140 replies to this topic

[fearfactory]

Please explain to me how the "cone of fire" magically makes everyone unskilled to the point where it is impossible to play the game. In theory, if you know how to manage your maneuvering and heat (like in battletech) AND get used to how it works over time, you'll be that 0/0 MechWarrior we all strive to be.

The cone of fire is very accurate to how a BattleMech actually works... which would put the sim back in the series. You may align the shot in your HUD but the 'Mech that is basically your extension isn't entirely as nimble as you. If you want that, go watch Gundam.

[Zyllos]

I agree with fearfactory. If you know your cone of fire, you know your limitations to fire now or slow down to get a better shot (smaller cone) or fire a smaller weapon group, ect.

[fearfactory]

Zyllos, on 10 November 2011 - 02:12 PM, said:

I agree with fearfactory. If you know your cone of fire, you know your limitations to fire now or slow down to get a better shot (smaller cone) or fire a smaller weapon group, ect.

It's not as crippling as everyone is making it out to be. Besides, everyone will have the same dame cone. Only those who know how to manage their heat and piloting maneuvers well will have the advantage. I like this better than "LOLZ ONE SHOT n00b!!!" point-click-dead.

[TheRulesLawyer]

I guess I just don't see what the big uproar over cone of fire is. I've played dozens of games that used the concept. It works well in action shooters. Hitting the exact pixel you want while moving and doing whatever you want is pretty much a dead concept in games these days.

[fearfactory]

TheRulesLawyer, on 10 November 2011 - 02:20 PM, said:

I guess I just don't see what the big uproar over cone of fire is. I've played dozens of games that used the concept. It works well in action shooters. Hitting the exact pixel you want while moving and doing whatever you want is pretty much a dead concept in games these days.

It's probably all the MW4 boaters crapping themselves while thinking they'll have to actually try something different.

[Amechwarrior]

TheRulesLawyer, on 10 November 2011 - 02:20 PM, said:

I guess I just don't see what the big uproar over cone of fire is. I've played dozens of games that used the concept. It works well in action shooters. Hitting the exact pixel you want while moving and doing whatever you want is pretty much a dead concept in games these days.

The disconnect is that I think they are imaging a cone as large as 'mech or larger. They think that just having the words "cone of fire" means no longer being able to hit a choice segment of the 'mech ever. For my view on this, of which I think I have said too much in other threads check here:

This link breaks down how cone of fire, implemented properly will not deny us the ability to target specific areas while nerfing the alpha strike issue. This game mechanic also works in countless FPS, and headshots are still abundant and harder to hit then a leg or torso of a 'mech. It does not mean completely losing the ability to target areas.

That addressed gameplay issues of cone of fire. This post addressed the "This is a SIM!!!1!1! not CoD!!!!" posts about the realism and simulation aspect of cone of fire and why it is not "just a simplification of things so the player can have it easier" and I really do not see why people are so adamant against this concept(specially because it is truer to Battletech). But hey, it makes for a fun and lively forum.

[TheRulesLawyer]

Amechwarrior, on 10 November 2011 - 02:37 PM, said:

The disconnect is that I think they are imaging a cone as large as 'mech or larger. They think that just having the words "cone of fire" means no longer being able to hit a choice segment of the 'mech ever. For my view on this, of which I think I have said too much in other threads check here:

This link breaks down how cone of fire, implemented properly will not deny us the ability to target specific areas while nerfing the alpha strike issue. This game mechanic also works in countless FPS, and headshots are still abundant and harder to hit then a leg or torso of a 'mech. It does not mean completely losing the ability to target areas.

That addressed gameplay issues of cone of fire. This post addressed the "This is a SIM!!!1!1! not CoD!!!!" posts about the realism and simulation aspect of cone of fire and why it is not "just a simplification of things so the player can have it easier" and I really do not see why people are so adamant against this concept(specially because it is truer to Battletech). But hey, it makes for a fun and lively forum.

I think its just hard for people who have been playing the same game for a decade to wrap their head around what amounts to a pretty big mechanics change. I know if someone told me they were making a similar change to battletech TT, which I've played for over 20 years I'd probably pitch a fit until I tried it and found it worked okay.

[Amechwarrior]

Yes, but I see a lot of 'strawman'ing of the cone of fire concept to equal "RNG to hit location chart like the TT" in multiple threads. It gets to me, almost no one is asking for that at all.

[TheRulesLawyer]

Amechwarrior, on 10 November 2011 - 02:53 PM, said:

Yes, but I see a lot of 'strawman'ing of the cone of fire concept to equal "RNG to hit location chart like the TT" in multiple threads. It gets to me, almost no one is asking for that at all.

Exactly. I don't think I've seen anyone actually suggest you'd highlight a target and the computer would roll 2d6 for you. Go play modern warfare, battlefield, etc for what most folks are talking about. It'd be slower paced that those, but similar ideas.

[guardiandashi]

they are strawman'ing the issue because they want to sound "reasonable, when what they actually want is to be able to medium laser boat and osk anything in the game.

which is why I have been tossing out alternatives but they then com back and go blah blah oviously I don't know anything about what makes a good sim,

and yet my definition of a good sim is NOT a quake1 deathmatch orr doom3 deathmatch or whatever they seem to want

again lets get down to the basics,

1 I do not object to (near) pinpoint accuracy when firing one (1) single weapon as you are focusing all your "targeting" attention on it.
2 I do object to pinpoint accuracy that will get an entire salvo of multiple weapons all hitting the same exact location when "group" fired as you can easilly get into a OSK situation there

I mean heck if I shoot an undamaged dasher in the right arm with an IS ppc it does not have an arm, or any armor on the side torso, if I hit that same dasher in the arm with a clan ER PPC it not only does not harm but it also does not have a side torso either.

frankly that really doesn't bother me too much, what bothers me is when you can alpha on something and core out an atlas dashi or similar in 1 attack

[UncleKulikov]

For reference:
Games with Cones of Fire:
Battlefield
Call of Duty
Counter Strike
World of Tanks
Halo (AR and SMG)
Gears of War

And so on.

[TheForce]

guardiandashi, on 10 November 2011 - 03:05 PM, said:

frankly that really doesn't bother me too much, what bothers me is when you can alpha on something and core out an atlas dashi or similar in 1 attack

Whats wrong with this??? If you hit where you're aiming you should!!!!

JOKING OK not funny...

I honestly wish it was like the books - if u pull the trigger with a gold circle, you hit and damage is random. Then give us an option to aim one weapon for pinpoint accuracy.

[Riptor]

I would like to remind everyone that piranha said that you can level your pilot so he/she gets better over time at what you want him to do.

So whatever system will be implemented in the end it will be influenced by your pilots stats and skills.

So i highly doubt we will get pinpoint accuracy or "everyone has the same chance of hitting" systems that where proposed.

And the only system i can imagine that works with pilot stats is a broadening/shrinking crosshair type of system akin to WoT

Edited by Riptor, 10 November 2011 - 03:40 PM.

[fearfactory]

TheForce, on 10 November 2011 - 03:16 PM, said:

I honestly wish it was like the books - if u pull the trigger with a gold circle, you hit and damage is random. Then give us an option to aim one weapon for pinpoint accuracy.

Actually, there was (or is, AFAIK) a rule for that. It was an ability a pilot could take. Basically, the pilot picks the weapon, stands still, and can fire it as though it was attached to a targeting computer.

[Amechwarrior]

fearfactory, on 10 November 2011 - 03:26 PM, said:

Actually, there was (or is, AFAIK) a rule for that. It was an ability a pilot could take. Basically, the pilot picks the weapon, stands still, and can fire it as though it was attached to a targeting computer.

Yes, but that was not normal rules play. Battletech has countless one-offs, special equipment and fluff rules and I see posted here all the time like coolant pods, exotic armors/weaponry, LAMs and so on. Some of these things are only in the rules because somebody did it in the fiction, where game balance takes a backseat to storytelling. While these may be in the game, they are hardly representative of most games of Battletech.

There is a normal rules "called shot" with no TC, but the targeted 'mech must be immobilized, like the pilot passed out in the chair immobilized.

[Seth]

Cones:

Cones won't work because they don't distinguish between weapons with different ranges. With a cone, all weapons at 90 meters would be equally accurate. But that's supposed to be maximum range for a small laser and the range at which it is least accurate. However, at 90 meters a large laser is supposed to have the best accuracy it can get. You can try having different cones for each weapon that has a different range, but that can cause an extreme amount of clutter on your screen and end up being a distraction.

Group Accuracy vs Single Weapon Accuracy:

I suppose that's a bit better, but there's no precedence for a mech that's standing still to be less accurate with an alpha strike than one that's chain firing its weapons. Additionally, what would be the time limit between each weapon discharge for the next weapon to re-align to its optimal amount of accuracy? 1 second, 2 seconds, 1 turn? If it takes one second for a weapon to re-align and two seconds to recharge a medium laser, why would a Jenner pilot want anything more than two medium lasers mounted on their mech if all they plan on doing is running full throttle and chain firing two lasers? I would put those extra two tons towards jump jets.

My Suggestion:

Drop the short, medium, and long range modifiers for weapons altogether to begin with. I'm a fan of the TT game, but there's only so much that would translate well. Additionally, have all weapons tied into a single targeting reticule. The longer your reticule remains on target, the more time your targeting computer has time to come up with a better firing solution. I'll throw 5 seconds out there as the time it takes to get the best targeting solution it can. After 5 seconds, you'll be rewarded with a solid gold reticule and all of your weapons (lasers, autocannons, and missiles) with have the best chance they have of hitting the other mech assuming it is within range of that mech. That simply means if two stationary mechs are standing 90 meters away from each other, all of your weapons will practically be guaranteed to land somewhere on that other mech. However, even with a solid gold lock, two mechs that are running and gunning at each other will have maybe a 50/50 chance of landing a shot somewhere on the other mech.

To be clear though, having a solid gold lock does not mean all of your weapons will bore into the CT of your target though. Each section facing you could have its own probability of being hit, with the head being the lowest and the CT being the highest. I believe this will give an extra incentive to mount SRM's as they will spread out their damage and probe for holes in the enemy armor.

I believe this also mirrors nicely the way Mech battles happen in the novels. So how many people did I loose with that long post?

[Amechwarrior]

Seth, on 10 November 2011 - 04:20 PM, said:

Group Accuracy vs Single Weapon Accuracy:

I suppose that's a bit better, but there's no precedence for a mech that's standing still to be less accurate with an alpha strike than one that's chain firing its weapons.

Yes, this is entirely correct, while the idea is good, it feels wrong for a Battletech perspective and other methods solve it better.

Seth, on 10 November 2011 - 04:20 PM, said:

Cones:

Cones won't work because they don't distinguish between weapons with different ranges. With a cone, all weapons at 90 meters would be equally accurate. But that's supposed to be maximum range for a small laser and the range at which it is least accurate. However, at 90 meters a large laser is supposed to have the best accuracy it can get. You can try having different cones for each weapon that has a different range, but that can cause an extreme amount of clutter on your screen and end up being a distraction.

Aha, you found the problem with cone of fire. Not sure if anyone else has posted this before but I have been thinking about this problem for a few days now. A whacky array of slightly larger/smaller overlapping reticles is a bad idea, imagine trying to pick out your MPLs cones out from your MGs, ERLL, AC/10 and all the other weapons surrounding it and you are correct that it would be simply confusing.

I like your idea of the longer you can keep a solid unbroken lock on a target the more time your 'mech has to dial it in. This is how it is described many times in the fiction. However, this may lead to big 'mech staying stationary more often for max accuracy. But this issue can be balanced.

My rough idea was also to shove the range brackets out the window. But only to the player. Let the reticle represent every weapons cone at that weapons maximum range. Yes, it means as you get closer long ranged weapons will be slightly more accurate, but again, not pin point. Combine this with something that the MW series has left out from the TT rules. Minimum range modifiers.

After a certain point, invert that cone on the long range weapons as appropriate for their min. range rules in the TT. If a 'mech is in my face, in melee range and I am staring right at the CT and pull the trigger on my gauss rifle I want it to hit him in the arm, or just miss. Giving long ranged weapons a point of convergence where the shots will start to land inside the cone at something like 100 meters, and do not tell anyone about it. Just put something like "This weapon is set for long range fire and will be much less accurate at close ranges." for weapons with minimum range.

This minimum range firing arc should be predictable. If my gauss is on my right arm, it should hit below and to the right of where my reticle is pointing at 100 meters and land further away from the reticle as the target gets closer. This would allow players to learn where the min range shots land, and manually adjust the reticle off the target, so they can have their long ranged weapons hit at the cost of the rest of the weapons being off. But they do not get any kind of extra reticle or help from the interface, it must be learned and earned by skill. Training levels should emphasize not trying to use long range weaponry at point blank ranges.

This would put long range boats like the Devastator at a disadvantage from a close in brawler like an Annihilator. That is also how it works in the TT, adds a learnable, trainable skill to long range weapons and encourages picking designs with useful weaponry at all ranges, not just long. However, I feel the idea is only half-baked and would need extensive balance testing. If done right, it could make the piloting more like the fiction and TT rules then any other MW title before.

[mekabuser]

5 seconds.
just un freakin believeable.
WHat you just described is just about useless in a combat situation. You might as well just start firing as soon as you see the enemy. Dont even worry about having ur crosshairs anywhere near where you want to hit.
THen you got another guy saying "ooo u hit my dasher with an erppc I has no torso... "really , so the answer is to have a mechanic whereby we cant hit anything moving with any reliability? i dont think so.
For one, to equate an erppc blast with destroying the entire side of a dasher is just ... plain .. stupid...
IT DOESNT translate to a pc game. what do you do then ? well what the boys at mwll did is a good start.
Decrease damage output, raise armor, have lazers with discharge time , and raise the heat.
THat solves all your problems... THen the game is once again about if its in the crosshairs it hits... Not all this other bs. The computing power of the engine should be dedicated to hit detection , not probability etc. ..

[Amechwarrior]

mekabuser, on 10 November 2011 - 05:29 PM, said:

5 seconds.
just un freakin believeable.
WHat you just described is just about useless in a combat situation. You might as well just start firing as soon as you see the enemy. Dont even worry about having ur crosshairs anywhere near where you want to hit.
THen you got another guy saying "ooo u hit my dasher with an erppc I has no torso... "really , so the answer is to have a mechanic whereby we cant hit anything moving with any reliability? i dont think so.
For one, to equate an erppc blast with destroying the entire side of a dasher is just ... plain .. stupid...
IT DOESNT translate to a pc game. what do you do then ? well what the boys at mwll did is a good start.
Decrease damage output, raise armor, have lazers with discharge time , and raise the heat.
THat solves all your problems... THen the game is once again about if its in the crosshairs it hits... Not all this other bs. The computing power of the engine should be dedicated to hit detection , not probability etc. ..

He used words like "better targeting solution" and "best" he is not talking about taking 5 seconds to even hit a 'mech. He is talking about taking 5 seconds (this can easily be changed he might have just picked an arbitrary number) to have greater accuracy. Something above and beyond the normal "Yea, I can hit him, but not really going to have much choice of where." of the normal pot shots.

Also yes, the Fire Moths torso will get destroyed by a ERPPC. It has 4 armor and 5 internal, the stock Inner Sphere PPC will entirely destroy a side torso of the Fire Moth and have one damage left over for kicks. The reasons to increase armor are directly tied to the pin point aiming problem. Solve that and you no longer need to further deviate from established Battletech principles. Light 'mechs are fragile, always have been and always should be. Yet, we see lights being far more useful in the TT game then we have in any MW game. The problems of boat-customs and accurate alpha striking are the root causes of this.

[Gaius Cavadus]

CoF is fine so long as the cone is dictated by things like the movement of the mech, the arms converging to the correct range on the target, parallel barrels of weapons hitting different locations (because if they're parallel it would be impossible for any of them to hit the same location), static convergence ranges for non-gymbalized torso weapons, etc.

If the CoF is dictated by RNG then I'd rather just have what we've always had.