing this (with one finger of coarse) I am going to go outside in by my garage and bang my head repeatedly against the brick wall out there. You have convinced me that me being upset by you arguing with me about something I was not sure even what you were talking about is compelling enough for me to make the final effort to qualify for the Special Olympics. I figure I can cause enough damage to forget not only you, but basic math as well if I am diligent. Hoping to enter one of the paddle boat events.
Someone please let me know if I've gone completely mad here. I can't understand why this guy is so pissed and took such an instant dislike to me. Granted, after he started down the road of being adversarial, I was condescending, particularly because of his childish behavior. So I am certainly at fault for exacerbating the issue. But did I really come off as a complete rear-end in our first encounter? I really can't understand this fella.
Let me ask you this, does it really matter? Who cares if this MacClearly/Evil Goof idiot doesn't like you? If a guy you didn't know walked up to you on the street and told you he hated your face and everything you stood for, would you waste a minute of your life trying to have a conversation with him? Are you really one of those people who would spend energy on someone who point blank doesn't like you or want anything to do with you instead of enjoying the people that actually do?
Maybe this is where we are at such odds, because you think it's like JJ shake. No, the proposal is one that is used in myriad other shooting games, where point of aim is entirely controlled in a deterministic sense, but point of impact is based on the dynamic CoF.
Does this help?
Oh it does add context to what it was you were not describing nor was I assuming what you meant... sounds awkward huh? For good reason. You see this and your response above this response (uugh...) does shed some light on the added complexity of what you are describing. Which in case you missed it, I didn't know what you were talking about exactly only that it didn't seem the same as the OP.
Unfortunately however, the OP simply said any mechanic even a small one to make aiming less accurate would be better for the game and help (ie make easier) spread damage. No complex system of aim management to allow for accurate aim was discribed by the OP. But man am I ever stupid for not knowing your completely different (or at least more detailed and complex aiming system or described as increase input) made my analogy wrong.
No worries though as after typing this (with one finger of coarse) I am going to go outside in by my garage and bang my head repeatedly against the brick wall out there. You have convinced me that me being upset by you arguing with me about something I was not sure even what you were talking about is compelling enough for me to make the final effort to qualify for the Special Olympics. I figure I can cause enough damage to forget not only you, but basic math as well if I am diligent. Hoping to enter one of the paddle boat events.
Someone please let me know if I've gone completely mad here. I can't understand why this guy is so pissed and took such an instant dislike to me. Granted, after he started down the road of being adversarial, I was condescending, particularly because of his childish behavior. So I am certainly at fault for exacerbating the issue. But did I really come off as a complete rear-end in our first encounter? I really can't understand this fella.
Let me ask you this, does it really matter? Who cares if this MacClearly/Evil Goof idiot doesn't like you? If a guy you didn't know walked up to you on the street and told you he hated your face and everything you stood for, would you waste a minute of your life trying to have a conversation with him? Are you really one of those people who would spend energy on someone who point blank doesn't like you or want anything to do with you instead of enjoying the people that actually do?
Edited by Evil Goof, 01 February 2017 - 10:40 PM.
#108
-
-
- Ace Of Spades
- 373 posts
Member
- LocationInner Sphere, Terra, Asia, Philippines
Posted 01 February 2017 - 11:51 PM
This thread is getting more tedious to reread.
why do everybody has to post really huge paragraphs?
Yes I am very much aware of my hypocrisy, thank you.
why do everybody has to post really huge paragraphs?Yes I am very much aware of my hypocrisy, thank you.
#109
-
-
- Little Helper
- 2,030 posts
Member
Posted 02 February 2017 - 01:45 PM
Evil Goof, on 01 February 2017 - 10:37 PM, said:
Oh it does add context to what it was you were not describing nor was I assuming what you meant... sounds awkward huh? For good reason. You see this and your response above this response (uugh...) does shed some light on the added complexity of what you are describing. Which in case you missed it, I didn't know what you were talking about exactly only that it didn't seem the same as the OP.
Now, moving on. Fewer paragraphs for the sake of the TLDRDC issue...
Can we agree that a dynamic CoF system does in fact make the game more complex and difficult to achieve the same performance as is currently obtainable using the perfect precision fire that we all know and some of us love?
Given that, can we get a reasoned, rational argument against something that makes the game more challenging than it currently is? My supposition is that by increasing the skill ceiling by using a dynamic CoF system, you get the following benefits:
1. A higher skill ceiling and more easily graduated ranking structure for balancing matches
2. An additional, and very important, characteristic for balancing mechs and bringing subpar chassis up to reasonable levels of performance without quirking specific weapons and hindering build diversity.
3. More immersion and thought involved in this "thinking man's shooter."
4. A great way to reign in the "speed is king" characteristic of most mechs (lights in particular).
5. An entirely new set of branch possibilities for the skill tree that will allow mechwarriors to prioritize their playstyle (shoot and scoot, or fire from the hip on the fly)
I can provide examples of how each could be achieved, but in light of reducing the size of each post, I'll pause here for all the lettuce and rotten tomatoes headed my way.
#110
-
-
- Little Helper
- 2,030 posts
Member
Posted 02 February 2017 - 01:53 PM
I will also try to make this as simple as possible to understand dynamic CoF for those who haven't been following this thread or many others.
Take MGs in the current state. They have a fixed CoF. Now, imagine if when you were running at 75% throttle and had 50% residual heat built up, and you were shooting your MGs, they use that CoF that you are used to. But, if you slow down, or you cool down, or both, that CoF shrinks so that the MG rounds will have a tighter spread. If you run up to 90% heat and 100% throttle, then the MG CoF grows a bit, so the rounds have a wider spread. The aiming reticle does not change, just the point of impact for the rounds. Now imagine this is applied to ACs and laser weapons - consider each laser beam (full duration of it) is like it's own separate MG round, and each AC round is like its own MG round. When you run full speed and are at high heat, the individual weapons will not necessarily hit right on the point of aim, but will be angled off point of aim by some amount depending on the statistical sampling from a normal (bell) curve. The variation possible is based on the standard deviation, which is what is adjusted based on your movement, heat, and simultaneous weapons fire.
No, this does not mean your lasers will shoot sideways, ever. The distribution will be truncated at a maximum dispersion, which can be adjusted on a per mech or per weapon basis, even, if we really want to be able to give mechs some unique benefits/drawbacks to balance hardpoints and locations.
Hopefully this clears up a few things.
Take MGs in the current state. They have a fixed CoF. Now, imagine if when you were running at 75% throttle and had 50% residual heat built up, and you were shooting your MGs, they use that CoF that you are used to. But, if you slow down, or you cool down, or both, that CoF shrinks so that the MG rounds will have a tighter spread. If you run up to 90% heat and 100% throttle, then the MG CoF grows a bit, so the rounds have a wider spread. The aiming reticle does not change, just the point of impact for the rounds. Now imagine this is applied to ACs and laser weapons - consider each laser beam (full duration of it) is like it's own separate MG round, and each AC round is like its own MG round. When you run full speed and are at high heat, the individual weapons will not necessarily hit right on the point of aim, but will be angled off point of aim by some amount depending on the statistical sampling from a normal (bell) curve. The variation possible is based on the standard deviation, which is what is adjusted based on your movement, heat, and simultaneous weapons fire.
No, this does not mean your lasers will shoot sideways, ever. The distribution will be truncated at a maximum dispersion, which can be adjusted on a per mech or per weapon basis, even, if we really want to be able to give mechs some unique benefits/drawbacks to balance hardpoints and locations.
Hopefully this clears up a few things.
Edited by Dino Might, 02 February 2017 - 01:53 PM.
#111
-
-
- The Silent Killer
- 162 posts
Member
Posted 02 February 2017 - 02:25 PM
Can we agree that a dynamic CoF system does in fact make the game more complex and difficult to achieve the same performance as is currently obtainable using the perfect precision fire that we all know and some of us love?
No, we can't agree on anything because I don't like you. I especially don't like that you have picked what you want to talk about and excluded what you didn't. It bothers me that you can't man up and admit that you and the OP did not have the same point and my analogy in reference to what he was talking about at least made sense in that context even if you were to not particularly agree. I don't like that you that you have glossed over my issues with you not describing until very late in the game what complexity your idea offered. I don't like that you got confrontational and condescending when I called foul and that it has taken so long for you to explain your position and you still are not able to admit that it is more detailed and different than the original post. I don't like that I have told you outright that I don't want to have this conversation with you because your way of doing things is not only rude, but completely futile and it doesn't matter what I have to say or offer as you will cherry pick what you like and ignore other stuff completely, all while misinterpreting what I say or applying it against something that you are assuming that I am aware of, also without care or regard.
Given that, can we get a reasoned, rational argument against something that makes the game more challenging than it currently is? My supposition is that by increasing the skill ceiling by using a dynamic CoF system, you get the following benefits:
1. A higher skill ceiling and more easily graduated ranking structure for balancing matches
2. An additional, and very important, characteristic for balancing mechs and bringing subpar chassis up to reasonable levels of performance without quirking specific weapons and hindering build diversity.
3. More immersion and thought involved in this "thinking man's shooter."
4. A great way to reign in the "speed is king" characteristic of most mechs (lights in particular).
5. An entirely new set of branch possibilities for the skill tree that will allow mechwarriors to prioritize their playstyle (shoot and scoot, or fire from the hip on the fly)
No because I don't want Dance, Dance, Mechwarrior and you haven't been able to even address why mindless punching different buttons in reaction to different queues is more skillful than aiming. Also I don't like you and you don't want to have a reasonable conversation. You want to argue and are not open to anything.
I can provide examples of how each could be achieved, but in light of reducing the size of each post, I'll pause here for all the lettuce and rotten tomatoes headed my way.
Oh, you do like mindless arguing and are getting something from this. Great. Good for you. I applaude your position of wanting to contiue this conversation with a child you don't respect or have even the basic ability to show common courtesy towards. You must have incredible time management skills to clear room for this kind fun.
Did I mention that I am wholly uninterested in doing this with you? Did I mention I would simply embrace childishness?
#112
-
-
- The Silent Killer
- 162 posts
Member
Posted 02 February 2017 - 03:15 PM
Dino Might, on 02 February 2017 - 01:53 PM, said:
I will also try to make this as simple as possible to understand dynamic CoF for those who haven't been following this thread or many others.
Take MGs in the current state. They have a fixed CoF. Now, imagine if when you were running at 75% throttle and had 50% residual heat built up, and you were shooting your MGs, they use that CoF that you are used to. But, if you slow down, or you cool down, or both, that CoF shrinks so that the MG rounds will have a tighter spread. If you run up to 90% heat and 100% throttle, then the MG CoF grows a bit, so the rounds have a wider spread. The aiming reticle does not change, just the point of impact for the rounds. Now imagine this is applied to ACs and laser weapons - consider each laser beam (full duration of it) is like it's own separate MG round, and each AC round is like its own MG round. When you run full speed and are at high heat, the individual weapons will not necessarily hit right on the point of aim, but will be angled off point of aim by some amount depending on the statistical sampling from a normal (bell) curve. The variation possible is based on the standard deviation, which is what is adjusted based on your movement, heat, and simultaneous weapons fire.
No, this does not mean your lasers will shoot sideways, ever. The distribution will be truncated at a maximum dispersion, which can be adjusted on a per mech or per weapon basis, even, if we really want to be able to give mechs some unique benefits/drawbacks to balance hardpoints and locations.
Hopefully this clears up a few things.
Take MGs in the current state. They have a fixed CoF. Now, imagine if when you were running at 75% throttle and had 50% residual heat built up, and you were shooting your MGs, they use that CoF that you are used to. But, if you slow down, or you cool down, or both, that CoF shrinks so that the MG rounds will have a tighter spread. If you run up to 90% heat and 100% throttle, then the MG CoF grows a bit, so the rounds have a wider spread. The aiming reticle does not change, just the point of impact for the rounds. Now imagine this is applied to ACs and laser weapons - consider each laser beam (full duration of it) is like it's own separate MG round, and each AC round is like its own MG round. When you run full speed and are at high heat, the individual weapons will not necessarily hit right on the point of aim, but will be angled off point of aim by some amount depending on the statistical sampling from a normal (bell) curve. The variation possible is based on the standard deviation, which is what is adjusted based on your movement, heat, and simultaneous weapons fire.
No, this does not mean your lasers will shoot sideways, ever. The distribution will be truncated at a maximum dispersion, which can be adjusted on a per mech or per weapon basis, even, if we really want to be able to give mechs some unique benefits/drawbacks to balance hardpoints and locations.
Hopefully this clears up a few things.
What it doesn't clear up is how stopping and cooling off adds more complexity. It doesn't explain how it is better (read especially for lights) to have to be stationary for your shots to be more effective. It doesn't explain since we already manage heat, what additional inputs you are vaguly describing in other posts would be needed or how this increases skill.
It really doesn't explain much at all really which seems to be your MO when you try and tell people that they are wrong. It doesn't explain why you openly look down at people who like the current aiming function in the game.
Another thing that it fails to clear up is why you are on a soapbox about something that is never, ever going to happen in a game you are no longer engaged in. Why you think championing this cause by picking arguements with other people and not listening to what they have to say makes any sense at all. You are actually pretty terrible at explaining things.
#113
-
-
- Little Helper
- 2,030 posts
Member
Posted 02 February 2017 - 03:19 PM
If you can't agree with someone just because you don't like them, I think you may need to see someone about that.
It's not dance dance mechwarrior. It uses the same controls that you use right now. There's no added interface, unless someone really wants the reticle bloom instituted to show a visual representation of the instantaneous CoF impact. I think that could be useful. Probably best as an optional feature. But no additional controls whatsoever. If you still don't understand it, see just about every FPS made in the past decade as an example.
So, to all mechwarriors besides this dude with a chip on his shoulder, what say you?
What it doesn't clear up is how stopping and cooling off adds more complexity. It doesn't explain how it is better (read especially for lights) to have to be stationary for your shots to be more effective. It doesn't explain since we already manage heat, what additional inputs you are vaguly describing in other posts would be needed or how this increases skill.
It really doesn't explain much at all really which seems to be your MO when you try and tell people that they are wrong. It doesn't explain why you openly look down at people who like the current aiming function in the game.
Another thing that it fails to clear up is why you are on a soapbox about something that is never, ever going to happen in a game you are no longer engaged in. Why you think championing this cause by picking arguements with other people and not listening to what they have to say makes any sense at all. You are actually pretty terrible at explaining things.
If I am going to shoot at someone under the proposed system, I have to decide whether the shot is worth it based on my current heat, movement, and range, which will all affect the likelihood that I hit what I am aiming at with the weapons I am shooting. I also have to consider the normal impacts of heat on my own mech, but now I have to consider whether I will hit the target, or if I should risk slowing down to take a more accurate shot. That's definitely more thinking involved than point, click, hit.
Again, see every FPS made in the past decade for an example on how this works.
Why am I on my soapbox championing this? Because I would like to see it happen, it is most definitely a feasible solution, and it would make me interested in the game again. Why do you rail against anything that you don't understand?
It's not dance dance mechwarrior. It uses the same controls that you use right now. There's no added interface, unless someone really wants the reticle bloom instituted to show a visual representation of the instantaneous CoF impact. I think that could be useful. Probably best as an optional feature. But no additional controls whatsoever. If you still don't understand it, see just about every FPS made in the past decade as an example.
So, to all mechwarriors besides this dude with a chip on his shoulder, what say you?
Evil Goof, on 02 February 2017 - 03:15 PM, said:
What it doesn't clear up is how stopping and cooling off adds more complexity. It doesn't explain how it is better (read especially for lights) to have to be stationary for your shots to be more effective. It doesn't explain since we already manage heat, what additional inputs you are vaguly describing in other posts would be needed or how this increases skill.
It really doesn't explain much at all really which seems to be your MO when you try and tell people that they are wrong. It doesn't explain why you openly look down at people who like the current aiming function in the game.
Another thing that it fails to clear up is why you are on a soapbox about something that is never, ever going to happen in a game you are no longer engaged in. Why you think championing this cause by picking arguements with other people and not listening to what they have to say makes any sense at all. You are actually pretty terrible at explaining things.
If I am going to shoot at someone under the proposed system, I have to decide whether the shot is worth it based on my current heat, movement, and range, which will all affect the likelihood that I hit what I am aiming at with the weapons I am shooting. I also have to consider the normal impacts of heat on my own mech, but now I have to consider whether I will hit the target, or if I should risk slowing down to take a more accurate shot. That's definitely more thinking involved than point, click, hit.
Again, see every FPS made in the past decade for an example on how this works.
Why am I on my soapbox championing this? Because I would like to see it happen, it is most definitely a feasible solution, and it would make me interested in the game again. Why do you rail against anything that you don't understand?
Edited by Dino Might, 02 February 2017 - 03:19 PM.
#114
-
-
- FP Veteran - Beta 2
- 4,259 posts
Member
Posted 02 February 2017 - 03:30 PM
Gentlemen, at this rate the Moderators will lock this thread because of you two arguing! They've been rather... aggressive lately.
#115
-
-
- The Silent Killer
- 162 posts
Member
Posted 02 February 2017 - 04:10 PM
If you can't agree with someone just because you don't like them, I think you may need to see someone about that.
No I have the ability. Right now the issue is with the willingness. Arguing with someone who will barge into a conversation and hijack it with something other than what the two original people were talking about isn't a reasonable thing to do. You are basically not playing fair and changing the rules as you go since for most of the argument I was in the dark about what you were talking about. You still haven't been able to appreciate that what you are describing is not what the OP described. The OP said something straight and simple, and you had this system in your head that I wasn't aware of but somehow made my response wrong because of your version or interpretation of what it was going on in your head....to which again for emphasis I was not aware of....
As far as seeing someone for anything, you are insisting on engaging someone who said that they don't like you because of the way you carry yourself and that you are not being fair or reasonable. You are continuing with someone who says that they want you to not bother them and that they will never be swayed by anything you might have to say because of the extremely distasteful way that you operate. If you were to do this in real life as I would have told you to get away from me, and you would have quickly scurried back from whichever hole you crawled out of.
It's not dance dance mechwarrior. It uses the same controls that you use right now. There's no added interface, unless someone really wants the reticle bloom instituted to show a visual representation of the instantaneous CoF impact. I think that could be useful. Probably best as an optional feature. But no additional controls whatsoever. If you still don't understand it, see just about every FPS made in the past decade as an example.
Oh...so when you mentioned 'additional user inputs' to increase complexity after I dragged it out of you, you meant finer mouse corrections to keep on target. Great and to understand it I sould look at other FPS's as an example like the movement in CoD when looking down a sniper's scope. Gees, that sounds more like timing and twitch shooting but whew not like Dance, Dance Mechwarrior at all. It also doesn't add anything in the way of complexity at all when you describe it that way. Are you now telling me that your whole position was wrong? That what you really want is the skill ceiling to rise by increasing the need for twitch reflex? Wow, not sure I agree with you there. Oh did I mention that I don't like you?
So, to all mechwarriors besides this dude with a chip on his shoulder, what say you?
Yeah, pretty silly of me to be put off by someone baiting and switching while barging into a conversation. Then to be called a simpleton and child by that person who was talking about something that only they knew what was being discussed.
If I am going to shoot at someone under the proposed system, I have to decide whether the shot is worth it based on my current heat, movement, and range, which will all affect the likelihood that I hit what I am aiming at with the weapons I am shooting. I also have to consider the normal impacts of heat on my own mech, but now I have to consider whether I will hit the target, or if I should risk slowing down to take a more accurate shot. That's definitely more thinking involved than point, click, hit.
There are a ton of things that would do. None of it really complex. It is amazing you can't even process some of the more obvious flaws with your proposal. One thing is people will take the shot anyway because it would be better to take the chance that it hits than to not to. The only way the above scenerio works is if the heat scale is drastically changed and if there was some reason missing the target was a big deal such as ammo count differences. Not only that if this system is in place for everyone slowing down to take the shot is even further mitigated but your completely flawed and illogical reasoning. Man you are actually bad at this. No wonder your preferred method is ambush tactics. Since you don't actually play the game, I will help you out by telling you that shooting from a stationary postion is common practise anyways. Movement is usually done to get into cover or better postion. Peek and poke is very common, but running along and gunning folks down is usually only a good idea for mediums.
Again, see every FPS made in the past decade for an example on how this works.
Why am I on my soapbox championing this? Because I would like to see it happen, it is most definitely a feasible solution, and it would make me interested in the game again. Why do you rail against anything that you don't understand?
Ah well you see it isn't that the idea is super complex or that I have completed my quest yet to qualify for the paddle boat events. The misunderstanding was entirely do to you hijacking a conversation and changing the subject to something else that only you were aware of what you were talking about at the time. Now that you let me in on what you were talking about, I can rail against it because it isn't hard to understand. You problem here is approaching people and assuming they are stupid while not telling them what you are talking about. That must make you feel very smart though. However this kind of bs arguing is why I don't like you. I find it amusing that you don't understand that.
Oh but since you have explained it now, it is easy to see under your interpretation of how this should be implemented it would add nothing to the game other than inaccurate fire while moving, which would hurt lights even more than they are now, and doesn't take into account the type of play prevalent currently (but how would you know since you don't even play). You fail and utterly so, in convincingly making a case for how managing heat and movement to reduce accuracy with CoF without a bunch of other changes to go with it adds skill whatsoever. Man are you ever bad at this. The idea of to I stop and shoot, or do I keep moving to cover and take the chance the shot might hit the side torso when I have my cursor over centre? Or maybe even hit the arm or leg instead? Oh nooos, what eber em a robot child to dos hare?
Yup no worries though, hate the game as it is and troll the forums with an idea that will never happen. Pick fights along way and feel as superior as you can. I am starting to have a bit of pleasure knowing not only is your dream never going to come true but that you can barely describe what it is you are even talking about.
I don't think that would be a bad thing. Believe that I know about that aggressiveness as I reply to you from my alt....
As you can see by his continued replies, he doesn't care. He just really wants to talk about his idea and the audience doesn't matter in the least. It's like he wants to talk to himself with the pretense that he isn't talking to himself. It is very entertaining though. Not at first, but now I am getting the guilty pleasure of what it must be like to be a heckler at the Special Olympics....
No I have the ability. Right now the issue is with the willingness. Arguing with someone who will barge into a conversation and hijack it with something other than what the two original people were talking about isn't a reasonable thing to do. You are basically not playing fair and changing the rules as you go since for most of the argument I was in the dark about what you were talking about. You still haven't been able to appreciate that what you are describing is not what the OP described. The OP said something straight and simple, and you had this system in your head that I wasn't aware of but somehow made my response wrong because of your version or interpretation of what it was going on in your head....to which again for emphasis I was not aware of....
As far as seeing someone for anything, you are insisting on engaging someone who said that they don't like you because of the way you carry yourself and that you are not being fair or reasonable. You are continuing with someone who says that they want you to not bother them and that they will never be swayed by anything you might have to say because of the extremely distasteful way that you operate. If you were to do this in real life as I would have told you to get away from me, and you would have quickly scurried back from whichever hole you crawled out of.
It's not dance dance mechwarrior. It uses the same controls that you use right now. There's no added interface, unless someone really wants the reticle bloom instituted to show a visual representation of the instantaneous CoF impact. I think that could be useful. Probably best as an optional feature. But no additional controls whatsoever. If you still don't understand it, see just about every FPS made in the past decade as an example.
Oh...so when you mentioned 'additional user inputs' to increase complexity after I dragged it out of you, you meant finer mouse corrections to keep on target. Great and to understand it I sould look at other FPS's as an example like the movement in CoD when looking down a sniper's scope. Gees, that sounds more like timing and twitch shooting but whew not like Dance, Dance Mechwarrior at all. It also doesn't add anything in the way of complexity at all when you describe it that way. Are you now telling me that your whole position was wrong? That what you really want is the skill ceiling to rise by increasing the need for twitch reflex? Wow, not sure I agree with you there. Oh did I mention that I don't like you?
So, to all mechwarriors besides this dude with a chip on his shoulder, what say you?
Yeah, pretty silly of me to be put off by someone baiting and switching while barging into a conversation. Then to be called a simpleton and child by that person who was talking about something that only they knew what was being discussed.
If I am going to shoot at someone under the proposed system, I have to decide whether the shot is worth it based on my current heat, movement, and range, which will all affect the likelihood that I hit what I am aiming at with the weapons I am shooting. I also have to consider the normal impacts of heat on my own mech, but now I have to consider whether I will hit the target, or if I should risk slowing down to take a more accurate shot. That's definitely more thinking involved than point, click, hit.
There are a ton of things that would do. None of it really complex. It is amazing you can't even process some of the more obvious flaws with your proposal. One thing is people will take the shot anyway because it would be better to take the chance that it hits than to not to. The only way the above scenerio works is if the heat scale is drastically changed and if there was some reason missing the target was a big deal such as ammo count differences. Not only that if this system is in place for everyone slowing down to take the shot is even further mitigated but your completely flawed and illogical reasoning. Man you are actually bad at this. No wonder your preferred method is ambush tactics. Since you don't actually play the game, I will help you out by telling you that shooting from a stationary postion is common practise anyways. Movement is usually done to get into cover or better postion. Peek and poke is very common, but running along and gunning folks down is usually only a good idea for mediums.
Again, see every FPS made in the past decade for an example on how this works.
Why am I on my soapbox championing this? Because I would like to see it happen, it is most definitely a feasible solution, and it would make me interested in the game again. Why do you rail against anything that you don't understand?
Ah well you see it isn't that the idea is super complex or that I have completed my quest yet to qualify for the paddle boat events. The misunderstanding was entirely do to you hijacking a conversation and changing the subject to something else that only you were aware of what you were talking about at the time. Now that you let me in on what you were talking about, I can rail against it because it isn't hard to understand. You problem here is approaching people and assuming they are stupid while not telling them what you are talking about. That must make you feel very smart though. However this kind of bs arguing is why I don't like you. I find it amusing that you don't understand that.
Oh but since you have explained it now, it is easy to see under your interpretation of how this should be implemented it would add nothing to the game other than inaccurate fire while moving, which would hurt lights even more than they are now, and doesn't take into account the type of play prevalent currently (but how would you know since you don't even play). You fail and utterly so, in convincingly making a case for how managing heat and movement to reduce accuracy with CoF without a bunch of other changes to go with it adds skill whatsoever. Man are you ever bad at this. The idea of to I stop and shoot, or do I keep moving to cover and take the chance the shot might hit the side torso when I have my cursor over centre? Or maybe even hit the arm or leg instead? Oh nooos, what eber em a robot child to dos hare?
Yup no worries though, hate the game as it is and troll the forums with an idea that will never happen. Pick fights along way and feel as superior as you can. I am starting to have a bit of pleasure knowing not only is your dream never going to come true but that you can barely describe what it is you are even talking about.
cazidin, on 02 February 2017 - 03:30 PM, said:
Gentlemen, at this rate the Moderators will lock this thread because of you two arguing! They've been rather... aggressive lately.
I don't think that would be a bad thing. Believe that I know about that aggressiveness as I reply to you from my alt....
As you can see by his continued replies, he doesn't care. He just really wants to talk about his idea and the audience doesn't matter in the least. It's like he wants to talk to himself with the pretense that he isn't talking to himself. It is very entertaining though. Not at first, but now I am getting the guilty pleasure of what it must be like to be a heckler at the Special Olympics....
Edited by Evil Goof, 02 February 2017 - 04:16 PM.
#116
-
-
- Little Helper
- 2,030 posts
Member
Posted 02 February 2017 - 04:14 PM
cazidin, on 02 February 2017 - 03:30 PM, said:
Gentlemen, at this rate the Moderators will lock this thread because of you two arguing! They've been rather... aggressive lately.
That's his goal - it's pretty obvious. But I'm happy to continue the discussion with those of sound mind.
#117
-
-
- FP Veteran - Beta 2
- 4,259 posts
Member
Posted 02 February 2017 - 04:16 PM
Dino Might, on 02 February 2017 - 04:14 PM, said:
That's his goal - it's pretty obvious. But I'm happy to continue the discussion with those of sound mind.
Hey! I had that idea first! If anyone shuts this thread down it should be me! But... I really don't want to. Too much paperwork, and I'm lazy.
#118
-
-
- The Silent Killer
- 162 posts
Member
Posted 02 February 2017 - 04:18 PM
Dino Might, on 02 February 2017 - 04:14 PM, said:
That's his goal - it's pretty obvious. But I'm happy to continue the discussion with those of sound mind.
Actually my goal was to get you to realise that you weren't talking about the same thing as the OP and that what you did was pretty ignorant.
#119
-
-
- Bad Company
- 22,783 posts
Member
- LocationClassified
Posted 02 February 2017 - 04:29 PM
cazidin, on 02 February 2017 - 04:16 PM, said:
Hey! I had that idea first! If anyone shuts this thread down it should be me! But... I really don't want to. Too much paperwork, and I'm lazy.
Ahem! That's my job! Remember?
Ready! ... Set! ... Pizza delivery at the door!
#120
-
-
- Little Helper
- 2,030 posts
Member
Posted 02 February 2017 - 05:37 PM
Mystere, on 02 February 2017 - 04:29 PM, said:
Ahem! That's my job! Remember?
Ready! ... Set! ... Pizza delivery at the door!
*Reported for reporting*
...
*Reported for counter-reporting*
...
*Reported for reporting counter-report*
1 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users
