244 replies to this topic

[Creel]

COBOL was a pretty **** language, but hell yes, I'd learn it to get into a mech.

[Nik Van Rhijn]

I prefered FORTRAN lol

[Halfinax]

Tierloc, on 11 November 2011 - 12:57 PM, said:

That's what computer guidance is for.

We could go a step further with my suggestion where the player has on the fly convergence range. We, the players, determine a baseline convergence within 10 meters, and then the computer aid can move within +5 meters of that baseline adjusted every second or so. In essence with this method we never have dead pixel perfect accuracy except within 5 meter intrevals, and it still allows for player skill to be the major determining factor.

Add into this the ability to have a base player set default convergence range for a fire group that you work up or down from and the computer assistance and you end up with a solid middle ground between the Cone of Fire/ballistic deviation crowd and the where I aim is where I hit crowd.

[Creel]

Halfinax, on 11 November 2011 - 07:18 PM, said:

We could go a step further with my suggestion where the player has on the fly convergence range. We, the players, determine a baseline convergence within 10 meters, and then the computer aid can move within +5 meters of that baseline adjusted every second or so. In essence with this method we never have dead pixel perfect accuracy except within 5 meter intrevals, and it still allows for player skill to be the major determining factor.

Add into this the ability to have a base player set default convergence range for a fire group that you work up or down from and the computer assistance and you end up with a solid middle ground between the Cone of Fire/ballistic deviation crowd and the where I aim is where I hit crowd.

Dynamic convergence ranges imply movable hardpoints, introducing the jiggle factor to accuracy.
I'm all for it but, it's an argument for increased inaccuracy, not against it.

[Halfinax]

Creel, on 12 November 2011 - 09:38 AM, said:

Dynamic convergence ranges imply movable hardpoints, introducing the jiggle factor to accuracy.
I'm all for it but, it's an argument for increased inaccuracy, not against it.

In order for the "hard points" to have varying convergences in the core game mechanic means that they are already semi turreted. If they weren't they would have to have a preset convergence range and would only be accurate at that range. Two weapons in parallel can't hit a single point unless they are slightly angled to hit said point at a specified range.

[Omar Thirds]

You can have both. If the weapon has some inaccuracy, it'll go a bit wild, but if you're standing still, zeroing in on your enemy, and fire directly at a leg joint, you want that mech stationary. It should not be so bad that you're *only* shooting for those critical targets-after all, if that was the case, it'll be hard to explain why it's not the focus of all mech combat. Seeing different results for different hits adds a level of depth to shooters, but it could just as easily end up like a poorly balanced shooter with every other shot a head-shot.

[Pht]

Tyrant, on 10 November 2011 - 04:12 AM, said:

Probability and randomization in a first person action game results in terrible user experience.

No, it doesn't.

it only results in poor gameplay when the results are not intuitive (as when cones of fire and such are used, etc).

If you missed (probability) a target because it was moving laterally very fast and your shot hit behind or ahead because your 'Mech can't track a target moving that fast... that intuitively makes sense; and because it does, you intuitively have a pretty good idea of how to fix it.

MW is a first person armored combat simulator - not a first person shooter.

"Probability" is not a problem - it is how that "probability" is expressed.

Tierloc, on 10 November 2011 - 05:47 AM, said:

This is not Voltron. The targeting system is completely electronic, once I choose a target the electronic guidance system hits it.

No, it is not. The "targeting system" also includes the myomers that move the limbs to aim the weapons, the myomers and steppers that rotate the torso to track, and any possible focusing lenses and the like.

When accounting for targeting system capabilities, you have to look at the whole system, not just the computers and sensors.

This is one of the main reasons 'Mechs have trouble hitting things when they get hot - the computer might have a great "fix" on the target, but because the actual aiming mechanisms are heat-addled and unpredictable or simply too slow, the target gets missed.

Captain Hat, on 10 November 2011 - 07:50 AM, said:

You aren't a mainstream gamer, particularly not in the way things are gonna be split for this particular game. The mainstream demographic that this game needs to grab in order to succeed does not count you among their number.

How do you possibly think you can know what the "average player" is that will want to play an MW game?

Quote

Aside from which, take yourself away from the BTech canon for a moment and think about what makes for the better game, the better interactive experience as it were: Is it more fun to right click on a target than just keep mashing the fire button while you look elsewhere and drive, or to aim and fire the guns yourself?

Red herring. Pilots in the BTU don't "designate a target and mash a button." This a seriously short-sighted understanding of what "gunnery" consists of in the BT universe.

[Red Beard]

Pht, on 12 November 2011 - 05:48 PM, said:

How do you possibly think you can know what the "average player" is that will want to play an MW game?

Even if EVERY BT fan bought into this game at once, you are talking about a group nowhere near big enough for this game to be seen as a hit. It HAS to attract the "average gamer". The average gamer in this case is not too tough to identify, and it seems like you are just being defensive. Somebody who sees the game advertised in one form or another and is enticed enough to DL and try it out. The man's point is right on. And you are NOT an average gamer. You are here now, and that is proof enough.

[Sirisian]

Pht, on 12 November 2011 - 05:48 PM, said:

Tyrant, on 10 November 2011 - 04:12 AM, said:

Probability and randomization in a first person action game results in terrible user experience.

No, it doesn't.

it only results in poor gameplay when the results are not intuitive (as when cones of fire and such are used, etc).

Cone of fire systems are the most intuitive systems for modeling base weapon accuracy and recoil effects for multiple weapon systems. This has been discussed to death already in the other threads. That and the average gamer is already very familiar with them and understands them.

[Pht]

Red Beard, on 12 November 2011 - 06:22 PM, said:

Even if EVERY BT fan bought into this game at once, you are talking about a group nowhere near big enough for this game to be seen as a hit.

How do you know how many BT fans there are? ... or that only bt fans would pick up a simulation type MW game?

Quote

It HAS to attract the "average gamer". The average gamer in this case is not too tough to identify, and it seems like you are just being defensive.

I'm not just being defensive - it's a serious question. How can you know what "the average gamer" is?

Is that even something that's productive to pursue if we can't really identify them?

Sirisian, on 12 November 2011 - 06:31 PM, said:

Cone of fire systems are the most intuitive systems for modeling base weapon accuracy and recoil effects for multiple weapon systems. This has been discussed to death already in the other threads. That and the average gamer is already very familiar with them and understands them.

... and to quote myself from that other thread:

Pht said:

... and if it (a cone of fire) stays the same shape, your misses will be nonsensical and counter-intuitive.

Let's say you're shooting at a fast-moving mech going left to right - you aim right at the mech with, say, six medium lasers, but because it moves so quickly, your weapons (all similar in type and travel speed) miss ... randomly. They can miss high, low, in front, and behind.

In the lore and in reality, lateral targets are usually missed ... laterally... sometimes in front of the target, most of the time, behind.

So than you have to take the cones and change the shape of them given the behaviors of the target 'Mech.

You also have to change the volume of the cones to simulate the effects that overheating has on your 'Mechs ability to target - and also to account for damage to your 'Mech.

You also wind up having to have a cone for each and every weapon...

[Sirisian]

Pht, on 12 November 2011 - 06:37 PM, said:

... and to quote myself from that other thread:

Not sure why you made the assumption that they'd miss or that the cone of fire would stay the same size. If you have your cursor on the mech and the weapons are designed for that range then you'd see relatively small CoF indicators. Other than that you captured the idea of why CoF systems work well to convey complex data for each weapon. You probably should have worded it like: You see a mech at 100 meters and rotate right which increases the CoF negligibly then fire with your lasers at the mech's legs. Assuming they have no recoil for gameplay purposes and heat negatively affects a weapon's accuracy then you'd see that reflected in the weapon's base accuracy circles. So even though you can fire again lets say your accuracy might be a little higher. This forces skilled players to control both heat when aiming far distances. A better example to show CoF's effects would be using projectiles with recoil since spraying for a while really conveys the idea of a weapon's effective range.

I think a big problem is that you're assuming a CoF system means the accuracy of all weapons must be horrible when in fact each weapon would have their own base accuracy and accuracy modifier along with the normal heat modifier.

Then again there are a group of people that just prefer sniper rifle accuracy for all weapons utilizing damage fall-off to convey range. That is lasers and bullets do less damage further away to correctly map to their effective ranges. Or simply deleting the projectile or laser when it reaches its maximum range.This allows a person to hold down their machine guns with pinpoint accuracy conveying the idea of a futuristic mech's stabilized firing systems. But that misses a few variables.

I've read all the threads currently and no one has brought up an alternative system that works to convey all the variables in the simulation with a clean intuitive interface for everyone. As mentioned by the OP you have variables like "type of weapon, speed of your mech, heat status" to take into account. That's not even counting moving vs rotating penalties. Some people believe those shouldn't exist which is legitimate if you're shooting for realism over gameplay.

Personally I don't like maximum ranges for weapons. If I see a mech and I know my weapons have a listed maximum accuracy I should be able to at least try to aim up a little bit and arch some bullets at the enemy. On the receiving side the mech would see bullets wizzing by and striking the ground and some of them hitting. This doesn't negate the pilots skill by using random number probabilities since the player is using the weapon outside its intended range. In normal situations within range such accuracy modifiers wouldn't even come into question unless the weapon has a high heat or he's been firing for a while. I like the idea of high rate of fire machine guns where one has to control their firing to hit targets outside close range. Meaning they aren't limited by their heat. At close range they could just hold down doing far more damage than they could at further ranges.

Also CoF allows for say crouching to stabilize one's mech for further shots and to decrease accuracy modifiers. Definitely opens up a lot more choices in weapon design in that respect.

[Pht]

Sirisian, on 12 November 2011 - 07:33 PM, said:

Not sure why you made the assumption that they'd miss or that the cone of fire would stay the same size.

I was pointing out that in the case of a miss, things can be counter-intuitive; and that the cone sizes would have to be changed in volume and even *warped* in shape (oval, oblong, etc) inducing unnecessary complexity.

Quote

I think a big problem is that you're assuming a CoF system means the accuracy of all weapons must be horrible when in fact each weapon would have their own base accuracy and accuracy modifier along with the normal heat modifier.

I'm not assuming horrible accuracy and I don't see how you could have gotten that from what I posted.

Quote

I've read all the threads currently and no one has brought up an alternative system that works to convey all the variables in the simulation with a clean intuitive interface for everyone.

You've missed my posts, than.

You take the performance of the weapons and the capability of a 'Mech to aim those weapons from the already existing parent system.

This doesn't mean you have to port over the rules - rather, you use them to establish the capabilities of the 'Mech and it's weapons, and than implement those in whatever way makes the most sense in your VG backend. Stick them in the game in some sort of database form; problem solved, and you have the capability to add more parameters, and know how they will effect things.

There's zero need for establishing a cones of fire system. It doesn't give any meaningful benefits over using the performance baselines that already exist - which baselines are well known in terms of balance and such - so weaknesses can be accounted for instead of guessed at.

Quote

Personally I don't like maximum ranges for weapons. If I see a mech and I know my weapons have a listed maximum accuracy I should be able to at least try to aim up a little bit and arch some bullets at the enemy.

You should check out the rules on extreme range and LOS shooting and variable energy weapons damage in tac ops... you'd probably get a kick out of them. They address this very topic.

Quote

In normal situations within range such accuracy modifiers wouldn't even come into question unless the weapon has a high heat or he's been firing for a while.

Actually, for "normal' - all ranges up to "long" ... yes, there should be some modifiers on how capable a weapon is of hitting a target. Otherwise, all weapons become instant hit "sticky."

Quote

Also CoF allows for say crouching to stabilize one's mech for further shots and to decrease accuracy modifiers. Definitely opens up a lot more choices in weapon design in that respect.

Which is also entirely possible with using the performance baselines...

Speaking of which, you can also increase your accuracy with arm-mounted weapons by using appropriate height structures to "bench rest" the arm on... and also by giving your 'Mechs targeting sensors and computers and such time to really "line up" the shot.

Edited by Pht, 12 November 2011 - 07:56 PM.

[Stahlseele]

*points down at his signature*

[Red Beard]

Pht, on 12 November 2011 - 06:37 PM, said:

How do you know how many BT fans there are?

I never said that I know how many there are. I know that PGI needs to have a certain number of people DL this game and begin spending money on it. It is a fair conclusion that there are not enough existing BT fans to support the new game with them alone. How many there are, in actual numbers, was never my point.

Quote

or that only bt fans would pick up a simulation type MW game?

You are assuming things again.

Quote

I'm not just being defensive - it's a serious question. How can you know what "the average gamer" is?

Is that even something that's productive to pursue if we can't really identify them?

A decently intelligent person can make fair approximations about what an average gamer is, based on game sales and which games are able to see sequels, etc., etc.... If you cannot keep up with that mentality, that's your problem. Do not try to pull others into your warped vortex of non-logic and failed assumptions. You seem to have mastered the art of confusing yourself by not even attempting to try to narrow down some basic thoughts and ideas.

Besides all that, I am much smarter than you.

[rollermint]

I would vote whatever system the WoT is using. Pure skill-based is very nice but its also heavily reliant on latency and ping. Many of us don't live in the states and have very detrimental pings to compete on an even ground if the game is pure skill-based.

With WoT, my pings are regularly in the 200s but I can compete fairly well, received numerous sharpshooter/sniper awards, top guns and my accuracy is generally in the 70%, not bad for having to play at the pings i'm getting.

So yeah, if the system is related to WoT, I'll definitely be very very happy.

[Red Beard]

rollermint, on 13 November 2011 - 06:51 PM, said:

Pure skill-based is very nice but its also heavily reliant on latency and ping. Many of us don't live in the states and have very detrimental pings to compete on an even ground if the game is pure skill-based.

Good point, but altering the games mechanics in order to cater to those that don't have a good ping is not really a...fair, option.

[rollermint]

Red Beard, on 14 November 2011 - 08:07 AM, said:

Good point, but altering the games mechanics in order to cater to those that don't have a good ping is not really a...fair, option.

Define fair, tho. I'm not asking for a dice roll but something that allows a larger player pool to be able to compete on a more even ground. Mind you, the advantage in WOT system (i hate having to use that game for endless comparisons but it is something many are familiar with) is still with the ones with lower pings but it gives those with 3 digit pings a fairer fighting chance. And I'm not advocating catering to those in the 600-800s but making the game good enough for those with 100-300 range should be fair enough. (Asians/Aussies usually have that ping range to the US and that's pretty far enough).

A pure skill-based game is a death sentence otherwise and you basically make a huge chunk of your potential playerbase quite literally unable to play. Whole regions really, that includes Russia, Asia and Australia. Of course, you can always dedicate regional servers to cater for different regions but considering that BT is not exactly a worldwide phenomenon, I don't actually think that segregating the already small playerbase into even smaller groups a particularly brilliant idea.

[3Xtr3m3]

I actually feel a headache coming on from trying to follow this conversation.

To throw my worthless two cents in. I want both.
I want a reticle that if I put it on a spot on a mech will quickly give me a sign as to how much of a chance I have of hitting where I am aiming, based on all factors the devs deem relevant. Speed, mine and targets, range, damage, quality of equipment,...fill in the blank. I want a retlcle to grow more golden, and maybe a tone when I have a 100% chance of striking what the reticle is currently over, with the selected weapon(s). Best of both worlds. If my reticle indicates only a 75% chance of striking, then 3 out of four times I will hit the target, even if not at the spot I wanted. If you want an always 100% chance of striking what you are aiming at, then you need to manuever to a point where you get the 100% signal from the puter. If you are happy with less than that, you still might get the job done. But no guarantees.

/Puts the idea out there, and goes looking for the aspirin....

[wwiiogre]

all I can say is watch the original trailer again, I have watched it repeatedly, not for the oooohhhh and ahhhhh, but watched the reticles and how the moved and worked and where each shot went according to each reticle and I can already tell you exactly what I saw and how I interpret what I saw.

Just cause your reticle sits over the target you are not going to automatically hit, watch the trailer again and notice that there are some serious misses. Now watch the reticles again and notice that lockons occur during the fight, most of these weapons actually hit, but not all. A PPC shot goes high and right even tho it appears there was target lock. You will also notice that target lock on each reticle is faster and slower which appears to mean each weapon has a cycle and a speed at which it locks.

So, if you notice when the warhammer steps out for the last time, the atlas didn't instantly fire, he was waiting, for what exactly, for all systems to lock on and ensure more of his shots to hit, then he alpha striked and all his remaining weapons appeared to center core the warhammer, while the warhammer rushed his shots thruout the engagement meaning some of them didn't hit, but allowing him to score some damage and duck out of the way of the atlas.

above are all wag's but I keep watching the combat over and over to try to read what is happening. And try to guess how combat will work by comparing it to what has been said about role warfare and other things that dev's have said. So, I am probably wrong. But it appears you can fire with plain reticles and get some hits, it also appears that as locks slowly come in you get a better chance to hit, but it also appears that even with lock, movement and damage taken means you may still miss, just as in the fiction of the books.

It took the warhammer 4 seconds to obtain a target lock on the atlas and when brown out occured it took him another four seconds to regain lock, he never lost lock when he stepped behind the elevated car park on his right, but when he completely stepped behind the office building he lost sight and lock on the atlas.



chris

Edited by wwiiogre, 05 March 2012 - 08:28 PM.

[CeeKay Boques]

None of these.

please search "Cone of Fire" and stuff like that for the endless conversational circles, many of which will be in the game it looks like!

Should be off skill and physics.

Edited by Technoviking, 05 March 2012 - 08:32 PM.