37 replies to this topic

[OriontheHunter]

BigSteel, on 03 August 2012 - 06:18 PM, said:

This is a big part thatis missing from the people who talk about SIM implemetation in this game. Its stings when it becomes a very unresposive World of Tanks like event.

Well I did respond to that earlier, but the neurohelmet's primary job is to relay balance information to the mech, it's not thought control, as the vast majority of the inputs come from the cockpit controls. It can convey some intent but that's it. I'll try to explain. Mech's are robots, they have there own level of intelligence, so the pilot tells the mech what they want to do and the mech handles the details.

For example to pick up an improvise weapon, the pilot would put the crosshairs on whatever it is, then issue a "grab command"(whether you wish to see this as hitting a button or as the mech understanding the intent of the pilot through the helmet is not clearly defined in my source material, so it's up to you) and the mech will lower itself and pick up the item, then barring further pilot input, stand back up and ready the weapon all by itself. If you wanted to pick up a person without hurting them, the proceedure is the same, as the mech understands through the helmet that you don't want to hurt the person and takes care when applying pressure as it pick's the person up.

Punching something is simply target with the crosshairs hit the punch button and pull the punch trigger, but since a phyiscal attack like this means shifting it's weight out of balance, it checks with the pilot on an unconcious level to make sure that the pilot does want the mech to get itself off balance. In a sim all of this could just be assumed, but I would prefer that some of it be simply modelled so that the person playing has to actually pilot the mech from time to time, instead of just driving it around. I won't get into an explaination, as there is a thread here: Add a gyro compensation meter (now with better pic!) that has an idea by another memeber, as well as my own thoughts on the subject, for those who wish to know.

Pht, on 03 August 2012 - 05:35 PM, said:

I think the locked reticule is due more to our controller setup's capabilities vs how the lore functions, and btw, MW3 did allow for a "free" reticule. It's simply not easy to have control of a 'mech's movement AND it's reticule at the same time with a mouse/kbd or mouse/joystick. Thus most of the 'mech games have had the reticule locked into the center of the hud.

I think your misunderstanding the movement I'm talking about here, though I'm not opposed to what you seem to be referring to. The movement I'm speaking about is the cockpit movement caused by the motion of the moving mech should be moving the crosshairs, that is they should bounce and sway with the mech as it moves, because not only is it unrealistic for them not to do so, but also the TT rules say that it's harder to shoot while your mech is moving than when your standing still, even against a stationary target.

Quote

Actually, most of the time, the reticule is on the main cockpit hud and not in the neurohelmet viewscreen.

This would just introduce the possibility of the pilots head being slightly missaligned causing the aimpoint to be off down range. Being out of alignment by .5 dergrees at 600m would mean the aimpoint is off by 3m.

Quote

You want to know what's neat? We already know how long it takes for a 'mech t&t setup to get a ridiculously good fix - about thirty seconds, if you're really, REALLY taking your time and say, want to shoot something MILES away. Normal operation takes less than ten seconds. Quality of lock is indicated by color-codes on the Hud around the reticule and lock tones.

Interesting, I'm curious as to the source of your times. Your specifiying of range for the first example makes me need to point out that the TT ranges are abstractions that allowed the game to fit on a table, but you probably know this, so it's mostly for the benifit of others, and that actual ranges would be longer, most likely considerably longer than the ones we know from this game, which I believe are the same as the TT.

Quote

Do it like the lore does it. The pilot manipulates the reticule on the hud and puts it where he wants things shot at, and the mech takes in sensory data, crunches it, and uses those results to determine how to align the individual weapons to best try and hit what the pilot is indicating with the reticule. Use color coding and tones to indicate quality of lock instead of cluttering the hud with things that are impossible to track easily in combat...

I would be happy with that, my 'complicated' version allows you to snap shoot weapons that might already be over the target, without targeting a mech, is the main reason for my preference.

Quote

So you have the pilot tracking the target, choosing when to shoot, and where to shoot... with the 'mech doing all the rest.

As it should be.

Quote

As far as the back end game mechanic? ... we already have the data on how well a 'mech in the BTUniverse can hit an overall mech sized target and how well it can get multiple weapons to concentrate "under the reticule."

Right but a lot of people just refuse to beleive that mechs are less than perfect in their ability to target things, which is why I approched this from an actual weapons system point of view.

Quote

All we have to do is convince people that in an MechWarrior video game you should have the player directly controlling the 'mech and the 'mech directly controlling the weapons, instead of having the player directly controlling both.

You know, actually have people playing a game that simulates what it's like to pilot a battlemech, instead of quake version (whatever).

Now your talking what I would like to see, as piloting has been missing from all MW games. Mechs need to be able to fall down, but it needs to be done in a way that a player can learn to pilot his mech without really worrying about falling as long as they pay attention to the terrain and their movement in relation to it.

[Pht]

Fahr, on 01 August 2012 - 01:52 PM, said:

these machines ahve neuro-interfaces, they are not driven, more like worn. if the user is aiming at an enemy, the computer is aware through the neuro interface that it is his intended target.

Actually no. This is a misconception.

http://www.sarna.net...The_Neurohelmet

http://mwomercs.com/...post__p__484656

The main job of the neurohelmet is to help the 'mech to balance. The other things it can accomplish are, in relation to the balance job, small, due to the limitations of the interface.

[Pht]

OriontheHunter, on 03 August 2012 - 08:36 PM, said:

I think your misunderstanding the movement I'm talking about here, though I'm not opposed to what you seem to be referring to. The movement I'm speaking about is the cockpit movement caused by the motion of the moving mech should be moving the crosshairs, that is they should bounce and sway with the mech as it moves, because not only is it unrealistic for them not to do so,

I was just commenting on why I think the reticule has been locked in most mw video games.

As for the "bouncy" reticule... No, the reticule shouldn't bounce.

It shouldn't bounce because it doesn't bounce in the 'mechs in the lore; the reticule has a very specific job: indicate to the 'mech where it should be trying to align it's weapons to hit; and the reticule only reacts to one thing, the user inputs from the joystick. As an indicator, it does not (and should not) react to anything other than the joystick inputs from the mechwarrior.

What indicates to the mechwarrior how well or poorly the 'weapons are aligned is not the movement of the reticule (which, again, is an "ideal aimpoint indicator" for the mech), nor the shape or size of the reticule - there is usually a color-coded section of the reticule (or the reticule itself is color coded) that indicates quality of weapon alignment.

Quote

but also the TT rules say that it's harder to shoot while your mech is moving than when your standing still, even against a stationary target.

It's harder for two reasons: it takes more skill for the 'mechwarrior to keep the reticule aligned where he wants the 'mech to be trying to hit (the target is moving around more on the HUD, so you have to move the reticule more), and the 'mech itself has a harder time getting the weapons aligned; there are more variables to account for.

Quote

This would just introduce the possibility of the pilots head being slightly missaligned causing the aimpoint to be off down range. Being out of alignment by .5 dergrees at 600m would mean the aimpoint is off by 3m.

When the hud *is* displayed in the neurohelmet (and it is not always displayed in the helmet; most 'mechs post 3050 don't do so); it's an actual projected hud displayed on the inside of the helmet. You can stare at the back wall of the cockpit and you'll still see the exact same view on your neurohelmet hud. All it does is take the main cockpit hud information and display it on the inside of the helmet.

Quote

Interesting, I'm curious as to the source of your times. Your specifiying of range for the first example makes me need to point out that the TT ranges are abstractions that allowed the game to fit on a table, but you probably know this, so it's mostly for the benifit of others, and that actual ranges would be longer, most likely considerably longer than the ones we know from this game, which I believe are the same as the TT.

The times come from the tactical ops and total warfare books. A normal game turn is ten seconds, and if you look in tac ops at "careful aim" you get a better target fix for 3 turns time "chewing on a fix" ... beyond 3 turns (30 seconds) the target lock doesn't get any better.

Previous to maximum tech being published, I'd agree with you, but there's no need to extend the ranges as they are written anymore.

With the tac-ops Extreme range and LOS rules, you can literally shoot things on the horizon (of course, it's not EASY ... but it is, under the right conditions and with the right hardware, possible). There simply isn't a need anymore to muck about with the weapons ranges. In fact, I think it's nice that the normal ranges are "fairly short," such that they would promote a bit of "in your face" action... but not in such a way as to make sniping impossible.

Quote

I would be happy with that, my 'complicated' version allows you to snap shoot weapons that might already be over the target, without targeting a mech, is the main reason for my preference.

We can already do that; opportunity fire and firing on the move = modifiers for making a snap shot, with the balance already built in. Tactical ops, it's jammed full of useful stuff for an MW video game.

Quote

Right but a lot of people just refuse to beleive that mechs are less than perfect in their ability to target things, which is why I approched this from an actual weapons system point of view.

I think really the biggest problem is that people don't understand just how hard it is to get multiple weapons to all hit the same point; and it is this in which BTUniverse 'mechs have problems.

You can shoot things the size of a light mech with a gauss rifle 35 miles away, if you take your time and are careful about it. what you can't do is get multiple weapons to all hit the same section of a targeted 'mech. This is really a big part of what separates the anime mecha from BT mechs; anime mecha are usually capable of getting all sorts of weapons to concentrate on a single point ... they kind of have to, when their targets are bouncing off the walls like gymnasts!

Edited by Pht, 07 August 2012 - 10:20 AM.

[gauddlike]

Personally I think that, although potentially more realistic, having less control over your mech would also make the game less fun to play.
Making multiple weapon systems much harder to hit with would also steer the majority of players towards making configs with a single, powerful weapon system to avoid the problem and maximise firepower.
Few people would ever fit more than one or two weapons to group together as most of the time they would be firing, and generating heat, to no purpose.


This is the big difference for me between tabletop rules and MWO rules.
In MWO it is you personally who is aiming and firing the shots, not a dice roll that decides what happens.

Either you have the player aiming and firing, in which case it is his skill that determines hits or you have the player giving a 'target and fire' command and sitting back to see how well the mech does the job.
If you want randomised hits and hit locations you should remove the player from the process.

[Pht]

gauddlike, on 07 August 2012 - 12:16 PM, said:

Personally I think that, although potentially more realistic, having less control over your mech would also make the game less fun to play.

Um, you have direct control of the 'mech. Nobody (that I know of) wants things otherwise.

The point is, that we shouldn't have direct control of each and every weapon, all at the same time, as it has been done previously.

It is the mech that directly controls the weapons and trys to align them to hit what the pilot is aiming at with the reticule. If this is dismissed or diminished than the game that results is not mechwarrior!

Either we simulate the ability of the 'mechs to handle the weapons mounted to them and have mechwarrior, or we nonsensically give the pilot magical direct control over the alignment of each and every weapon, resulting in just another run'n'gun fps/shooter game.

Quote

Making multiple weapon systems much harder to hit with would also steer the majority of players towards making configs with a single, powerful weapon system to avoid the problem and maximise firepower.
Few people would ever fit more than one or two weapons to group together as most of the time they would be firing, and generating heat, to no purpose.

You're presuming that you can "pick your section" with a singular weapon - no - the only time a 'mechwarrior (and this is the lore) gets to do this, is when he is firing at a target that is immobile - not capable of moving.

Quote

Either you have the player aiming and firing, in which case it is his skill that determines hits or you have the player giving a 'target and fire' command and sitting back to see how well the mech does the job.

This is nonsense... it takes more skill to pilot a 'mech than it does to play your average fps game.

Not only do you need ALL of the traget-tracking reactions and skills that the average shooter requires, you also need to be able to think for your machine so that you can put it in a good position to be able to align the weapons and make the shot you are asking of it.

Spoiler

Combat

What the pilot does and can do: Via the use of the main (and sometimes there's a secondary) joystick the pilot manipulates the placement of the reticule on his main HUD to indicate what is to be targeted; the pilot must also track with the reticule what he wishes to be targeted. The pilot, via the joystick and reticule, can, if they think their 'Mech will not be able to under whatever situation, do some extra "lead calculation." The plot controls what weapons are fired, their firing modes, what kinds of ammo that they fire, when they are fired and how long the 'Mechs targeting and tracking systems (computers, programming, sensors, physical structures) get to work on converging whatever weapons are fired onto the point indicated by the reticule.

The pilot also controls non-environmental heat-build up in their 'Mech, and the placement and/or movement and movement type relative to the target when firing. A very good pilot can use these factors to indirectly control weapons convergence - he essentially "thinks for" his 'Mech in order to achieve this - this is the "skill" that sets the good pilots apart from the bad, as far as gunnery is concerned. The pilot achieves physical combat by using the targeting reticule and joystick(s) to aim and triggers whatever movement type he has chosen with the appropriate trigger on the joystick(s). The pilot uses pressure sensitive surfaces on the joystick(s) to indicate to the 'Mech how tightly it should grip whatever makeshift club may be in use.

What the pilot does NOT or can not do: indicate a target with the reticule and than not have to track it with the reticule. The pilot does not (and indeed, can not) directly control weapons convergence. The pilot does not directly control the physical targeting of any weapon or group of weapons. The pilot does not (and, again, can not) "do," mentally or otherwise, beyond using the reticule to indicate targets and "thinking for his 'Mech," the targeting and tracking for his 'Mech. The pilot does not achieve reticule control via the use of eye-tracking systems. The pilot does not and can not directly control the flight of missile weapons, either individually or in groups.

What the 'Mech does and can do: It does the actual physical aiming of whatever weapons are being fired. It, via sensors, computers, and programming calculates the lead for each weapon being fired so that it can hit the target indicated - under most conditions, 'Mech's T&T sensors, computers, and programming are far more capable of calculating this lead than their pilots. This is due to the fact that the 'Mech's various systems that are involved are crunching a titanic amount of information and deciding what to do with it, very quickly in order to get the desired effect - far more than a pilot can handle. The 'Mech indicates to it's pilot the "quality" of targeting lock - this is normally achieved via color coding the reticule and audible tones. Nowhere in the lore have I seen anything to indicate "dancing" reticules or reticules that change size or shape - the reticule is first and foremost a means used to indicate targets - changing it in the middle of battle in ways that impair this ability goes against its main purpose.

In physical combat it does the majority of choosing the actual physical movements necessary in order to achieve what the pilot wants. The 'Mech's T&T (this is mainly the job of the battle computer) systems will use sensor inputs and programming to try and "track" whatever is being indicated with the reticule in order to achieve higher "hit rates." The 'Mech tracks with it's T&T systems all sensor contacts, their IFF (Identify Friend or Foe) codes if present, and streamlines this information into a simple synthesized display with visual cues (usually in the form of graphic indicators) and audible alerts for it's pilot. The 'Mech can not concentrate all of its weapons fire into a single segment of a non-immobile target (which is borne out by the lore all OVER the place).

What the 'Mech does NOT and can not do: It does not and can not choose a target. They are specifically built and programmed such that this can not happen. This is because they carry so much destructive power. Because of this they can not trigger their own weapons (or commit physical combat); nor can they target and/or track anything with their weapons that the pilot is not indicating with the reticule.

http://mwomercs.com/...060#entry107060

Quote

If you want randomised hits and hit locations you should remove the player from the process.

... and the old cliche, repeated, yet again.


----

I still don't understand why people get upset when you want to ... simulate a battlemech's abilites in combat ... in a game about ... piloting a battlemech in combat...

It's even odder to hear complaints that it would "remove human skill" from the equation when you realize it takes more skill play a BT mech sim than it would to have the game behave as otherwise proposed ...

[gauddlike]

You say no one wants to remove control from the player then follow up with an explanation about how you would remove that control.
The pilot can line up and fire his shot but doesn't get to choose where it hits?
That seems to fall right into the random hit locations part I posted and you quoted as nonsense..
You have just removed player control from that action.
As you keep saying in your posts, you are not the one making the shot, you are just telling the mech where to aim.

If I aim my crosshairs at your head why would the shot not go where I aim?
I am not talking about if I fail to aim properly, if I get jostled by a hit, or the enemy moves in an unexpected direction.
In your view of the game I cannot hit where I aim just because the enemy is moving, no matter how good a shot I am.
That is a dice roll to determine hit, not a skilled pilot taking a shot.
I am not saying that wouldn't work, just calling in to question how appealing that sort of game play would be to the number of players that need to be pulled in to a f2p game in order to make it viable.

Pht, on 07 August 2012 - 01:12 PM, said:

It is the mech that directly controls the weapons and trys to align them to hit what the pilot is aiming at with the reticule. If this is dismissed or diminished than the game that results is not mechwarrior!

I would argue that it is a mechwarrior computer game, it is not battletech and it is definitely not TT.
I imagine there would be a few hundred, maybe even a few thousand people out there who would play a hardcore mech sim (I would more than likely be one of them) but that is not this game.

[Pht]

gauddlike, on 08 August 2012 - 02:43 PM, said:

You say no one wants to remove control from the player then follow up with an explanation about how you would remove that control.

You've erected a strawman here.

Pht' said:

Um, you have direct control of the 'mech. Nobody (that I know of) wants things otherwise.

...

Do it like the lore does it.

... you have the pilot tracking the target, choosing when to shoot, and where to shoot... with the 'mech doing all the rest.

All we have to do is convince people that in an MechWarrior video game you should have the player directly controlling the 'mech and the 'mech directly controlling the weapons, instead of having the player directly controlling both.

Nobody wants to take away direct control of the 'mech. It's the magical, nonsensical, totally unrealistic direct control of the weapons that is contested. There simply is not this direct control of the weapons in the Lore; not anywhere. Nobody, not even Morgan Kell, using the obscene author-fiat "ghost mech" skill can do it.

Quote

The pilot can line up and fire his shot but doesn't get to choose where it hits? That seems to fall right into the random hit locations part I posted and you quoted as nonsense..

Instead of assuming what someone means that they've not posted... you could ... ask, before you assume wrongly.

Quote

If I aim my crosshairs at your head why would the shot not go where I aim?

Why does every shot have to magically ignore the variables that affect the 'mech and almost always go exactly where you aim them, anime style? Especially when multiple weapons virtually *never* do so in the lore? .. and most especially against mobile targets?

Why should we completely ignore the ability of the 'mech to actually physically align those weapons... unless it is somehow that the player is ... magically ... doing the physical alignments? For that matter, why ignore the fact that it is the 'mech that does the targeting calculations to decide where to physically align the weapons to try and hit what's under the reticule?

Quote

In your view of the game

Again, with the false assumptions. I don't think you'd appreciate it if I just assumed you wanted quake with more guns and always attached that to you as "your view."

Quote

...I cannot hit where I aim...

Speaking of assumptions. What IS done is to simulate how well, under whatever varying conditions, the 'mech can hit what you are indicating with the reticule.

If you're running like crazy and overheating, yes, the 'mech won't be able to hit what you want it to hit. If, on the other hand, you wait until your target is not moving around, and you're not moving your 'mech at a run, more of your weapons will hit.

Just because nobody can directly control the weapons doesn't mean they can't control the indirect factors that allow their 'mech to be able to better make the shot they want of it.

Quote

just because the enemy is moving, no matter how good a shot I am. That is a dice roll to determine hit,

"Just becaus the enemy is moving" contains nothing at all about dice rolls. You've simply assumed it.

Quote

not a skilled pilot taking a shot.

which do you want? A skilled pilot?

... Or a skilled shooter, with no thought at all given to the simulation of the armored combat unit that he's somehow supposed to be piloting?

"Gunnery skill" while piloting a battlemech is not an exact analogy to "gunnery skill' while holding a rifle.

Quote

I would argue that it is a mechwarrior computer game, it is not battletech and it is definitely not TT.

... and you would be wrong. Answer as to why in the spoiler fold.

Spoiler

Just what does "MechWarrior" mean, by definition and in the context that it is used in?

"Mech" - In this case shorthand for BattleMech, an upright walking armed and armored combat unit from the Battletech Universe/Lore.

"Warrior" A person that makes war, usually by the means of combat.

So, "MechWarrior" means someone that pilots the aforementioned armored combat unit called a BattleMech in armed conflict.

Obviously, what follows, of necessity, from this definition and the motivation for making the MW video games in the first place is that an MW video game is a game built to simulate what it is like to pilot a BattleMech in combat, in such a manner as to give the player just enough suspension of disbelief so that they can have a good time by mentally "escaping reality" into the BTUniverse for a little while.

If a game claims to be a MechWarrior game but doesn't follow the above definition and pursue the above goal, it's not a MW game.

---

Where can we validly go to to define the Battletech Universe, and from within that definition, what it is like to pilot a BattleMech in combat? There are three different sources that are usually appealed to.

First, there are the previous MechWarrior video games. Positively, these are useful as examples of how others have tried to implement what it is like to pilot a BTU BattleMech in video game format. However, as far as actually defining the BTUniverse (and within that what it is like to pilot a BattleMech) the previous MW video games are not very good.

First of all, they are derivative instead of foundational works as far as concerns the BTUniverse - they looked elsewhere to get their definition(s), and at times these places were not always the best choices. They are also to some extent built game play upon arbitrary assumptions and concepts that are not always consistent with each other from game to game... meaning that there is no valid reason to choose one idea from any game over another - we may as well flip a coin!

---

Second, there are the Battletech novels and the short stories and "in universe" lore in the various source books for the tabletop game of Battletech. This "story" source is the genesis for much of the BTUniverse lore/information and it is usually more consistent with itself. It can be helpful in knowing conceptually, what it is like to pilot a BattleMech in combat, because it is largely free of any limitations that the various game formats necessarily impose.

That said, because of the lack of strict restrictions due to format "fiat" characters and concepts creep in at places - a tool used by authors to achieve their desired outcomes and to otherwise embellish their stories - which means the story overrides all other considerations, so care must be used in deciding what concepts to use. There is also the problem that while this story source is good at giving the concepts of what it is like to pilot a BattleMech in combat, it does not give usable clear definitions in hard "black and white" of how these concepts work.

---

Third, there are the rules that make up the Battletech tabletop game. This system(1984) was released before the novels by two years(1986), and the novels, "fiat" excluded, have not contradicted what the TT system rules "aim at." This system was, as far someone who was not involved in the origination of BT can tell, the genesis of much of the mechanics that exist in the the BTUniverse.

The various rules that make up this system are usually "hard numbers in black and white" and they lay out a fairly comprehensive baseline for BattleMech behavior and performance, and also piloting duties; and as far as seems humanly possible they are not contradictory of each other - or the "story" source either. The downside of these rules that make up this system is that they sometimes do not indicate exactly what it is they are intended to emulate. They also at times make compromises specific to the tabletop turn-based gaming format. The form of the rules do not always work in a video game format - they require translation at times.

http://mwomercs.com/...060#entry107060

Quote

I imagine there would be a few hundred, maybe even a few thousand people out there who would play a hardcore mech sim (I would more than likely be one of them) but that is not this game.

... and I imagine there would be a LOT of people that would enjoy a true mechwarrior video game, where the 'mech is actually simulated.

Edited by Pht, 09 August 2012 - 08:25 AM.

[gauddlike]

Actually I have re-read your posts again and I am not entirely sure I read them correctly the first time.
I am not sure if you want a system where the mech aims at a target you select or if you are talking about mech controlled weapon convergence.
We could be discussing different things.

Taking control of aiming away from the player I am against as I posted.
However the slower convergence of weapons systems I am not against, as long as it is obvious what is going on.
A game mechanic that invisibly screws up your shot is bad.
One where you can see what is going on and compensate for is good and requires skill instead of luck.

What has thrown me of is that If your point was about weapon system convergence why would a single weapon system be adversely affected?

[Pht]

gauddlike, on 10 August 2012 - 01:48 AM, said:

Actually I have re-read your posts again and I am not entirely sure I read them correctly the first time. I am not sure if you want a system where the mech aims at a target you select or if you are talking about mech controlled weapon convergence.

As simply as I can put it, I think:

Player has direct control over the targeting reticule, has to track with the reticule, has to choose when to fire.

Mech has to try -

...by directly physically controlling each weapon and deciding where to actually physicially aim it given computations based upon the situation's variables...

-to converge each individual weapon to hit what's being put under the reticule by the player.

The player can and must think about the things he has asking his 'mech to overcome to "make the shot work." This last factor is the secondary major gunnery skill in a battlemech.

The primary major gunnery skill is being able to always put the reticule exactly where you want it and pulling the trigger at the right time.

Quote

However the slower convergence of weapons systems I am not against, as long as it is obvious what is going on. A game mechanic that invisibly screws up your shot is bad. One where you can see what is going on and compensate for is good and requires skill instead of luck.

It's less "slower convergence" and more "convergence based upon your situation when you pull the trigger."

Quote

What has thrown me of is that If your point was about weapon system convergence why would a single weapon system be adversely affected?

The reason that a person can't "pick his part and hit it" with a singular weapon system is due to the extreme mobility of the battlemech as a target. While the aren't anime-backflippers, BTU mechs can go from a standstill to full speed in a few strides, they can twist, they can lean, they can sidestep... and there's the factor that your target is "reading you" with sensors and computers and very well may be programmed with your exact performance profile.

Now, when your target is immobile? Yeah, you can blast a gnat off his windscreen.

[gauddlike]

Apologies I did read it wrong the first time then...
I withdraw my objection

[Pht]

I knew I felt a disturbance in the force...

[Ducks Guts]

If I may, I read a good 90% of this thread (being honest) and think that the problem may never be solved unless you are playing in a true 3D "world". In reality, our real self is looking at a 2D screen that is looking through a helmet that is looking through a cockpit window at an object in a virtual world that is so odd meters away. The formula here stops at the 2D screen. Mechanics at this point can only go so far. Correct? I'm no expert but just a thought.

[CancR]

guise dis is liek cawl of dooty right? How I get my Jenner to equip AKA so I can git kill streaks??????

[OriontheHunter]

Sorry about the delay in responding.

Pht, on 07 August 2012 - 10:17 AM, said:

As for the "bouncy" reticule... No, the reticule shouldn't bounce. It shouldn't bounce because it doesn't bounce in the 'mechs in the lore; the reticule has a very specific job: indicate to the 'mech where it should be trying to align it's weapons to hit; and the reticule only reacts to one thing, the user inputs from the joystick.  As an indicator, it does not (and should not) react to anything other than the joystick inputs from the mechwarrior.

Well technically you're correct, it's not the reticule that should be moving it's the terrain under the reticule that should be 'bouncing', but the point I'm making is that aim-point under the reticule should not remain still when the mech is moving as the entire head is translating up/down and left/right as the mech moves.  This is physics, it does not need to be specified in lore.

Quote

What indicates to the mechwarrior how well or poorly the 'weapons are aligned is not the movement of the reticule (which, again, is an "ideal aimpoint indicator" for the mech, nor the shape or size of the reticule - there is usually a color-coded section of the reticule (or the reticule itself is color coded) that indicates quality of weapon alignment.

Yes, but the hit tables from the TT assume you are aiming at center mass, as all military's teach their warriors to do.  If you aim someplace else you reduce the chance of successfully hitting the target, with at least some of your weapons, as the system has less margin for error.  Simple example: Firing at the left arm of a mech that's facing you means that if you miss to the left you'll most likely hit some part of the torso, but if you miss to the right you hit nothing but air.  Where the reticule is actually targeted affects the likely hood of getting all of your weapons to hit, even with a good quality of aim.

Quote

It's harder for two reasons: it takes more skill for the 'mechwarrior to keep the reticule aligned where he wants the 'mech to be trying to hit (the target is moving around more on the HUD, so you have to move the reticule more), and the 'mech itself has a harder time getting the weapons aligned; there are more variables to account for.

What your describing does not seem to take into account that a mech that is moving straight at a non moving mech also has the modifier to it's to hit rolls in the TT.

Quote

When the hud *is* displayed in the neurohelmet (and it is not always displayed in the helmet; most 'mechs post 3050 don't do so); it's an actual projected hud displayed on the inside of the helmet. You can stare at the back wall of the cockpit and you'll still see the exact same view on your neurohelmet hud. All it does is take the main cockpit hud information and display it on the inside of the helmet.

Your referring to the old style helms that didn't allow for turning your head, and had a 360 degree view compressed into a 160 degree view angle.  They would have their own difficulties.  I'm referencing the newer style and it doesn't matter if the HUD is on the helm or in the cockpit.  In the former case the mech must calculate the angle of the head to understand what the pilot is aiming at, and in the latter case if the pilots head is not in the exact location it's supposed to be, you will have alignment problems.  Again this is physics.

Quote

The times come from the tactical ops and total warfare books.   A normal game turn is ten seconds, and if you look in tac ops at "careful aim" you get a better target fix for 3 turns time "chewing on a fix" ... beyond 3 turns (30 seconds) the target lock doesn't get any better.

I haven't read Tac Ops, but I'll have to look into it, sounds interesting.  Thanks.

Quote

Previous to maximum tech being published, I'd agree with you, but there's no need to extend the ranges as they are written anymore.

Max Tech retconed the reason for a the abstraction into game terms, but doesn't change why they were made that way in the first place and I don't believe this game is using the extended range rules.

Quote

With the tac-ops Extreme range and LOS rules, you can literally shoot things on the horizon (of course, it's not EASY ... but it is, under the right conditions and with the right hardware, possible).  There simply isn't a need anymore to muck about with the weapons ranges. In fact, I think it's nice that the normal ranges are fairly short such that they would promote a bit of "in your face" action... but not in such a way as to make sniping impossible.

The problem I see with this game so far is that they have made mechanics that seem to make knife fighting preferable, which is incorrect for the TT.  Preferred enguagement distance should not be standardized as it seems to be, but instead be mech dependent.  Lights rarely get close to Heavies, simply because doing so meant they were likely to be hit, and the hit could severely damage or cripple the light, yet the videos show lights running around at point blank ranges with much heavier mechs.  Doing this in the TT would likely get the light mech shot out from under it's pilot.

Quote

We can already do that; opportunity fire and firing on the move = modifiers for making a snap shot, with the balance already built in.  Tactical ops, it's jammed full of useful stuff for an MW video game.

As are most of the TT source books but unfortunately translating them to a realtime sim is not always easy to do, so maintaining the TT balance is not guaranteed.

Quote

I think really the biggest problem is that people don't understand just how hard it is to get multiple weapons to all hit the same point; and it is this in which BTUniverse 'mechs have problems.
You can shoot things the size of a light mech with a gauss rifle 35 miles away, if you take your time and are careful about it.  what you can't do is get multiple weapons to all hit the same section of a targeted 'mech. This is really a big part of what separates the anime mecha from BT mechs; anime mecha are usually capable of getting all sorts of weapons to concentrate on a single point ... they kind of have to, when their targets are bouncing off the walls like gymnasts!

With this I whole heatedly agree.

[Pht]

OriontheHunter, on 17 August 2012 - 10:08 AM, said:

Yes, but the hit tables from the TT assume you are aiming at center mass, as all military's teach their warriors to do.

There are also aim high, aim left, aim right, aim low hit tables. .. and yes, it makes it harder for your mech to hit stuff; you're asking it to try and aim at a smaller area...

... and that still doesn't negate what I said that you've replied to here.

Quote

What your describing does not seem to take into account that a mech that is moving straight at a non moving mech also has the modifier to it's to hit rolls in the TT.

You didn't (if memory serves) post anything about "moving straight at" in what I replied to; and regardless, if you're moving, you take a movement modifier simply because ... you ... are... moving. That is another added variable; and when you take the pilot's gunnery skill roll out of the equation, you'll find that your own movement modifiers don't affect your 'mechs ability to aim very much until you REALLY start to move.

Quote

Your referring to the old style helms...

No, I am not. Even the new helmets, when they ARE modified to display the hud, do the same thing: they display the view on the main cockpit hud onto the visor of the neurohelmet... and yes, the main hud can and does display at least a section with the 360 into 160-180 degrees thing, so yes, that would be displayed on the visor.

Quote

In the former case the mech must calculate the angle of the head to understand what the pilot is aiming at,

No, it does not. This has never been mentioned anywhere in the source that I have seen and I've probably read about 90% of it; all that is done is that the hud is projected, in whole, onto the neurohelmet visor. There is zero monkeying around with the display, all it does is show the main hud visuals in the helmet.

Quote

The problem I see with this game so far is that they have made mechanics that seem to make knife fighting preferable, which is incorrect for the TT.

Um... no. You've obiviously not been repeatedly killed at range by a mech toting dual gauss; or a clan mech with 3 or 4 large clan pulse lasers and a TC, or a clan mech with 3-4 ERppcs ... it's pretty well balanced; if you're a knife fighter, you can usually (map dependent) find a way to knife fight; if you're a sniper, you can snipe.

Quote

As are most of the TT source books but unfortunately translating them to a realtime sim is not always easy to do, so maintaining the TT balance is not guaranteed.

It's not as hard as it's made out to be. The combat and movement systems and environmental variables are all there, laid out.

If anything, I would suspect that some parts that are hard in the tabletop are easy in the video game conversion (like, say, calcluating Line Of Sight). You just have to have the guts to actually do it... there's a lot of misinformation and ignorance and bad propaganda being pushed around about the TT system from people who don't really understand it and who don't really spend the time to figure out how it wold convert, as a whole coherent system.

Edited by Pht, 17 August 2012 - 04:22 PM.

[BagOfMeat]

Ducks Guts, on 11 August 2012 - 06:33 PM, said:

If I may, I read a good 90% of this thread (being honest) and think that the problem may never be solved unless you are playing in a true 3D "world". In reality, our real self is looking at a 2D screen that is looking through a helmet that is looking through a cockpit window at an object in a virtual world that is so odd meters away. The formula here stops at the 2D screen. Mechanics at this point can only go so far. Correct? I'm no expert but just a thought.

+1 to that

still i find this game nails (that means hard) to play

Edited by BagOfMeat, 19 August 2012 - 03:51 AM.

[Deceptor]

Quote

quotefest

In Piranha we trust.

[xanatran]

Сведение и наведение должно быть обязательно, если их не будет то будет уныло. Правильное и реальное наведение на цель должно быть. Все стволы должны иметь свою скорость сведения как и время перезарядки, во время перезарядки не все стволы могут же наводится, к примеру как могут наводится не заряженные ракеты? Сведение тоже должно быть, к примеру на ходу машина не может точно стрелять, как она будет стрелять точное если все трясется?