Legions physics

Well, if that's true then we may as well not have CG at all. The only thing it's good for is chasing FC and getting those MA kills, but now it's near impossible to do either. I feel bad for snipers who only get CG as a backup :P . It just seems like a travesty to consign CG to the last 10% of health or last ditch effort at scoring a hit.

Since the CG did get nerfed, the best thing that could be done for it would be to either return its specs to pre-nerf numbers or implement a system that helps players use it more effectively. If that means LCOS or just a better reticle, fine.
 
Aki said:
Well, if that's true then we may as well not have CG at all. The only thing it's good for is chasing FC and getting those MA kills, but now it's near impossible to do either. I feel bad for snipers who only get CG as a backup :p . It just seems like a travesty to consign CG to the last 10% of health or last ditch effort at scoring a hit.

Since the CG did get nerfed, the best thing that could be done for it would be to either return its specs to pre-nerf numbers or implement a system that helps players use it more effectively. If that means LCOS or just a better reticle, fine.
Click to expand...
You're saying this like it's completely impossible to use the chaingun effectively at all. I don't know anything about chasing because I have no true experience with it, but as far as dueling goes, the chaingun was meant for mid-air dueling (and not just the last 10%), and even after the nerf there are still people who can be extremely effective with it.

Even so, I can agree that I don't fully understand the point of nerfing the chaingun in the first place.
 
I'd like to make two points, if y'all will give me a moment.

Point One

I'm a fairly average dueler. I win plenty of fights, but I probably lose more, especially to the more experienced players I find myself matched against only too often. And I can say, in general, that I get owned by the CG a lot -- it's definitely my Achilles' heel in duels, which folks tell me is because I don't juke around enough in the air. Whatever the case may be, in both pubs and PUGs, I'm watching the CG get used often, and used effectively. I even manage to take out folks with it myself, once in a while, though it's far from my best weapon.

I say all this because I think we should be very careful not to assign labels like "near impossible" to any weapon's usability, when we usually only have our own experiences to go on. What may be markedly difficult for us (I know it sure is for me!) might come very easily to someone else. Likewise, it's easy for someone to say "the CG is fine the way it was" when, as it was, they found themselves quite effective with it, and now it might be a little harder to use.

Discussion about the viability and effectiveness of a weapon is a good thing: It promotes thought, reassessment, and even change. But always try to remember the other half of the story: the people getting hit. It should not be inherently easy to hit other players. There needs to be a surmountable difficulty inherent in a weapon's use, if only because it gives the other player the chance to combat it. Balanced gameplay isn't just about making it equally easy to hit your opponent with every weapon; it's also about making it equally difficult.

Point Two

We have a tendency in our arguments -- and I'm guilty of this myself -- of ascribing our limited perceptions much greater weight than they have. We often say that "most of the people I've talked to" agree with a certain statement we're making.

I'd like to posit the idea that we're -- unknowingly -- lying through our teeth.

In most cases, I'd be willing to bet that when you make such a point, you're thinking of a pretty darned small sample size of all the people you've interacted with, and you're probably only remembering (generally speaking) those who've agreed with your point, forgetting those that might have been ambivalent about the idea.

All I'm saying is this: Be careful about how you pose your arguments. They are your arguments and perspectives -- not the collective thoughts and ideas of everyone you've spoken with on the subject. Let them speak for themselves. It's not that hard to register an account on the forums. =)
 
rainpilot you're getting owned all over this thread. maybe you should take a breather and try thinking from the other side of the fence.

and I just have to say, not being in the know sucks dick. So much goes on behind the scenes, part of me misses seeing all the ideas that go through testing even if they just get bucketed.
 
XtremeSpeed said:
But don't start parading here on the forums and saying that cg should be removed from the game because there's other players that use cg very (very) effectively.
Click to expand...
That's not the point. He's saying after the nerf, he can't get decent shots or consecutive hits with the chaingun. Maybe that or he feels it's not doing it's job. The one thing I agree with you is that the CG should NEVER be removed. The purpose of this weapon is to chase or MA. It however doesn't mean it's the primary weapon of choice. I found myself effective with it before the IA shutdown (70% effective) and now I don't do so well. Who can blame themselves after such a long time of legions being down. However, this just doesn't justify the action of removing such an amazing weapon that many people get accustom to.
 
Let's be perfectly clear, the chaingun is exactly the same as it was on InstantAction except the damage was reduced by two points per bullet. While a hefty nerf we felt the changes I detailed in my blog post about the netcode changes made the weapon powerful enough to warrant this.

I feel that the changes fit in well with the general shift in the direction of midairs supported by nicely timed chain or well placed ground shots. I feel that I've been seeing more satisfying and skilled play and I'm not at all convinced the chaingun needs a significant buff in dueling.
 
Mabeline said:
Let's be perfectly clear, the chaingun is exactly the same as it was on InstantAction except the damage was reduced by two points per bullet. While a hefty nerf we felt the changes I detailed in my blog post about the netcode changes made the weapon powerful enough to warrant this.

I feel that the changes fit in well with the general shift in the direction of midairs supported by nicely timed chain or well placed ground shots. I feel that I've been seeing more satisfying and skilled play and I'm not at all convinced the chaingun needs a significant buff in dueling.
Click to expand...

I'm probably one of the worst chainers in Europe yet I still find it easier to score hits with CG than I ever did in IA days. If that doesn't warrant damage nerf I don't know what does.

Seeing that you can take down full-health Raider with 15-20 CG bullets and the fact that CG fires fast (I don't know exact Rate of Fire), CG still remains powerful weapon when used under right circumstances. Killing a full-health player with CG in 4-7 seconds isn't unheard of.
 
Daphinicus said:
I love it when Mabel wanders into a thread and heartily bitchslaps the lot of us. =)
Click to expand...
And I wonder why it has to happen time and time again, and why people just don't learn from it. ;)

moronval said:
[...] I just have to say, not being in the know sucks [...]
Click to expand...
Honestly, reading the developer's posts (not only the big ones on the blog and in the announcement section), is really informative.
 
It seems like Daphinicus and Mabeline are the only people in this thread willing to make an intelligent post more than once -_-.


Daphinicus raises good points. Let me say that I am aware my sample size is small and my recollection degraded (it’s been a while). What I do remember, though, is a lot more people switching to CG a lot more frequently, especially in MA duels. I remember a few discussions here and there about CG being this or that—usually difficult to use. Some players appreciated the difficulty, others loathed it, but for the most part I remember discussion of using the CG being challenging.

I also want to point out that I deliberately exaggerated in this discussion to emphasize my point. I do see a few (very few, at this time) players who are quite effective with the CG. Some of them I’d almost swear have an aimbot. Even I’m slowly getting better as I’m forcing myself to use it instead of RL. It’s frustrating that it feels like I’m learning a whole different game’s CG than what I learned before the IA patch, but I’m learning anyway. …Slowly. I’m sure more people will start using CG more as they dust off their old skillz, but for now it feels like there’s way too much RL action in duels.

But this discussion wasn’t supposed to be a debate about the CG. It was supposed to be about whether or not I correctly assessed the physics of the game and whether an LCOS-like system would be feasible or desirable. Clearly most of you don’t think it’s desirable. That’s fine. I still think it’d be neat to try, you still think it’s the same as aimbot.

Speed, the next time you don’t bother to CORRECTLY read my post before you reply is the last time I read any of yours in this thread. I never said that the CG should be removed. I made a sarcastic comment to the effect of: the way things are now, players may as well not have them. Such comments are used, like exaggeration, to emphasize a point. If you don’t understand this, you clearly need to take a remedial English class at the nearest JC before you ever post in one of my threads again.

I don’t tolerate being misquoted, misrepresented, or deliberately misinterpreted, nitpicked, or otherwise having my posts dissected in such a way that my original intent is obscured. If you’re going to have a discussion with me, you’re going to do so intelligently and at a high school or better level or you will be ignored. Or at the very least you’ll receive a snide remark.

One last point I want to (re)emphasize on the original topic of the thread: Even if players chose to use an LCOS-like system, it is still a matter of the players’ skill, reflexes, practice, and coordination to put the floating bullseye on target at the right time and fire to score. Despite how easy some of you have tried to make that sound, this is no easy feat unless your target is sitting still or moving in a straight line. As someone who spent a lot of time with flight sims, I know this from experience. I’m eager to see how the system would work in a fast paced shooter like Legions or even Tribes; would it be easier, harder, about the same?
 
Aki said:
One last point I want to (re)emphasize on the original topic of the thread: Even if players chose to use an LCOS-like system, it is still a matter of the players’ skill, reflexes, practice, and coordination to put the floating bullseye on target at the right time and fire to score.
Click to expand...

It's in the player's hand to know their enemy's velocity and height and properly adjust their aim to hit them. Adding such a system will make this concept removed and everyone will get MA's as if it were nothing. This may help the new and average players since they will improve the most but what will happen to the people who are experienced and aims properly even without the LCOS system? They will gain a small advantage and people will just adapt the this game way too fast. Also, what if they decided that the LCOS system would not work out and they move it? The players that relied on it the most will fall so low that they might even quit.
 
Bane said:
It's in the player's hand to know their enemy's velocity and height and properly adjust their aim to hit them. Adding such a system will make this concept removed and everyone will get MA's as if it were nothing. This may help the new and average players since they will improve the most but what will happen to the people who are experienced and aims properly even without the LCOS system? They will gain a small advantage and people will just adapt the this game way too fast. Also, what if they decided that the LCOS system would not work out and they move it? The players that relied on it the most will fall so low that they might even quit.
Click to expand...

Well, first off, the floating bullseye has absolutely nothing to do with the target's velocity or position. Did you watch the HUD tape I linked to yet? It doesn't sound like you have. I'll repeat myself again, but I must say that it's getting old after three pages:

LCOS is based on YOUR OWN velocity. It has absolutely nothing to do with your position, your enemy's position, or your enemy's velocity. The bullseye moves as you move, not as your enemy moves, and it moves only in response to how your position is changing over time, i.e. your velocity (a vector composed of your speed and direction).

I still think that you make it sound too easy. Putting the bullseye on a maneuvering target is actually quite difficult. This is because, as I said, the bullseye moves as you move and does not anticipate your target's motion. It's almost certain that you would still have to lead your target with the bullseye to get a hit. In fighter planes, leading like that is less needed because they take a shot if they are "in plane" with one another, which means their wings are forming the same angle to the ground. In Legions, we never change our "plane" but we still change our direction, so that would, I think, present a whole new challenge to effective use of the system.

Furthermore, I would propose LCOS only for CG, which means that for RL and GL the player must still learn to eyeball all the information about their target AND their own motion by themselves. I would also propose that it be an option players can use or not as they choose. In those circumstances, I don't think players would be so set back that they would leave as you said. A few might, but frankly players who leave at the slightest increase in difficulty aren't usually worth playing with anyway.
 
Aki said:
Did you watch the HUD tape I linked to yet? It doesn't sound like you have. I'll repeat myself again, but I must say that it's getting old after three pages.
Click to expand...

I think a source of this problem is that that video isn't exactly the most obvious explanation. It isn't for me at least.
 
About the Section 8 Nade aiming thing (Which is useless in S8 btw), it could (and won't) be implemented in legions, but you should at least have to charge the shot for a sec or two like in S8.

I'm also finding CG harder to use. I used to be able to track someone from 100% till they're dead with very few misses (spread=p), but now it takes me a good few seconds to kil someone on 3%. Could be something to do with my ping tripling though.

And one other thing, didn't Mabel once say something along the lines of 'We are never going to have vehicles in legions'?
Unless I misinterpereted that fighter jet bit, or if I remember what someone said 1 year+ ago incorrectly.
 
Aki said:
Well, first off, the floating bullseye has absolutely nothing to do with the target's velocity or position. Did you watch the HUD tape I linked to yet? It doesn't sound like you have. I'll repeat myself again, but I must say that it's getting old after three pages:

LCOS is based on YOUR OWN velocity. It has absolutely nothing to do with your position, your enemy's position, or your enemy's velocity. The bullseye moves as you move, not as your enemy moves, and it moves only in response to how your position is changing over time, i.e. your velocity (a vector composed of your speed and direction).

I still think that you make it sound too easy. Putting the bullseye on a maneuvering target is actually quite difficult. This is because, as I said, the bullseye moves as you move and does not anticipate your target's motion. It's almost certain that you would still have to lead your target with the bullseye to get a hit. In fighter planes, leading like that is less needed because they take a shot if they are "in plane" with one another, which means their wings are forming the same angle to the ground. In Legions, we never change our "plane" but we still change our direction, so that would, I think, present a whole new challenge to effective use of the system.

Furthermore, I would propose LCOS only for CG, which means that for RL and GL the player must still learn to eyeball all the information about their target AND their own motion by themselves. I would also propose that it be an option players can use or not as they choose. In those circumstances, I don't think players would be so set back that they would leave as you said. A few might, but frankly players who leave at the slightest increase in difficulty aren't usually worth playing with anyway.
Click to expand...

Oh, I see what you mean now.
 
Ace of Aces had something like this. The reticle would light up a transparent red when the crosshair was aimed with the correct lead needed to hit the enemy. I think this would be a good idea, but it should only take place if the player is at a certain velocity, I.E., 80 M.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top