74 replies to this topic

[Zyllos]

Genewen, on 13 March 2013 - 02:44 PM, said:

I reject the notion. If tank models from more than a decade ago can have fully stabilized cannons then I doubt that 31st century battlemechs that are intended to be the apex of military warfare (which is utterly stupid, but whatever, the game is still fun) have nothing of the sorts.

...please read: Lostech

Quote

Bombing back into the stone age

In the early Succession Wars, all parties deliberately sought to destroy the enemy infrastructure. Amidst the overall ruthless mayhem that obliterated entire worlds, factories, shipyards and star-ships were prime targets. Humanity as a whole literally bombed itself back into a proverbial 'stone age,' and the Successor Lords realized too late that the damage was beyond repair. On many worlds, the developmental level had fallen back to the level of 20th-21st century science & technology, or even to primitive tribal communities without space flight, subsisting on farming and manual labor with medieval technology levels.

[TheRulesLawyer]

Zyllos, on 13 March 2013 - 02:20 PM, said:

I agree with this. But this would only be true with Ballistic weaponry.

It is extremely hard to determine a laser "cone-of-fire" without speculation.

Sure, if you're looking at down the barrel performance. Total system accuracy means a CoF is still probably appropriate.

How I'd handle such a thing is in group fire mode you have a stabilized circle that represents the likely area of impact dependent on grouped weapons. (if you have mutliple groups, multiple circles.) If you are in chain fire mode it can either give you the CoF of that specific weapon (down to a point for lasers) unstabilized or you can toggle it for a stabilized CoF circle.
By unstabilized I means you see where that barrel is pointed and it sways as it tries to correct for aim, and mech speed.

Ideally weapons would always track where they are actually pointed so that weapons on the same body segment would impact together. So you might be the 'laser shotgun' a bit but all the weapons in the torso or a single arm would clumped.

I think it would be a much more interesting system to play as you'd have to choose single fire precision or group fire simplicity. Right now we don't even have cursor sway and running is no harder to hit than when stopped. Chain fire is really only about heat management.

[Cyke]

Genewen, on 13 March 2013 - 02:44 PM, said:

I reject the notion. If tank models from more than a decade ago can have fully stabilized cannons then I doubt that 31st century battlemechs that are intended to be the apex of military warfare (which is utterly stupid, but whatever, the game is still fun) have nothing of the sorts.

Tell me about it, you should bring up weapon ranges instead!
Ranges for main weaponry measured in hundreds of meters? Btech ranges barely rival small arms fire, much less WW2 vehicle armament!

Anyway, we're generally going to have to put hardcore military simulator realism aside here.
Still, to alleviate your concerns, having a fully stabilized main gun in a modern tank with fire-on-the-move capability by no means removes the fact that accuracy on the move is anywhere near that of coming to a stop before firing.

[4er3BaPa]

be calm, pinpoint accuracy already ingame - it a "lagshield" named. last path fixed only direct fire weapons (lasers/flamer/mg). indirect unguided bullets hit the targets with huge ping differencies with huge random chance.
AC20 may hit the very closest target, but target not get any damage..voila, all of you want

[Tombstoner]

TheRulesLawyer, on 13 March 2013 - 03:03 PM, said:

Ideally weapons would always track where they are actually pointed so that weapons on the same body segment would impact together. So you might be the 'laser shotgun' a bit but all the weapons in the torso or a single arm would clumped.

i see **** lasers working as multiple laser bursts "laser shotgun" if you will. 5 bursts of damage each pulse hitting some place in the small not WOT COF. This would be a suitable replication of the bonus to hit from TT currently missing from MWO.

i think it would look great.

also heat generated by the laser has could cause warping from thermal expansion in the mounting/ targegting systems.
Some thing a COF can simulate easily and become a vital part of heat management.

[Kmieciu]

I have an idea. Right now, weapon convergence is very fast, even without "pinpoint" perk that increases it's speed. But some times it's not fast enough and and the shots criss-cross or hit several locations.

Maybe instead of turning the convergence off just decrease it's speed, and add some visual feedback as to when the weapons are converged on target? So that single, heavy weapons would be better at snapshots and multiple light weapons would require more time to converge?

Edited by Kmieciu, 14 March 2013 - 10:43 AM.

[Genewen]

Zyllos, on 13 March 2013 - 03:00 PM, said:

...please read: Lostech

I know about lostech.

Instead of linking me stuff I know about, please read about weapon stabilisation systems. They are mostly hydraulic systems and work with gyros, which are part of every mech anyways, so they are certainly not part of lostech.

Cyke, on 13 March 2013 - 03:33 PM, said:

Tell me about it, you should bring up weapon ranges instead!
Ranges for main weaponry measured in hundreds of meters? Btech ranges barely rival small arms fire, much less WW2 vehicle armament!

It is not only general equipment that is ridiculous and highly arbitrary in what is available and what not, it is the usage of it as well. Just to take an example from "Coupé", which I read again a few days ago: A Capellan strike force intends to shut down the Kathil shipyards, but they cannot attack the shipyards themselves since they are too valuable, so they go for the ground stations supplying the shipyards with energy, which are not hard to rebuild, just requiring a lot of time and money. By the way, those power stations have no problem even hitting small targets accurately over hundreds of kilometres according to the book. Obviously civil power plants have not lost highly accurate long range targetting systems, while everyone else has. But back to the raid. So the Capellans want to destroy the power stations. What would be the best way to destroy these big, stationary targets? An orbital strike with a ballistic projectile? A fast air raid? Artillery? Or landing several dropships kilometres away from the plant and having your troops take a walk through a dangerous urban environment towards the plant? I think you can guess what they chose to do.
Honestly, given the irrational canon, any logical thinking person would screw their heavy mobilized ground forces, pump everything they have into gaining air superiority and then roflbomb the crap outta any given number of mechs using area bombardment from 2000m altitude or higher. Due to the canon, the mechs wouldn't hit crap if they shot at something that far away.

Edited by Genewen, 14 March 2013 - 03:24 PM.

[Karl Streiger]

Kmieciu, on 14 March 2013 - 10:43 AM, said:

I have an idea. Right now, weapon convergence is very fast, even without "pinpoint" perk that increases it's speed. But some times it's not fast enough and and the shots criss-cross or hit several locations.

Maybe instead of turning the convergence off just decrease it's speed, and add some visual feedback as to when the weapons are converged on target? So that single, heavy weapons would be better at snapshots and multiple light weapons would require more time to converge?

Could work...but what would be a proper time. And actually if you have convergence your shots hit when you have no convergence your shots will hit not.
So you need a basic convergence to got a "lock on" the enemy mech - maybe 0.5sec. - Crosshair turns golden. Your shot will hit the target.
Or you aim for a longer duration maybe 3sec and the Crosshair turns RED...now all your weapons will hit same zone.

With the Targeting Computer to come...the 3sec duration could be reduced to 1sec

[Zyllos]

Basically, since convergence is a function of time based on how fast the target is moving toward/away from your position, it still does not solve the problem.

If the target is moving laterally to your target (no velocity toward your position), convergence will be 100%. I, personally, think that is unacceptable.

There should never be a situation where convergence of all weapons on a mech is 100%.

[Karl Streiger]

Please vote on this topic... we all need clear figures...thank you

http://mwomercs.com/...st-discussions/

[Exoth3rmic]

Take any mech with lasers in both arms Load up the training ground. Find an awesome. Aim at said awesome at a range of say 200m+.

1) Aim at centre torso. Fire.

2) Aim at head (or slightly above but still without reticule distance changing - so within the box). Fire.

In 1) the lasers will converge on the torso, striking it. In 2) the lasers will split, hitting left and right torso or even the arms depending on distance. All without the distance under the reticule changing.

I suppose this is partly because the reticule number is not actually tied in with the convergence calculation and also quite possibly that the number given for the reticule distance is measured from an area just off center of the reticule so not in fact where your weapons appear to be aiming. In either case - its annoying.

[Karl Streiger]

Exoth3rmic, on 15 March 2013 - 06:58 AM, said:

I suppose this is partly because the reticule number is not actually tied in with the convergence calculation and also quite possibly that the number given for the reticule distance is measured from an area just off center of the reticule so not in fact where your weapons appear to be aiming. In either case - its annoying.

While OFF Topic good to see that some encounter the same problem...i have fired last time a couple of SRM into the direction of the head....well they hit the target all over...but not a single on hit the head....same with LBX...I believe the Devs have adressed the DeadbyHeadshot Awesome by installing a shield

[LordBraxton]

Infantrymen vs giant vehicles with fire control systems and stabilizers

It IS harder to aim while moving, because your point of reference keeps changing...

That being said id support weapons firing from different locations on your mech not quite converging fully, so getting all weapons in a battery to hit one location would be very hard

[Carbon Guardian]

Cyke, on 12 March 2013 - 08:18 AM, said:

I respectfully disagree, Mustrum.

While an RNG-based mechanic can affect the flow of decisions made by players of what actions to take, the actual execution of the action is devalued by uncontrolled randomness of the RNG.

No matter how you try to compensate for an RNG, it can betray a player.. or benefit his enemy. In a worst-case scenario, it can do both of those things in the same engagement, turning the outcome of the engagement from a win to a loss.
Recall that in a game with non-regenerating durability (armor points), any such luck-based outcome will further cascade and can decide the outcome of an entire game. With community warfare, that could further cascade into even further-reaching effects.

I'm getting ahead of myself here, though.
The point is, even if we want to make pinpoint accuracy more difficult (or rather, concentrated pinpoint accuracy with multiple weapons fired simultaneously), it's best if we use a mechanic that raises difficulty, but has a consistent, predictable outcome, and therefore one that can be compensated for.
That's the reason why I find non-converging torso hardpoints interesting.

good job Zyllos! You are one of the few that is looking for solutions and not simply trying to get your way based on your style of play. Non-converging hardpoints make total sense, which should imo help solve problems like poptarting if the fixed arms and torso on jagermechs and catapults can't converge they are less effective but still useful.