1063 replies to this topic

[Pht]

Soy, on 08 January 2013 - 07:08 PM, said:

Hey look, thread still continuing, full of BT fans that aren't actually into video games and more into rolling dice. Aim.

Hey look, thread still continuing, full of Duke nukem fans that arent' actually into playing a Mech combat sim that simulates Mech combat ... not exactly the best way to start off interaction on any topic, you know...

Or, you know, we could actually interact with positions we disagree with... that is, if we really wanted to know how to defeat them.



----

Links above quote blocks are links to the posts the quotes are taken from.

----

http://mwomercs.com/...ost__p__1709875

HRR Insanity said:

MechWarrior with a cone-of-fire could be an amazing game. You could balance heat effects on weapons (as is intended in classic BattleTech), you can balance groups of weapons, you can adjust for movement (walking vs. running vs. jumping), knock, and everything else we’ve wanted. You just have to give it a chance. There is a reason that most combat simulation games use cone-of-fire. It works. It simulates actual effects of combat. But even weapon convergence would help. Almost anything would help.

Downsides of the COF idea - for starters, the back-end implementation the COF system would be overly complex - It would require a huge amount of entirely new, scratch-made conditional rules and calculations, which would result in unintended gameplay consequences.

In particular:


Conditions of your own 'Mech that would have to be considered:
----
The volume of the cones has to be altered to emulate the effects of your 'Mech running hot (heat makes the 'Mech's myomers resistive and less predictable, causes aiming trouble).

The volume of the cones has to be altered to emulate the effects of damage to your 'Mech's arm actuators (Joints & their associated Myomers).

The volume of the cones has to be altered to emulate the effects of damage to your 'Mech's sensors (sensors give info to the 'Mech's Targeting computers, be they the normal built in TC's or the extra and more complex TC).

The volume of the cones has to be altered to emulate the effects of of damage to each individual weapon (and for multiple stages of damage, if using the much desired expanded critical damage rules from TO, pg 75)."TO" = Tactical Operations, the advanced combat rules.

The volume and shape and offset of the cones has to be altered to emulate the effects of your 'Mech's movement (i.e., if you're running laterally your misses should usually spread behind or ahead of your target, instead of above or below, so the cone has be be squashed into an oval and offset so some of the oval's area is placed to the appropriate "missed shots go here" direction, behind or in front of your target.)
The volume of the cones has to be altered to emulate the effects oft he accuracy of varying weapons and ammo types at varying ranges (large spread for cluster ammunition, larger spread for weapons like clan heavy lasers, smaller spread for pulse laser weapons, PPCs not focusing at close range).

The volume of the cones has to be altered to emulate the effects of the environment - forest fires, heavy smoke, extreme rain, heavy fog, extreme windstorms, sandstorms, earthquakes, hurricanes, tornadoes (and hey, who doesn't want an interactive changeable environment at some point in the future?)

The volume of the cones has to be altered to emulate how being underwater affects each individual weapon in use and what type of weapon it is. (lasers have shorter ranges underwater, etc)


Conditions of the targeted 'Mech that would have to be considered:
----
The volume and shape and offset of the cones has to be altered to emulate the effects of the target's movement on your 'Mech's ability to aim at it.

The volume of the cones has to be properly calculated to emulate the effects of the target's range differently for almost every weapon and even for some ammo types.

The volume of the cones has to be altered to emulate the effects of what kind of cover or concealment the target is behind (more chances of missing targets moving through sporadic cover/concealment).

The volume of the cones has to be altered to emulate the effects of trying to target more than one 'Mech at a time.

The volume and shape and offset of the cones has to be altered to emulate the effects of the target 'Mech's attempts at evasion (TO, pgs 18-19).

The volume of the cones has to be altered to emulate the effects of your target being underwater.

The volume of the cones has to be altered to emulate the effects of targeting an immobile 'Mech - the cones have to be shrunk down to nearly nothing to emulate the fact that you can pretty much pick your part and hit it vs immobile targets.

The volume of the cones has to be altered to emulate the effects of targeting 'Mechs with relatively "thin" or "tiny" profiles from the front or the side (Vulcan, Marauder).

----

What's even worse is that these rules will combine with and modify each other on a continuous basis - you're literally having to build an entire combat system from scratch and you'll not be able to fully predict how it will work out in gameplay - in fact, you likely won't even be able to tell how many different results that could crop up.

But wait, there's more! :ph3ar:

The volume and shape of the cone has to be made to work to make your hits and misses make intuitive "sense," in every situation. For example, you're shooting at a fast moving target at long range for the weapons you're using; say, a bunch of medium lasers (identical performance) - and the target is moving laterally across your FOV - your shots should mostly miss behind something that's moving to fast for your 'Mech to physically track. If this isn't accounted for, and you miss in a circular pattern, you've got nothing to go on as clues as to how to "fix" the problem... and vice-versa applies to hits with a plain circle in this situation - you can get a hit that makes no sense as to why it happened.

----

Yes, I realize that our computers most likely could run all of these computations in real time; and they might even get it to work in the netcode - but that's not the main problem. The problem is that nobody could humanly predict the gameplay outcomes from this bunch of rules and calculations, and there's no way they could beta-test the game long enough to predict all of the outcomes. That means that the players would eventually find a way to Munch-out the system, and pretty badly - ever-lovin' unintended consequences.

For an example of this unintended consequences effect in action, witness the character building in anarchy online, about as complex as it can get - I once watched one of my friends running his level 60 (it may have been lower) engineer with a fully legit, non-bugged build, who could call/spawn the top hunter bot (lvl 200)... and he ran it through the temple of the winds (that area was capped to level 60 characters or lower), and that bot insta-ganked everything in there. All of said engineer's implants were put in by the means of self buffs - I forget the QL of the implants, but I think they were all maxxed. The really funny part was that in tower battles he would just have his engineer hide, and issue his bot the command bot/hunt ... the thing would insta-gank anyone anywhere near his level... but the level 200's who *could* handle his bot couldn't touch him due to PVP level restrictions, even though his bot could grief them. Unpredictable gameplay results = very, very, very bad.

----

So what's a person to do?

...

Well, using the TTR combat system, minus the pilot-skill simulating calculations and rules (the pilot's P&G dice rolls), run in real time (this is possible), virtually all of the above-mentioned problems are either already solved, minimized, or easily worked against.

As for using the TTR combat system in the manner I've just mentioned and player skill - it doesn't eliminate player skill. It does change the necessary skills. It doesn't make it either obscenely easy to do combat, or obscenely hard to do combat... or even obscenely hard to achieve high levels of effectiveness in combat if you're willing to put in the time to get the experience.

What changes as far as skills? With direct control over the weapons in use (FPS style combat), the skills necessary mostly relate to knowing how to handle the behavior of your target, with a little bit of knowledge necessary to use the weapons. With MW style combat (which is what porting over the TTR combat system in the way I've just mentioned gives you), the skills necessary mostly relate to knowing how to handle your 'Mech, and knowing how well your 'Mech can handle whatever conditions are occurring when you pull the trigger.

No, 'Mechs are not as inaccurate as they are usually accused of being. They (not counting the pilot's gunnery skill into the equation) are quite capable of hitting a stationary 'Mech sized target on the horizon 35 miles away, 41.67% of the time, or, or 5 of 12 shots connecting. At regular old "long range" they hit 91.67% of the time, or 11 out of 12 shots hit. The upshot is, people who played the TT game who complain about 'Mechs being inaccurate with their weapons don't know what the heck they're talking about. You have to stack up some pretty nasty conditions onto the 'Mech to make it (minus the pilot's screwups) miss with it's weapons.

The *only* thing that a BattleMech can not do is use its weapons, singularly or in groups, to pick a section of a target 'Mech and expect to hit it predictably and repeatably... and the entire TT combat system is balanced around this one point. This is also how "epic combat" is achieved, instead of instant-death style gameplay... and it doesn't even make it impossible to engage in sniper style gameplay... or pretty much any other form of gameplay. In other words, it's not whack-a-mole balance. If you have an idea and the map is relatively amenable to the idea (i.e., don't try and brawl on a flat open map with no cover), and you build your 'Mech for it and you work at it some ... you can pull it off successfully.


"BUT, BUT .... RANDOMIZATION = NO SKILL!"

No, it doesn't, but first:

First of all, the dice rolls in TT combat system don't allow for stupid things like shooting at a target's foot and hitting it's cockpit. The randomization effect only exists inside of a predictable range as a means of representing varying things - the hit-location table dice rolls simulate the ultimate limit of the 'Mechs ability to get its weapons fire concentrated under the reticule on a mobile 'Mech sized target; the weapon's individual to-hit dice roll modifiers represent the accuracy of each weapon; the to-hit modifiers for self, target, and environmental conditions represent the 'Mechs ability to handle those conditions.

For the pro-COF group, if this sounds a lot like what the cones are supposed to represent ... yes, it does. In fact, inside of the volume of the cones... the shot is and must be random... so, it's invalid to say that the COF system isn't ultimately probabilistic - it's just that it uses a different mechanic to represent that probabilistic spread.

How does this relate to skill? ... as I've already pointed out, the skills in an MW video game are different than normal FPS combat skills - in the MW game, "skill" is knowing how well or poorly your 'Mech can handle whatever conditions - all that these dice rolls do in the TT combat system is to simulate the 'Mech's capabilities within a set range.

Combat skill in MW is different than combat skill in your run of the mill FPS game.

----

HRR Insanity said:

2. Because single weapons fired sufficiently apart (subject to balance, probably 0.5-1 second gap to prevent macroing) are NOT subject to weapon spread (read the above carefully), this idea does NOT make the game into a random number generator. If you fire one weapon at a time, you are still pin-point accurate. Good gunnery still matters, the proposed solution just allows you to use big weapons to maximum effect. If you fire groups, then you suffer the consequences (as intended by the fix).

I have to say, even though I've considered this idea and how to possibly implement it, the more I think about it's consequences in gameplay the less I like it, and the more I realize that it would make for miserable, un-fun gameplay.

The end result would be people stacking on as many long-range hard hitting weapons as they could possibly get, and always aiming for the CT, Legs, and if at all possible, the cockpit. The only time this wouldn't be the best tactic is on any map where long-range targeting isn't viable, in which case, people would stack on the hardest hitting close range weapons - AC20s, and aiming for the CT, Legs, and Cockpits. This result would happen even if we bumped the required time between Super-Precise Chain Fired shots up to 30 seconds - you would need to bump the SPCF spacing up to the point where, on the longest ranged maps, any non-SPCF player could have the time to get close enough to dish out enough spread style damage to put you down... that is, they'd have to bump the time up between SPFC style shots if they wanted to see something besides everyone doing super-precise chain firing.

... And if they did bump up the time between the Super-Precise shots to what the long-range maps would require for non-whackamole gameplay, there would be virtually no point to having the ability. You'd be limited to one shot; you'd better hit the cockpit every time, or you'd be screwed, because you'd have just revealed yourself to everyone on the map; who would all be instantly gunning for you... and they'd probably be prone to strip your 'Mech and leave it, so even in respawn games, it would suck to try and use the skill even in this semi "balanced" form. Nothing generates more hatred than sporadic sniper style fire hitting you or your unit.

Because the heavy and assault class 'Mechs would be the only classes that could carry a decent amount of singular heavy hitting weapons they would become prevalent for the less experienced players; which would result in the light 'Mechs as a class being non-viable to any but the most determined, persistent, and experienced pilots - scouting at any range would be a quick way to die. Medium 'Mechs would be forced into a hit-hide hit-hide style of gameplay - and Heavy 'Mechs would fall into the black hole of being incapable of carrying as many weapons to chain fire as assaults, or capable of carrying nearly as many heavy weapons but having far less armor - Essentially, the weight classes would be forced out of their roles of lights normally as scouts, mediums as the workhorses that pin down the things the scouts find, heavies as the closer/cleanup forces that finished off what the mediums have pinned down, and assaults as the premiere defensive units, capable of holding ground andrepulsing heavy attacks.

The game would reduce into an MW4 style "Palace Gates" game - nearly everyone in an assault, hiding behind something, waiting for someone, anyone, to reveal themselves... and any players not in a chain-firing assault that tried anything else would be scrapped the instant they left cover.

Wholly besides the gameplay problems, 'Mechs in the lore have never been that capable, even with a single weapon, versus mobile 'Mech sized targets. The combat system simply isn't balanced for even a single weapon being that precise - Imagine if, in Megamek, you could take a pillager and always put both of it's Gauss rounds into any part of a target 'Mech you wanted. This is just like what you're pointing out about the "weapon x(#)" problem vs single armor panels. The system just can't handle having the heaviest hitting weapons be that accurate AND precise.

In the TT system a 'Mech with even just a single Heavy Gauss being able to put that 25 points of damage into any part of a target desired, even if the target was mobile is combat system breaking... because the TT armor values allow a absolute hard limited max of 62 points on the CT (that's if you have ZERO rear armor and put it all to the front) - just three shots from the HG would strip all of that armor and get into the internal structure on the third shot. Even going to full frontal hardened armor doesn't really fix the problem, as it would only take five HG shots to remove all of that armor... and in BT terms, the 124 pts of armor is an utterly obscene amount of armor. In fact, with full hardened armor on the front CT and full reinforced internal structure, it would still only take eight HG shots to totally destroy the 'Mech. Yes, normal Gauss rifles "only" do 15 points of damage, but they do it at long range; and you can mount more than two (no 'Mech can mount more than 2 HGr's) on a 'Mech. And just to top it off, using the very desirable expanded critical hit and critical damage rules from TO (pg 75), (these make the critical hit system much more intuitive and "correct"), these huge-damage in a single salvo/round shots would have a far greater chance at destroying internal equipment and structure, even VS pristine armor (Gauss slugs have a habit of just outright penetrating armor panels at times).

This isn't even beginning to take in what it would be like to be attacked by a coordinated team using SPCF with heavy hitting weapons all aimed at your CT.

What's worse, is the most heavily armored assaults don't have nearly that much armor on their CTs - the Behemoth(stone rhino) has 46 up front , the Atlas only has 46 up front, ditto the Berserker - and these are the 'Mechs known for being seriously heavily armored - and it would take all of 2 HG shots to completely destroy their CT front armor and get into their internal structure - 4 for normal Gauss, but that's at long range.

It's an interesting idea, but it just won't work. Never mind the fact that it would break the TT gaming system (converted for VG format or native)... the gameplay results alone would be disastrous. We'd be back to MW4 - the all long range, only long range on most of the maps, and on the close range maps, it would be an AC20 fest... and overall, only heavy hitting single weapons in chain fire if you want to kill with any consistency would be the rule for gameplay - you simply could not get close enough most of the time vs an equally skilled player if you didn't use SPCF.

----

Just so you know,HRR Insanity, I've not made this post to bash you... it's just that your post was a very good sounding board, to help to draw some ideas out into the light.

Edited by Pht, 10 January 2013 - 05:22 PM.

[MrMasakari]

Tabletop rules and cannon are not always applicable to this sadly, simply because this is not table top. Its a dynamic first person shooter where player skill actually counts alongside multiple other factors (some crossing from TT some not)

Edited by Artaire, 10 January 2013 - 04:15 PM.

[Pht]

Sug, on 08 January 2013 - 07:15 PM, said:

No, I'm not insane. Thats the rated range for a vanilla medium laser in space combat, from the areotech rules, which demonstrate the absolute range for the weapons.

Quinton, on 09 January 2013 - 12:40 AM, said:

for what seems to be highly intelligent (sometimes) people, you guys sure do come up with some idiotic ideas for 'fixing' the game. Weapon spread? seriously? are we going to jump from 3050 back to 1945? Anyone who says lasers should be inaccurate needs to slap themselves a few times and think about that statement again.

Complaining about the idiocy of other people when you've demonstrably misunderstood their position is pretty ironic.

Again, the *WEAPONS* aren't inaccurate. What's being discussed is the 'Mech's ability to get those weapons converged under the reticule vs mobile 'Mech sized targets; and the 'Mechs are not capable of insano-precision convergence. This is pretty much "the" Battletech Lore combat quirk. If you don't want to play a game where you can't drill every weapon into an infintessimal point, BT/MW are not the games for you. Some of us actually enjoy a game that doesn't play insta-gank style.

You're also making the false assumption that the BT lore should somehow confirm to your personal biases of "how advanced technology would be in XXXX years." Not even in RL history does technology always advance. Or do you not know that even our most advanced metallurgists and materials engineers can't replicate many of the swords from before the age of gunpowder?

Quote

So you see, trying to break boating and make group weapons inaccurate is a horrible idea.

Besides the fact that your premises don't require your conclusion; deconverging the weapons fire doesn't "break" boating. Boats are quite effective in the TT.

Artaire, on 10 January 2013 - 04:15 PM, said:

Tabletop rules and cannon are not always applicable to this sadly, simply because this is not table top. Its a dynamic first person shooter where player skill actually counts alongside multiple other factors (some crossing from TT some not)

Now can you actually do more than say it wont work and actually lay out *why* it won't work? If you're going to say that one is turn based and one is real time, can you actually say why it won't work?

You'll be the first person I've ever seen who actually did... and I rather enjoy these threads, I've seen a good chunk of them.

Edited by Pht, 10 January 2013 - 04:17 PM.

[HRR Insanity]

DV McKenna, on 09 January 2013 - 09:17 AM, said:

It depends on the type of bloom your implementing, If stationary is zero bloom then yes weapons are still accurate, if at stationary there is still a small amount of bloom, then it is random because your shot falls somewhere inside of that bloom, you don't decide that.

It's not just that the bloom is zero when stationary, it's that there is absolutely NO cone of fire for weapons fired individually.

None.

Quote

The problem with this type of game and a CoF is by implementing it, you nullify or severely hamper multiple styles of game play.

Team A plays a high pressure movement based style of game, their style of game play has just been dealt a massive blow because they suffer either an enforced accuracy penalty for playing in that manner, or to stop/slow down increases their exposure time to the enemy resulting in them taking more damage from enemy fire, they lose their ability to play on the move and dictate the pace of the game.

Team B is one of those static camper type teams, the CoF system suits them, as they can just pick a spot camp it out and not have to worry so much about the CoF, they are only ever going to be walking up and down to spot or fire, because of this they have a reduced exposure time their CoF is not as big.

You don't have to use the CoF. If you want to run a run-and-gun style of play, pack big weapons, pick your shots accurately, and you'll likely do very well.

Quote

In most modern FPS games, a CoF works because none of this matters, you spray and prey while jumping like a lunatic, or your hip fire and still pump out 100+ rounds into something that can take 1-3 hits tops.

There is a greater degree of tactics and strategy behind a mechwarrior drop, a CoF system simply will not work without removing viable tactics and turning the game into stationary camping wars.

Convergence is still the best way forward.

I diagree for the reasons above. All convergence is doing is distorting the weapon/armor balance and making weapons that should be viable in small numbers (medium laser, small lasers) weak individually... just like they were in MW4.

[Pht]

MustrumRidcully, on 09 January 2013 - 05:19 AM, said:

The Laser itself may be accurate, but having multiple lasers on fixed mounts all hitting precisely the same spot while your mech is moving and the target is moving is something that is quite a lot harder. Comparison to tanks like the M1 Abrams or the Leopard only get us so far here, because these tanks only have one single weapon installed on a single turret. It may be better to compare to naval vessels that are equipped with multiple cannons.

There's really no point in comparing to current or past combat units on this point. The rules lay it out quite bluntly and the entire lore has the 'Mechs behaving this way - the ONLY exception Is, I think, Morgan Kells beyond-author-fiat-universe-breaking "ghost mech skill."

It is that way because the lore and the rules say so... and there's nothing wrong with that.

Roland, on 09 January 2013 - 06:17 AM, said:

You, as the pilot, can control the situations which cause that spread.. thus, it becomes an issue of skill, since you are forced to make piloting decisions to control your accuracy.

This is exactly how converting over the TT combat setup would work and exactly how it works in the lore.

ParasiteX, on 09 January 2013 - 08:59 AM, said:

I made a few illustration to show what a fixed convergance would do.

BattleMechs are not built with fixed convergence points like WW2 fighter planes. They can converge every weapon they have, even if they can't do it perfectly. Even torso mounted and energy weapons are mounted on internal stepper/rotator setups; and the lasers have focusing lenses to aim with.

[HRR Insanity]

Pht, on 10 January 2013 - 04:03 PM, said:

Downsides of the COF idea - for starters, the back-end implementation the COF system would be overly complex - It would require a huge amount of entirely new, scratch-made conditional rules and calculations, which would result in unintended gameplay consequences.

In particular:


Conditions of your own 'Mech that would have to be considered:

(Lots of stuff removed)

All of those alterations are assuming we want the chance of hitting all 'Mechs at range with a cone of fire implementation to be equal. I honestly don't care to be that exact. I think it would be a very interesting balancing point to have some 'Mech that are skinny on the lateral to have an advantage to present that profile... or 'Mechs that are 'smaller' may have an advantage vs. people who shoot grouped weapons.

As for changes in cone of fire with regard to heat, movement, etc... these are all simple volume calculations that are subject to tuning. All FPS have them. I'd start with uniform expansions rather than trying to be super-simulated (lateral motion, etc).

Simple non-convergence, nothing crazy. Just make the grouped weapons not hit the same spot.

Quote

Well, using the TTR combat system, minus the pilot-skill simulating calculations and rules (the pilot's P&G dice rolls), run in real time (this is possible), virtually all of the above-mentioned problems are either already solved, minimized, or easily worked against.

No... that's the thing we're trying to avoid. We don't want dice rolls determining outcome. FPS doesn't need them and we don't need them here either. A very small minority of players would accept anything like that.

Quote

The *only* thing that a BattleMech can not do is use its weapons, singularly or in groups, to pick a section of a target 'Mech and expect to hit it predictably and repeatably... and the entire TT combat system is balanced around this one point. This is also how "epic combat" is achieved, instead of instant-death style gameplay... and it doesn't even make it impossible to engage in sniper style gameplay... or pretty much any other form of gameplay. In other words, it's not whack-a-mole balance. If you have an idea and the map is relatively amenable to the idea (i.e., don't try and brawl on a flat open map with no cover), and you build your 'Mech for it and you work at it some ... you can pull it off successfully.

And that's what we're trying to fix. We're not trying to add a full TT overlay, just _simulate_ the TT game by making this exact issue simulate properly.

Quote

It's an interesting idea, but it just won't work. Never mind the fact that it would break the TT gaming system (converted for VG format or native)... the gameplay results alone would be disastrous. We'd be back to MW4 - the all long range, only long range on most of the maps, and on the close range maps, it would be an AC20 fest... and overall, only heavy hitting single weapons in chain fire if you want to kill with any consistency would be the rule for gameplay - you simply could not get close enough most of the time vs an equally skilled player if you didn't use SPCF.

If that starts to happen, turn down the bloom on the cone of fire to give more incentive to the small grouped weapons... which can still be fired in sequence. If I have a HBK-4P and I'm manuevering well, a continuous 5 damage every 1.5 seconds is going to drill through pretty fast... But they still wouldn't converge perfectly.

Quote

Just so you know,HRR Insanity, I've not made this post to bash you... it's just that your post was a very good sounding board, to help to draw some ideas out into the light.

Cogent discussion is always welcome! Bashing too, so long as it's with good rationale. =)

Edited by HRR Insanity, 10 January 2013 - 04:38 PM.

[Pht]

Soy, on 09 January 2013 - 01:45 PM, said:

Roland earlier you said it's not a dice roll.

Sure, if you want to get semantical about it.

However, it is a RNG that simply buffs out skill or lack thereof into a happier medium.

As you can clearly see from my posts in this thread and elsewhere, I don't agree with the COF implementation, but if it were (magically) somehow possible to implement the concept perfectly... it would not remove the human player's skill from the equation.

You are, however, right, that inside of the volume of the cones the shots are and must be random, within the volume of the cone.

Praeses, on 10 January 2013 - 02:13 PM, said:

The reticule should be the one that moves (speed, heat, etc), but don't increase the size, so if your mech is shaking the reticule would also shake, when you shot the weapon will hit where the reticule is at that moment. This doesn't bring randomness.

The reticule should not shake; that is mutually exclusive to it's designed role. The Reticule's position is not desinged to let you know how converged or not your weapons are. The reticule is an aimpoint indicator for the 'Mech. It can't be a "desired aimpoint indicator" and dance around the HUD uncontrollably. Nor can it change size or shape.

Convergence is easily indicated by color-coding the reticule - red reticule for most weapons miss, gold for most hit, and colored steps for inbetween.

Quote

I don't know about making firing several weapons at once more inaccurate, but you could solve this by adding a more powerful recoil effect, affecting the reticule thus affecting the accuracy for the next shot.

The 'Mech's aiming capability is not affected by the recoil from their kinetic weapons. They're quite capable of controlling for recoil and kinetic knock from incoming fire.

Quote

The entire group of MCUs together is known as the 'Mech Movement Sub-System (MMSS). The MMSS system receives data from the DI computer about the current tension, strength, position, and power usage level of all of the various Myomers in the 'Mech, along with balance data from the Gyro system and inputs from the Battle Computer.

This data is used by the MMSS to compliment the 'Mech's Gyroscope system's capabilities, helping the Gyro system to keep the 'Mech upright and stable under the varying conditions encountered on the battlefield, whether those conditions be massive incoming weapons fire (for example, the MMSS system will "lean the 'Mech into" incoming kinetic fire), or recoil from firing the various weapons systems mounted to the 'Mech, or an earthquake. MCUs are capable of self-adjusting a 'Mech's actuators at humanly undetectable levels without input from the MechWarrior... in fact, Clan actuator systems are advanced enough that they can adjust for a slight breeze, compensating by subtle shifts of the 'Mech to lean it into the wind.

...

It is the BattleMech that does the majority of recoil compensation and compensates for blasts of incoming hostile fire. While a MechWarrior can help the BattleMech balance, such as telling the 'Mech when to ride with recoil rather than leaning into it, or when to throw itself off-balance at another 'Mech, it is still the DI that handles most of this sort of decision making.

http://mwomercs.com/...y-an-education/

[Pht]

HRR Insanity, on 10 January 2013 - 04:35 PM, said:

All of those alterations are assuming we want the chance of hitting all 'Mechs at range with a cone of fire implementation to be equal.

Can you explain this differently? I want to be sure before I reply to this. I suspect I know what you mean, but I'm not sure.

Quote

I honestly don't care to be that exact. I think it would be a very interesting balancing point to have some 'Mech that are
skinny on the lateral to have an advantage to present that profile... or 'Mechs that are 'smaller' may have an advantage vs. people who shoot grouped weapons.

As for changes in cone of fire with regard to heat, movement, etc... these are all simple volume calculations that are subject to tuning. All FPS have them. I'd start with uniform expansions rather than trying to be super-simulated (lateral motion, etc).

Simple non-convergence, nothing crazy. Just make the weapons not hit the same spot.

I already pointed out that the calculations are easily carried out, and that it wasn't the calculations themselves that give the rise in complexity. Did you miss this? I thought I stated it quite clearly.

A CoF combat system for the MW video game format is anything but simple.

Quote

No... that's the thing we're trying to avoid. We don't want dice rolls determining outcome. FPS doesn't need them and we dont't need them here either.

Pardon, but even in the COF system you're advocating, you still have a random spread within the volume of the cones. The exact same argument works against what you've posted.

As was also already pointed out, the dice-roll mechanic simulates the 'Mech's combat capability under any given condition - simulating the 'Mech's combat capabilites removes no player skill from the game - it just changes it to what it should be; skill in knowing and using your 'Mech.

You cannot remove this aspect from a 'Mech combat sim game and have a ... 'Mech combat sim game. You're saying that the BattleMech should not ever affect outcomes - which is nonsensical.

Quote

And that's what we're trying to fix. We're not trying to add a full TT overlay, just _simulate_ the TT game by making this exact issue simulate properly.

I'm not sure it's even humanly possible to use the COF idea to fully simulate the TT combat system; and if the point is to simulate the TT combat system, why in the world should we hold the TT combat system at arm's length when we can far more easily just pick it up and use it? Especially when the arguments against converting over the TT system are irrational and invalid and usually based on an ignorance of the subject.

Quote

If that starts to happen, turn down the bloom on the cone of fire to give more incentive to the small weapons... which can still be fired in sequence. If I have a HBK-4P and I'm manuevering well, a continuous 5 damage every 1.5 seconds is going to drill through pretty fast...

I presume you're trying to make the non-super-precise chainfiring COF setup more capable to cover for it? You would have to shrink the volume of the cones down to the point that the difference between the SPCF would be functionally nil.

Edited by Pht, 10 January 2013 - 04:49 PM.

[HRR Insanity]

Pht, on 10 January 2013 - 04:47 PM, said:

Can you explain this differently? I want to be sure before I reply to this. I suspect I know what you mean, but I'm not sure.

The way I interpreted your response was to precisely simulate the likelihood of hitting would require careful alterations of the CoF based on all sorts of factors including things that I think are overkill.

I just want a basic CoF implementation for group weapons based on a just a few factors (speed, heat, # of weapons fired).

Quote

I already pointed out that the calculations are easily carried out, and that it wasn't the calculations themselves that give the rise in complexity. Did you miss this? I thought I stated it quite clearly.

I'm suggesting that you're making things unnecessarily complex by trying to consider every possible option. I'm saying, add CoF and then balance the bloom based on gameplay.

Quote

A CoF combat system for the MW video game format is anything but simple.

Only if you're trying to over-simulate.

Quote

Pardon, but even in the COF system you're advocating, you still have a random spread within the volume of the cones. The exact same argument works against what you've posted.

Not exactly. It's possible I misunderstood what you were proposing. I don't want to calculate anything in advance to determine a % to hit. I want your ability to hit to be a function of the players interactions with the game (heat management, movement choices, # of weapons fired, etc) and thus skill determined.

Quote

As was also already pointed out, the dice-roll mechanic simulates the 'Mech's combat capability under any given condition - simulating the 'Mech's combat capabilites removes no player skill from the game - it just changes it to what it should be; skill in knowing and using your 'Mech.

Yes, but it's not under our control. If I can directly affect the size of the cone of fire with careful actions, I can use that cone in ways that dice would not let me. Especially with the added complications of terrain and the like. Dice/calculation just aren't appropriate (IMHO).

Quote

I'm not sure it's even humanly possible to use the COF idea to fully simulate the TT combat system; and if the point is to simulate the TT combat system, why in the world should we hold the TT combat system at arm's length when we can far more easily just pick it up and use it? Especially when the arguments against converting over the TT system are irrational and invalid and usually based on an ignorance of the subject.

There's the difference. I don't want to fully simulate the TT combat system. I want a fun game that doesn't BREAK the heat/armor/damage model that the game is based on. That's all.

We're not playing TT here. It's just a perspective issue. I respect your opinion on this, but I don't think TT 'to hit %s' are the right way to think about this.

Quote

I presume you're trying to make the non-super-precise chainfiring COF setup more capable to cover for it? You would have to shrink the volume of the cones down to the point that the difference between the SPCF would be functionally nil.

Or you could add # of weapons to the calculation on cone size so the more weapons you fire together the worse accuracy gets... lots of ways to balance things once you have the basic mechanics in place.

I'm not suggesting I know _exactly_ how this will look. I'm just pointing out the problem and potential solution that will directly address it.

Edited by HRR Insanity, 10 January 2013 - 05:35 PM.

[Psydotek]

I'm with HRR Insanity.

Cone of fire or some sort of spread/convergence mechanic needs to be implemented. HOWEVER, this does not mean the cone of fire will be fixed. Cones can be variable for individual weapons, and can widen/narrow depending on how fast you're moving, how much damage you've taken, and how long you've been steadily aiming at your target (to let the targeting computer narrow the cone). Last but not least, get closer to your target so they take up a larger cross section of the cone. Heck, you get close enough and they will completely fill the firing cone even if you're taking a snapshot while moving at flank speed.

[Sug]

Pht, on 10 January 2013 - 04:18 PM, said:

No, I'm not insane. Thats the rated range for a vanilla medium laser in space combat, from the areotech rules, which demonstrate the absolute range for the weapons.

Why would the range of a laser in space have anything to do with the range of it in an atmosphere?

[Pht]

HRR Insanity, on 10 January 2013 - 05:33 PM, said:

The way I interpreted your response was to precisely simulate the likelihood of hitting would require careful alterations of the CoF based on all sorts of factors including things that I think are overkill.

I just want a basic CoF implementation for group weapons based on a just a few factors (speed, heat, # of weapons fired).

What I listed is as basic as the COF can get and have gameplay that makes any sense at all, much less emulate what it's like to pilot a BTUniverse Battlemech.

It's not possible to remove any of those factors without either cutting out a big chunk of an MW video game or producing gameplay that's counter-intuitive and not friendly at all to newbies.

Quote

I'm suggesting that you're making things unnecessarily complex by trying to consider every possible option. I'm saying, add CoF and then balance the bloom based on gameplay.

All that I've accounted for is your 'mech and the conditions it's encountering - the ONLY thing in that list above that most people would accept (IMO) leaving out of the game would be the more crazy environmental conditions like earthquakes, tornadoes, and hurricanes.

Quote

Not exactly. It's possible I misunderstood what you were proposing. I don't want to calculate anything in advance to determine a % to hit. I want your ability to hit to be a function of the players interactions with the game (heat management, movement choices, # of weapons fired, etc) and thus skill determined.

If the shots aren't random inside of the volume of the cones than why are you using a cone? Even if you did it in the most uber physics engine ever, it would still have a set amount of simulated spread. In fact, it HAS to have some, to fix the problem you've pointed out in your original post that started this thread.

Quote

Yes, but it's not under our control. If I can directly affect the size of the cone of fire with careful actions, I can use that cone in ways that dice would not let me. Especially with the added complications of terrain and the like. Dice/calculation just aren't appropriate (IMHO).

Yes, these things are under the control of the player in the TT combat system - the player chooses if he wants to shoot when his mech is obscenely overheated or not (lots of missing, vs little missing), he chooses whether or not to shoot at a super-fast evading target at long range or wait until it's at medium range and evading less.

This is the gunnery skill in the TT game that has no dice roll - it's the player that handles these parts of gunnery skill. In the MW lore, it's the pilot that makes these decisions, and these decisions directly affect how much or little his 'Mech misses or hits the target he's indicating for it.

Quote

There's the difference. I don't want to fully simulate the TT combat system. I want a fun game that doesn't BREAK the heat/armor/damage model that the game is based on. That's all.

We're not playing TT here. It's just a perspective issue. I respect your opinion on this, but I don't think TT 'to hit %s' are the right way to think about this.

Tomay-toe, toMa-toe. Using the TT combat system minus ALL of the parts that simulate the pilot's skill is what makes an MW video game an MW video game.

Quote

Or you could add # of weapons to the calculation on cone size so the more weapons you fire together the worse accuracy gets... lots of ways to balance things once you have the basic mechanics in place.

Than you have to have the roll-off in precision be utterly vicious for the first extra weapon, or the problem I mentioned gets a whole order of magnitude worse.

Quote

I'm not suggesting I know _exactly_ how this will look. I'm just pointing out the problem and potential solution that will directly address it.

I didn't think you were really trying to.

What I've been doing is taking the concept of a cone of fire and boiling it down to the necessary basics required for it to work in the MW video game genre/format.

Sug, on 10 January 2013 - 05:52 PM, said:

Why would the range of a laser in space have anything to do with the range of it in an atmosphere?

In atmosphere it has a final range of around 35 miles, per the Line-Of-Sight range rules.

LOS shooting means, if you can see it, you can attempt to make a shot at it.

[Sug]

Pht, on 10 January 2013 - 06:01 PM, said:

In atmosphere it has a final range of around 35 miles, per the Line-Of-Sight range rules.
LOS shooting means, if you can see it, you can attempt to make a shot at it.

Physics aside what rulebook are you getting these numbers from?

[Heeden]

HRR Insanity, on 10 January 2013 - 04:03 PM, said:

At present, you'd be stupid not to use 4 MLs over a LL if you have the hardpoints and you're planning at fighting in close range.

Why not take 4 LLas, that would be way better. Or failing that 2 LLas and 2MLas. I agree that if you're struggling for tonnage and if you only plan on fighting at close range it is better to load up with mediums, but that is two big "ifs".

[Pht]

Sug, on 10 January 2013 - 10:58 PM, said:

Physics aside what rulebook are you getting these numbers from?

Tactical Operations

From the advanced combat section. I think it's from somewhere between pg 75 and 80.

[Tombstoner]

HRR Insanity, on 10 January 2013 - 05:33 PM, said:

I don't want to fully simulate the TT combat system. I want a fun game that doesn't BREAK the heat/armor/damage model that the game is based on. That's all.

We're not playing TT here. It's just a perspective issue. I respect your opinion on this, but I don't think TT 'to hit %s' are the right way to think about this.

I cant agree more.

i would expect the size of the COF would increase as other negatives from TT rules like high speed movement / jumping / high heat. These are important elements from TT game balance that are missing from the current build. without them lights are heavily favored with skill based targeting. its not a learn to shoot issue. heat level shouldn't be just about balancing around operational and shut down. as heat goes up chance to hit should go down, top speed should go down and make heat management more meaning full while adding game balance.

COF also brings up an opportunity for balancing ECM. if your the target of jamming, your COF is increased based on the range to the ECM unit and the number of units jamming you. the farther away the effect goes down and the number of counter ECCM units in the area.

i think hybridizing TT rules and skill based targeting is the best blend of both worlds.

Edited by Tombstoner, 11 January 2013 - 03:21 PM.

[Soy]

Pht this is a computer game.

Put the tactical readout down and step away from the table!

[Sug]

Pht, on 11 January 2013 - 10:41 AM, said:

Tactical Operations

From the advanced combat section. I think it's from somewhere between pg 75 and 80.

There's a section on Extreme Range and LOS Range rules. Extreme range for a medium laser is 10-12 hexes. LOS range is 13+. I kinda remember this. The +8 to hit modifier.

I just don't see anything that would indicate that "- a vanilla medium laser in an arm mount with a vanilla pilot and no targeting computer under the TTR's can hit a mech sized target 108,000 meters away."

What's vanilla gunnery 4? So with clear LOS and stationary mechs you have a 3% to hit?

[Pht]

Soy, on 11 January 2013 - 05:10 PM, said:

Pht this is a computer game.

... that is, by definition of the very game's name (mechwarrior), and by origin, a first-person armored combat unit piloting sim, with it's paramaters set in the TT.

[Soy]

Just saying, you're doing the equivalent of holding a movie to a book, then bitching about why some char said a diff line, etc.

This is a computer game not a TT, if you expect to get the same experience as TT and desire the game mechanics to play exactly like TT you'll be disappointed...

PS - This is not a "computer game" version of TT. It never will be. It never was supposed to be. It couldn't be, anyways. Besides, that already exists.................

Edited by Soy, 12 January 2013 - 04:07 PM.