140 replies to this topic

[Pht]

Insaniti, on 07 November 2011 - 05:37 PM, said:

This has been discussed to death at www.dropshipcommand.com for the last 10 years.

The most viable solution is a composite solution:

Weapon groups firing en mass (e.g., 5 Medium Lasers all at once) are resolved with a cone of fire for any weapon groups (affected by movement, heat, etc).
Single fire weapons have no cone of fire and are susceptible to the inaccuracy only of mech movement.

How does this more accurately emulate the performance of a BTU 'Mech than simply picking up the performance envelopes from the parent system and doing a hit/no hit and where does it hit calculation?

If anything, this would seem to make the game more complex and the weapons fire behavior less intutive and harder to understand.

With cones of fire, you get odd things like missing in directions that make no sense given the direction you were running; and cones also have to have their volume re-sized in order to allow mechs to hit things a long distances that the Lore says they can, such as picking the arm off of an immobile mech at long range. It's a messy system.

[Devlin Stone]

Pht, on 07 November 2011 - 04:55 PM, said:

Players should not be given control of the convergence (concentration) of their 'Mech's weapons fire.
The mech does the aiming and the basic concept of battlemech piloting is to keep it as simple as possible.

Fiddling with firing cones and targeting computer convergence factors is counterproductive.

That is why I suggested having hardpoint indicators track towards your targeting reticle as your Mech aims it's weapons. Piloting and gunnery skills are a thing that exist in battletech, after all. You drive the Mech. You designate a firing target. The weapon hardpoints are automatically adjusted to fire on said target, and you fire selected weapon groups when you have a good shot. I agree that weapons like lasers should not have cone of fire dispersion, but they don't always focus to the same point either, which is what people dislike. I was suggesting that weapons designated to the same hardpoint be fired in parallel, and track according to that hardpoint's position and loadout. Hardpoint tracking speed varying inversely with weapon tonnage also makes sense, at least extensibly, given how targeting computers work in the fluff. I like that you mentioned the 'on' time of standard lasers, since this it provides a good counter-example for why pulse lasers have a higher accuracy. Well, let me know if I missed any point. I think it's a subject worth discussing, even if some may disagree.

Edited by Devlin Stone, 07 November 2011 - 10:17 PM.

[Tierloc]

Quote

I find the WoT recticle annoying as all hell. It may, I don't really know, be a reflection of the model year of the tank so they can provide some tanks that aim faster etc. Or reflect the crew training better. It may be to simulate manually targeting the tank. It may be a multiplayer balance modifier as it does heavily affect gameplay. Some pack of noobs may have suggested it when the game was in the beta stage. I can justify a ton of things, but what "time in a static position" has to do with the accuracy of the cannon is beyond me when it comes to electronic guidance. They make mounts to move and keep things aimed at the same location. They have mounts in particular for telescopes and cameras that come to mind. I can think of vehicle mounts that keep targets while being highly mobile.

If I aim a recticle somewhere, that's where the weapons should fire. Maybe the weapons degrade before getting destroyed, and lose their accuracy. Maybe they misfire (like racs overheated). I think most of the ballistic weapons should have had a chance to misfire or jam.. but opened ended "i fired here" and "the projectile fired 20m to the left" ? No.. that wouldn't happen because I'd replace the weapon next time I had the chance, or calibrate my electronics.

And if they stay hard mounts as before, then my recticle moves not just my weapon tracking but also the upper torso, then a single recticle would exist for both. My weapons would be fixed to firing one direction and I would have to look at them (either full on or broadside), where the left and right arm motion is still considered hard mounts but moveable.

[TheForce]

Insaniti, on 07 November 2011 - 05:37 PM, said:

This has been discussed to death at www.dropshipcommand.com for the last 10 years.

The most viable solution is a composite solution:

Weapon groups firing en mass (e.g., 5 Medium Lasers all at once) are resolved with a cone of fire for any weapon groups (affected by movement, heat, etc).
Single fire weapons have no cone of fire and are susceptible to the inaccuracy only of mech movement.


Thus all problems are solved.

Individual weapons can still be powerful. Amazing pilots can still be accurate and dangerous with those powerful weapons. However, alpha strikes aren't overpowered.

Done and done.


Insanity

I like this.

Cone of Fire = random distributed damage for each weapon fired in group.
Single Fire = pinpoint accuracy.

[azov]

giving a a cone of fire to group weapons and giving single fire pinpoint accuracy will do nothing. to help the problem.

Let me explain.

If i have a pair of PPCs and I am forced to fire them in a different groups to have pinpoint accuracy, then I will just create a macro and fire both weapon groups at the same time. Lot of good that would do right?

[Corvus Antaka]

Heat spikes faster - heat drops faster, and Ammo limited weapons go back to Batteltech values, and ac's generate heat again like in mech3.

with big heat spikes, the mech4 novacat would explode after 1 alpha strike. also, coolant flush system akin to mech3 rather than mech4 where you could justy fulsh a tiny bit to prevent overheating would help.

imho simply utilizing heat management and implementing the proper heat values into the system could stop the alpha strike syndrome without limiting or compromising player skill/aim.

[Pht]

Devlin Stone, on 07 November 2011 - 10:09 PM, said:

That is why I suggested having hardpoint indicators track towards your targeting reticle as your Mech aims it's weapons.

Which amounts to some way of indicating where the individual weapons are pointing at, correct?

If it is, this is still information overload; and the gameplay/fun return is minimal.

Quote

I was suggesting that weapons designated to the same hardpoint be fired in parallel, and track according to that hardpoint's position and loadout.

I suppose they could do that, but I'd rather see the ability to calculate for each weapon that fires - that way, they have an easy way to dump in the penetrating hits and other performance factors directly from the parent system in a way that would "fit" the video game implementation quite well.

[Creel]

Pht, on 09 November 2011 - 07:00 PM, said:

Which amounts to some way of indicating where the individual weapons are pointing at, correct?

If it is, this is still information overload; and the gameplay/fun return is minimal.

Information overload should be a goal to which we aspire.

[TheForce]

azov, on 08 November 2011 - 02:40 PM, said:

giving a a cone of fire to group weapons and giving single fire pinpoint accuracy will do nothing. to help the problem.

Let me explain.

If i have a pair of PPCs and I am forced to fire them in a different groups to have pinpoint accuracy, then I will just create a macro and fire both weapon groups at the same time. Lot of good that would do right?

Right macros are work around

Couldn't they just force no other weapons from firing while you were aiming one of your weapons?

Someone else suggested only allowing chain fire with a .5-1 second delay between each weapon's shot. So I could group weapons, but when i press the fire button they go off one at a time. This would resolve the macro issue and also help distribute damage in multiple areas.

[TheRulesLawyer]

TheForce, on 10 November 2011 - 08:44 AM, said:

Right macros are work around

Couldn't they just force no other weapons from firing while you were aiming one of your weapons?

Someone else suggested only allowing chain fire with a .5-1 second delay between each weapon's shot. So I could group weapons, but when i press the fire button they go off one at a time. This would resolve the macro issue and also help distribute damage in multiple areas.

Each weapon fired needs to bump the accuracy circle out as well as having some sort of group switch delay to prevent macros.

[Havoc2]

IMO, most of this fear of Alpha Strikes is coming from people who played the tail end of MW4 when everyone was loving to play No Heat/Unlimited Ammo matches. These should not even be an option in MWO.

I can say from experience, piloting a 7 erLLas Nova or 6 erLLas Mad Cat took more thinking than just point and ALPHA!
Did people still do this? Yes, of course. It also left them shut down and vulnerable. In Deathmatches, so what. In team play it didn't make much sense to try and get 2 alphas off to kill an enemy when you were shut down and as good as dead yourself.


I like the idea of a (VERY SMALL) cone of fire but prefer that the cone be very small but dynamic so that if I am standing still I can train all weapons on a single section, but if I'm running full speed and turning the cone gets larger until the targeting computer can compensate (maybe patient members with steady hands can even "lock" on energy weapons for more accuracy).

[TheRulesLawyer]

}{avoc, on 10 November 2011 - 10:02 AM, said:

IMO, most of this fear of Alpha Strikes is coming from people who played the tail end of MW4 when everyone was loving to play No Heat/Unlimited Ammo matches. These should not even be an option in MWO.

Nah, its strictly about the game balance issues of having all your weapons hit one section. Its overpowering in TT, its overpowering in real time. It shouldn't be allowed to become a "thing" in MWO.

[TheForce]

}{avoc, on 10 November 2011 - 10:02 AM, said:

IMO, most of this fear of Alpha Strikes is coming from people who played the tail end of MW4 when everyone was loving to play No Heat/Unlimited Ammo matches. These should not even be an option in MWO.

For me its the fact that in the Battletech/MechWarrior universe AC20's & PPC's were the most devastating weapons, and they didn't kill big mechs in 2 shots. I want to play "MechWarrior" not "Robot FPS" game.

[Tierloc]

Not for nothing, but it's not a balance issue unless the same items aren't available to all players.

More often that not complaints about any past gameplay revision (version of game) are not balance issues, it's just misunderstanding, bad pilot skills.

[mekabuser]

TheRulesLawyer, on 10 November 2011 - 10:47 AM, said:

Nah, its strictly about the game balance issues of having all your weapons hit one section. Its overpowering in TT, its overpowering in real time. It shouldn't be allowed to become a "thing" in MWO.

actually its not in mwll. Two equal mechs approaching each other in a straight line from 500m at 20kph would more than likely require at least 5 salvos to kill each other. Thats because they have done a good job assigning weapon damage and armor values. THats under ideal conditions.

TheForce, on 10 November 2011 - 11:22 AM, said:

For me its the fact that in the Battletech/MechWarrior universe AC20's & PPC's were the most devastating weapons, and they didn't kill big mechs in 2 shots. I want to play "MechWarrior" not "Robot FPS" game.

once again, not in mwll. the ac20 ,ppc, srm 4 bushy pours fire into the enemy , but they just dont go magically boom in two shots. Even if your a good pilot against a noob. The game cant be balanced for the elite pilot, they will always exist, and you know who is supposed to take care of them? the other elite guy on the other side.
All this cone of fire, convergence, its just making something that isnt always easy< putting damage on target> all the more difficult. Its hard enough hitting something at 700m while both entities are moving. Why make it harder?

Edited by mekabuser, 10 November 2011 - 12:00 PM.

[Nik Van Rhijn]

I think with the urban map scenario we are very rarely going to get ranges of 700m - 70m at times will seem a long distance, especially if ECM is degrading your HUD - pesky Raven's.

[omegaclawe]

I believe I (and others) have suggested things similar to this before, and this does a good job explaining it. It'd be very hard for me to go against it.

Edit: As a note to other posters, RNG cones of fire take out a significant amount of skill in a game. I don't actually mind it being "displayed" as a cone on the HUD, so long as it is possible for an extremely skilled pilot to still determine where his shot will land with high accuracy if fired at the right time, even while moving at high speed.

Edited by omegaclawe, 10 November 2011 - 12:55 PM.

[Gorthaur]

i think my favorite part of the OPs idea is the arm movement part. i mean i miss free reticle mode in mw3 but it was a little wonky. with new technology it could be done so much better, and i really like the steel battalion idea to fix it. getting better servos in the arms would increase free arm movement/speed IE the second cursor would catch up to the first cursor quicker and come in closer contact than it would with lesser quality motors.

[Zyllos]

I still think a cone of fire is best. The cones diameter will always be the same no matter the distance. So if your redicule is aiming at a distant target, your cone will have the same radius from the center redicule. What changes the radius is movement/combined distance of weapons being fired/mech warrior skill. Larger weapon groups moves your cone of fire back behind your mech, thus increasing your cone of fire.

Here is a picture of my explaination:



The first picture displays a regular cone.

The second picture displays a target at a distance, see the relative size between 1 and 2 is the same (at least they should be!)

The third picture displays a cone while on the move. The radius of the cone is larger.

The fourth picture displays a cone with a large weapon group. See the cone origination from behind the mech, giving a larger spread.

[omegaclawe]

Zyllos, on 10 November 2011 - 01:48 PM, said:

<snip>

I think we all know how a cone of fire works, and this does absolutely nothing as a counterpoint to the reasons not to have one brought up in this topic.

Cones of fire would be a lazy design decision. The players, in the end, would suffer for it. Creative alternatives to the same task without the issue of randomness have been brought up, and none of them are beyond the technology. Skill should always be a bigger factor than a Random Number Generator, and believe me, cones of fire (as implemented in most other games) make RNG's a pretty large factor.