63 replies to this topic

[Bullwerk]

MaddMaxx, on 10 April 2012 - 03:45 PM, said:

Given the effort you expended avoiding the question, one would think you might know he meant "YOU" where piloting that Mech either dieing or doing the killing.

Was it really that obtuse?

Avoiding? I didn't avoid it I presented an different point of view and answered in the best way I could given the perspective I have on the issue. This is how conversations occasionally work in open forums, at least intelligent conversations.

[Aegis Kleais]

I'm not talking about a RNG that rolls in order to determine the chance. I mean that with the currently implemented systems, how often do these events seem to happen.

[Belisarius1]

Pht, on 10 April 2012 - 05:06 PM, said:

How common ammo explosions are should be controlled by the behavior of the pilot, for the most part.


If you're a mental midget and you run your archer hot, you deserve to cook your ammo off.


Beyond that, applying the concept expressed by the expanded critical damage rules from tactical operations to ammo stores would be nice - an extra chance to not set the ammo bins off by a "just barely missed" factor.

Or you could actually model the ammo bins as a hitbox and have players actually miss them. I just don't understand why you guys go to so much effort to create complicated dice rolls to model things that we don't need dice for.

[Belisarius1]

Aegis Kleais™, on 10 April 2012 - 05:07 PM, said:

I'm not talking about a RNG that rolls in order to determine the chance. I mean that with the currently implemented systems, how often do these events seem to happen.

Well I mean, if that's what you were talking about it's kind of a silly question. If you're open to those things being skill based, it's completely dependent on the situation and how skilled the pilots involved are.

Ace pilot at 200m with gauss on static target: HEAD 95%
Ace pilot at 900m with gauss on static target: HEAD 60%

Ace pilot at 200m with gauss on evasive target: HEAD 50%
Ace pilot at 900m with gauss on evasive target: HEAD 15%

Noob pilot at 200m with gauss on static target: HEAD 75% ??
Noob pilot at 200m with gauss on evasive target: HEAD 2%

Ace pilot at 200m with missiles on evasive target: HEAD 20%
Ace pilot at 900m with missiles on evasive target: HEAD 5%

Noob pilot at 200m with missiles on evasive target: HEAD 5%
Noob pilot at 900m with missiles on evasive target: HEAD 3%

We could literally do these all day. I'm just not sure what you're actually after as a response...

Edited by Belisarius†, 10 April 2012 - 05:20 PM.

[Pht]

Belisarius†, on 10 April 2012 - 05:12 PM, said:

Or you could actually model the ammo bins as a hitbox and have players actually miss them.

Or you could toss a battleship at a fly to kill it too. Not necessary and would give no returns in gameplay or fun.

Belisarius†, on 10 April 2012 - 05:16 PM, said:

Well I mean, if that's what you were talking about it's kind of a silly question. If you're open to those things being skill based, it's completely dependent on the situation and how skilled the pilots involved are.

Ace pilot at 200m with gauss on static target: HEAD 95%
Ace pilot at 900m with gauss on static target: HEAD 60%
Ace pilot at 200m with gauss on evasive target: HEAD 50%
Ace pilot at 900m with gauss on evasive target: HEAD 25%
Noob pilot at 200m with gauss on static target: HEAD 75% ??
Noob pilot at 200m with gauss on evasive target: HEAD 2%

We could literally do these all day. I'm just not sure what you're actually after as a response...

You do realize that it's the 'mech that is doing the aim calculations and physical movement of the weapons to hit what the pilot has under his reticule? The ability of the mech to handle it's weapons is a huge factor.

Edited by Pht, 10 April 2012 - 05:18 PM.

[Aegis Kleais]

Belisarius†, on 10 April 2012 - 05:16 PM, said:

Well I mean, if that's what you were talking about it's kind of a silly question. If you're open to those things being skill based, it's completely dependent on the situation and how skilled the pilots involved are.

Ace pilot at 200m with gauss on static target: HEAD 95%
Ace pilot at 900m with gauss on static target: HEAD 60%
Ace pilot at 200m with gauss on evasive target: HEAD 50%
Ace pilot at 900m with gauss on evasive target: HEAD 15%
Noob pilot at 200m with gauss on static target: HEAD 75% ??
Noob pilot at 200m with gauss on evasive target: HEAD 2%

We could literally do these all day. I'm just not sure what you're actually after as a response...

Overall, through all battles, there will come to be averages (that take into account skilled player fights as well as unskilled players) For clarification, it was to THAT overall average I was inferring. The numbers I'm looking for were on a global scale rather than a personal one.

[Belisarius1]

Okay, well if that's the case I'll get out of your thread.

Those numbers are emergent and thus can't be predicted or designed for. The global numbers never match what any individual player sees, because each player's experience will be a subset governed by who he plays with and what 'mech types he prefers. They're also going to increase over time as your playerbase gets more skilled. But if you want people to invent them and throw them at you, go wild.

Edited by Belisarius†, 11 April 2012 - 04:11 AM.

[MaddMaxx]

Bullwerk, on 10 April 2012 - 05:07 PM, said:

Avoiding? I didn't avoid it I presented an different point of view and answered in the best way I could given the perspective I have on the issue. This is how conversations occasionally work in open forums, at least intelligent conversations.

Very well. If you think meaningless #s are intelligent conversation then we simply have a definitional divergence. Thats OK though, as definitional divergence, is definable and quantitative, and it also has an especially future useability.

[Insidious Johnson]

Not a fan of statistics. Am a fan of hitting my target. If you don't want me to hit it, make it smaller or get it moving faster.

[eZZip]

Pht, on 10 April 2012 - 05:18 PM, said:

Or you could toss a battleship at a fly to kill it too. Not necessary and would give no returns in gameplay or fun.

I wonder why it is that games don't just use an RNG to determine where you've hit, rather than having the player aim and shoot. Maybe it's because players want their actions to actually directly affect the game's results as much as possible?

Belisarius†, on 10 April 2012 - 05:27 PM, said:

Those numbers are emergent and thus can't be predicted or designed for.

Perhaps Aegis means to ask what the preferred averages for the events would be for an average-skilled player (of course the numbers would change over time, but it's doubtful that they'll change much after a year unless there are major changes in the game).

MaddMaxx, on 10 April 2012 - 06:03 PM, said:

Very well. If you think meaningless #s are intelligent conversation then we simply have a definitional divergence. Thats OK though, as definitional divergence, is definable and quantitative, and it also has an especially future useability.

This doesn't really mean anything.

Edited by eZZip, 10 April 2012 - 06:13 PM.

[Bullwerk]

eZZip, on 10 April 2012 - 06:11 PM, said:

This doesn't really mean anything.

I do believe that was his point. I love the brilliance like that you can find on the intardwebs!

Edited by Bullwerk, 10 April 2012 - 06:27 PM.

[Pht]

eZZip, on 10 April 2012 - 06:11 PM, said:

I wonder why it is that games don't just use an RNG to determine where you've hit, rather than having the player aim and shoot. Maybe it's because players want their actions to actually directly affect the game's results as much as possible?

I wonder why it is that people think that they can post like they know what someone's arguing for when they apparently don't.

Besides which, you do realize that there's this thing called the 'mech, that's between you and the guns? ... that's doing the actual physical aiming, and that's doing the computer/software calculations based on sensor inputs to try and hit what the pilot's indicating? ...


This is not an anime mecha game.

[eZZip]

Pht, on 10 April 2012 - 06:45 PM, said:

Besides which, you do realize that there's this thing called the 'mech, that's between you and the guns? ... that's doing the actual physical aiming, and that's doing the computer/software calculations based on sensor inputs to try and hit what the pilot's indicating?

That has no bearing on what I said. When a shot is fired (assuming hitscan), the place that the crosshairs are on should be hit, and not some other place because of a RNG. This is what should happen with the mech: the player controls the placement of the crosshairs, which move with some constraints based on the mech, and then the mech aims its weapons such that they go to where the crosshairs are pointed.

Pht, on 10 April 2012 - 06:45 PM, said:

This is not an anime mecha game.

Let's see what Pht has to say about this!

Pht, on 10 April 2012 - 06:45 PM, said:

I wonder why it is that people think that they can post like they know what someone's arguing for when they apparently don't.

[Rhinehart]

Sheesh. It's a game. Don't try to think it to death before it's even launched. We're talking about a fictional universe and technology here that isn't based in reality. So throw out the slide-rule or whatever super technological equivalent you are using and have some fun.

[Kedma]

Well on topic.. I would say.. Critical explosions should be an option in the mech lab.. as a weapon, and take up a spot.. if the game has respawn. the respawn timer should be doubled or tripled for setting it off.. so you dont get jihad mechs.. so to speak with light mechs running in, and destoying them selfs to take out the big mechs..

Head shots.. that is really dependant on the player attacking.. if he always aims for the head.. or uses an aimbot to do it for him.. (cause they will excist ) that number is going to be high.. unless by default they increase the head armor on all mechs to an insane number.. to balance that out..

As for the other stuff..its pretty wishy washy.. depends on the player base..

Legs.. I remember the old days of taking out one leg, and the mech able to hop around for a bit, until you shot the other leg out.. then mech down.. this is going to depend on how many people just target the legs for cheap kills..

Overheat / Ammo Over Heat.. These go great togeather.. you could have 2 heat moniters.. 1 ofcourse is the mech heat.. the second is the stored ammo heat.. Over heat 1 to many times, wo quickly, and boom!..

[Aegis Kleais]

Belisarius†, on 10 April 2012 - 05:27 PM, said:

Okay, well if that's the case I'll get out of your thread.

Those numbers are emergent and thus can't be predicted or designed for. The global numbers never match what any individual player sees, because each player's experience will be a subset governed by who he plays with and what 'mech types he prefers. They're also going to increase over time as your playerbase gets more skilled. But if you want people to invent them and throw them at you, go wild.

Wow wow wow. Does it really need to even be said that of course this is nothing more than assumption. An estimate on what YOU'D PERSONALLY like to see vs. what (cannot due to it not being out) IS happening in the game?

I'm just asking for an opinion and what averages you'd expect to see. Is that really so hard to come up with?

lol. It's almost as if you think that I think that someone's random subjective opinion is to be taken as law on how the game will end up. Couldn't be any further from the truth. If you don't care to make assumptions, that's one thing; since the game isn't out, it goes without saying that without finite information on the game, it's all we really have to go on.

[MaddMaxx]

Aegis Kleais™, on 11 April 2012 - 06:34 AM, said:

Wow wow wow. Does it really need to even be said that of course this is nothing more than assumption. An estimate on what YOU'D PERSONALLY like to see vs. what (cannot due to it not being out) IS happening in the game?

I'm just asking for an opinion and what averages you'd expect to see. Is that really so hard to come up with?

lol. It's almost as if you think that I think that someone's random subjective opinion is to be taken as law on how the game will end up. Couldn't be any further from the truth. If you don't care to make assumptions, that's one thing; since the game isn't out, it goes without saying that without finite information on the game, it's all we really have to go on.

Easy there Aegis. You are starting to introduce Logic into the thread. This is no place for that stuff, it just confuses many...

Bullwerk, on 10 April 2012 - 06:26 PM, said:

I do believe that was his point. I love the brilliance like that you can find on the intardwebs!

I see what you did there.
I do learn quickly though don't I?
Probably the good teachers allotted us here on the inter-webs. LOL

[Aegis Kleais]

MaddMaxx, on 11 April 2012 - 06:51 AM, said:

Easy there Aegis. You are starting to introduce Logic into the thread. This is no place for that stuff, it just confuses many...

OK, I'm cool. No worries; we're not here to force anyone to do something they don't want...

[ASC]

With the ammo chances i'd like to see it calculated based off damage taken to the location the ammo is held, so dependant on an attackers accuracy.

Take LRMs in the left chest for example. Using 10% damage incriments, say someone damages that area to 50% health, so lets use for example damage % taken / 5: so 50%/5 = 10% chance of ammo bunker being hit.

with this ratio at 80% health: 20/5 = 4%chance of ammo breach
at 20% health 80/5 = 16% chance of ammo breach

If you want to take ammo detonation into account, then maybe chance to ignite as half the mechs current heat as a % when ammo is breached. which would mean:
at 40% heat tolarance 20% chance of explosion
at 80% heat tolarance 40% chance of explosion

though i'm basically just plucking numbers out the air here. But something like this would be effected by attackers accuracy to hit the part of the mech, knowledge of which part the ammo is held in, how much armour the pilot assigns to that area etc, etc, etc.

[Siilk]

CRIT: 0.5-1 in 100; Not canon and not realistic but AWESOME. Thus, rule of cool says it should be in.
HEAD: 5 in 100; Additionally, any splash damage of all sorts should have much less effect on HD hitbox to prevent cockpit overkills on some mechs. Cockpit kill should be a sign of high gunnery skills, not just the amount of splash damage a mech could yield.
OVERHEAT INTERNAL DAMAGE: 30-60 in 100; Major overheating or prolonged readlining should be harmful for a mech.
AMMO: 20-30 in 100; As per overheat internal damage, but being one the rarest events, probably the most harmful one. Definitely requires high heat to happen.
OVERHEAT DESTRUCTION: 5-15 in 100; complete core meltdown should be a rare event. Only a serious alphastrike abuse or bad custom loadout design should lead to this.
LEG: 5-15 in 100: Should be at least as hard as coring a mech(preferably even harder) and generally be more of a tactical, context-dependent decision. In a generic 1 on 1 encounter arming or coring mech should be more advantageous.