140 replies to this topic

[UncleKulikov]

Pht, on 12 November 2011 - 06:04 PM, said:

It's just a nasty mess for no real returns in gameplay or simulation of what it's like to pilot a 'Mech.

The returns are preventing alpha strikes from being a common, spammable tactic without any significant penalty, while still allowing a properly timed and aimed alpha strike to be effective.

And it would simulate how the mech would operate, due to the physical limitations of the machinery governing each weapon, the weapon's placement, and how secure the weapon is mounted. A weapon mounted on the hand would suffer more recoil than one mounted in the torso, but also would be able to be aimed more precisely. Consed of fire can represent that a lot more easily (especially for weapons like LBX, SRM, and LRM) than alternatives.

Wait, what would be your alternative? I'd like to know if there are good alternatives out there. One of them might be better, but since I haven't heard a coherent one yet, I'm sticking with Cone of Fire. But what would you suggest instead?

[Nik Van Rhijn]

Instant laser of death?

[omegaclawe]

Actually, Cones of fire would likely make Alpha Strikes more common. After all, if you attempt to chain-fire weapons, it will increase your cone-of-fire for each subsequent shot, whereas shots fired all at the same time would have the same accuracy, determined from the stand-still position. The game would more or less degrade into "Pop out, fire everything, hide again while reloading and reticules reset". This isn't strictly a bad thing... World of Tanks makes it more or less their primary play-style. Doesn't seem very mech-like to me, though.

I have more detailed thoughts in other topics, but suffice to say, I don't want randomness in the game where it can be avoided.

[azov]

not if there is very little if any coolant.

[omegaclawe]

Use ballistics, in that case. If you keep trying to patch the issue in this manner, you're eventually going to end up with the slowest, most boring mech-combat simulator ever conceived. :/

[diana]

UncleKulikov, on 13 November 2011 - 11:28 AM, said:

I'd like to know if there are good alternatives out there. One of them might be better, but since I haven't heard a coherent one yet, I'm sticking with Cone of Fire.

How about reading this thread fully? There were quite a few suggestions that might work.

[GreenHell]

I'm glad my thread got so many responses. There were some interesting ideas thrown out there, and there was also a lot of discussion on how cones of fire work. With all this knowledge on targeting right here for the dev's to look at, I'm sure they'll come up with the best solution to all of our problems. I almost feel like we started a "think-tank" for PGI.

Thanks to everyone for your input.

P.S. (we should have got paid lol)

Edited by GreenHell, 17 December 2011 - 11:50 PM.

[Dredger]

If you can't sprint at full speed and expect to headshot an enemy in COD or MoH or Crysis with a sniper-rifle, why would you expect that here?

If the mech is moving, shots should be less accurate. Those that want to move fast and still hit consistently may wish to mount LBX cannons instead of lasers.

[Dredger]

omegaclawe, on 13 November 2011 - 12:25 PM, said:

Actually, Cones of fire would likely make Alpha Strikes more common. After all, if you attempt to chain-fire weapons, it will increase your cone-of-fire for each subsequent shot, whereas shots fired all at the same time would have the same accuracy, determined from the stand-still position.

Your logic is flawed.

1. Weapons will have different effective ranges, so mixed loadouts will be less likely to Alphastrike.
2. We are not guaranteed a Mechlab where players can create Alphastrike boats.
3. If player accuracy is affected by movement and weapon discharges, you can be certain it will be affected if they are hit by enemy munitions.
4. Most sane players will not be willing to stand perfectly still to line up an Alphastrike while the enemy is shooting at them.
5. There is a high chance the player could be winged by enemy fire at the moment they use their Alphastrike and not even hit the area they were aiming for.
6. Using an Alphastrike in live combat would leave the player defenseless while waiting for all their weapons to recharge. Did I mention they will probably be under fire?

Edited by Dredger, 18 December 2011 - 01:39 AM.

[IceSerpent]

Here's a more simple idea - first check for hit/miss depending on the weapon type (projectile travel time) and lead on your target. If you hit, damage is randomly spread across nearby sections, kind of like in TT, but with a more limited spread. For example:

Target is moving laterally to the left.
Fire 2 lasers at CT and hit - each one may hit CT,LT,RT
Fire 2 lasers at leading (right) arm and hit - each one may hit RA,RL,RT
Fire 1 laser and 1 gauss rifle at leading (right) arm and hit - laser may hit RA,RL,RT, but gauss slug has slower travel time, so it would hit LA,LL,LT.

This can be refined further to take into account which side of the target you hit (front, rear, left, right).

[Mchawkeye]

IceSerpent, on 18 December 2011 - 10:19 AM, said:

Here's a more simple idea - first check for hit/miss depending on the weapon type (projectile travel time) and lead on your target. If you hit, damage is randomly spread across nearby sections, kind of like in TT, but with a more limited spread. For example:

Target is moving laterally to the left.
Fire 2 lasers at CT and hit - each one may hit CT,LT,RT
Fire 2 lasers at leading (right) arm and hit - each one may hit RA,RL,RT
Fire 1 laser and 1 gauss rifle at leading (right) arm and hit - laser may hit RA,RL,RT, but gauss slug has slower travel time, so it would hit LA,LL,LT.

This can be refined further to take into account which side of the target you hit (front, rear, left, right).

Why don't we just put a blindfold on instead? Where the weapon hits, the weapon damages. how hard it is to get your weapon to hit..that's the skill.

[IceSerpent]

Mchawkeye, on 18 December 2011 - 11:13 AM, said:

Why don't we just put a blindfold on instead? Where the weapon hits, the weapon damages. how hard it is to get your weapon to hit..that's the skill.

Because "where the weapon hits, the weapon damages" is called pinpoint accuracy and it leads to people trying to boat ungodly amount of lasers, using aim bots and doing other not-so-cool stuff that we would be better off without.

[Phades]

IceSerpent, on 18 December 2011 - 03:58 PM, said:

Because "where the weapon hits, the weapon damages" is called pinpoint accuracy and it leads to people trying to boat ungodly amount of lasers, using aim bots and doing other not-so-cool stuff that we would be better off without.

If someone is going to hack the game, they will hack it. COF can be adjusted as well. It is really a circular argument.

[IceSerpent]

Phades, on 18 December 2011 - 04:02 PM, said:

If someone is going to hack the game, they will hack it. COF can be adjusted as well. It is really a circular argument.

It's not so much about hacking, but more about abusing game mechanics. The BT rules pretty much rely on the inability to accurately hit the designated spot. If you have pinpoint accuracy, quad medium lasers become much better than LBX20 no matter how you look at it (as others have already mentioned in other threads). While 100% randomness of TT game is not going to translate well into simulator, ability to alpha-strike a single armor plate has a lot of its own issues, as shown by previous MW games. So, I think the best way to go is to find something in-between.

[Mchawkeye]

IceSerpent, on 18 December 2011 - 03:58 PM, said:

Because "where the weapon hits, the weapon damages" is called pinpoint accuracy and it leads to people trying to boat ungodly amount of lasers, using aim bots and doing other not-so-cool stuff that we would be better off without.

There have been plenty of threads and responses about the benefits and drawbacks of pin point.
I didn't say the weapon hits where you aim. I said the weapon damages what it hits. as in. if the weapon impacts hitbox 'a' then hit box 'a' takes the damage. otherwise there is little point in learning to aim accurately.
How you have to aim (by applying lead for example) in order to hit the box is a different matter entirely, on top of the huge number of variables that could be applied to make aim/targeting harder, but maintaining the sim like nature of it without applying arbitrary damage concepts simply for the sake of because or some sense of artificial balance.

[IceSerpent]

Mchawkeye, on 18 December 2011 - 04:39 PM, said:

There have been plenty of threads and responses about the benefits and drawbacks of pin point.
I didn't say the weapon hits where you aim. I said the weapon damages what it hits. as in. if the weapon impacts hitbox 'a' then hit box 'a' takes the damage. otherwise there is little point in learning to aim accurately.
How you have to aim (by applying lead for example) in order to hit the box is a different matter entirely, on top of the huge number of variables that could be applied to make aim/targeting harder, but maintaining the sim like nature of it without applying arbitrary damage concepts simply for the sake of because or some sense of artificial balance.

Are you saying that weapons shouldn't hit where you aim? In other words if I stand still and aim for CT on a stationary target, it might hit somewhere else instead? That's pretty much what I suggested, you just worded it differently. On the other hand, if you want all weapons to hit aimed location, please provide a single reason not to boat as many lasers as humanly possible (all in CT for maximum protection). Actually, I'll make it easier for you - give me a single reason to use anything other than lasers?

[Mchawkeye]

IceSerpent, on 18 December 2011 - 04:56 PM, said:

Are you saying that weapons shouldn't hit where you aim? In other words if I stand still and aim for CT on a stationary target, it might hit somewhere else instead? That's pretty much what I suggested, you just worded it differently. On the other hand, if you want all weapons to hit aimed location, please provide a single reason not to boat as many lasers as humanly possible (all in CT for maximum protection). Actually, I'll make it easier for you - give me a single reason to use anything other than lasers?

Crumbs. Why on earth would I disagree with you and then simply reiterate your own suggestion?

What I am suggesting is that (reasonably) realistic ballistics come into play. so canon have an amount of travel time and thus would require the pilot to assume a lead to target; consequently you might be trying to HIT the moving torso of your target, but you would AIM in front of it.

Lasers are a different issue, I agree. my currently favourite idea to handicap laser boats is a batter reproduction of heat issues. especially negative heat effects as the scale climbs.
Also, as the thread was started, setting your lasers (for this example) to converge on a spot, say at 500m, at that point they come together, Before or after that point the lasers hit in the appropriate spread.
That, and as I already pointed out to you, various simulated effects (like shaking while moving, for one example) would make it significantly harder to aim accurately, again wearing down the effectiveness of laser boating.
It worth noting that laser boats exist as part of the BT canon, but I agree that boating is a potential issue that needs to thought about. that doesn't mean we have to resort to arbitrary randomness for the sake of balance; This is a simulator, not the TT.

[Dsi1]

IceSerpent, on 18 December 2011 - 03:58 PM, said:

Because "where the weapon hits, the weapon damages" is called pinpoint accuracy and it leads to people trying to boat ungodly amount of lasers, using aim bots and doing other not-so-cool stuff that we would be better off without.

You're mixing up accuracy with precision, sure you can hit the exact spot you aim at, but how will you aim at the exact spot every time?

Accurate ballistics hold the answer here, the legs stomp and shift, this movement travels up through the mech, add torso movement to that, and the fact that the arms are split, give projectiles accurate velocities, make them account for (that planet's local) gravity, give lasers a longer discharge time. You now have a hard to master system that doesn't just make you miss for no reason like CoF that spreads out damage over the enemy mech (Your dual AC20s probably won't hit in the same place... unless you're extremely good, it'd be nearly impossible to keep a laser pin-point accurate, maybe if both mechs are standing still.) and raises the skill ceiling while keeping the floor nearly the same. (I mean, maybe you're from a different universe where our laws of physics don't apply, you might be screwed then)

[Omigir]

Recoil.
I would like to see something like it. When you fire an AC20, whole mech would shutter. If you have other wepaons goups with the AC20, like lasers, perhaps they are a little off the mark. Same thing with a Gauss, when it fires, other weapons in the same group get jared by a sudden force put onto the battlemech and it shifting. Something like a holinder really should feel some kind of fluctuation. I know its a magneticly accelerated round but a basketball sized slug of nickle going form 0 - OMG fast i figure should do a little. Correct me if im wrong.

All the same, fireing off an AC20 or a missle system should have some kind of variable/unpredictable kick. That way an Alpha strike would not be deadly accurate.

[IceSerpent]

Mchawkeye, on 19 December 2011 - 01:37 AM, said:

Crumbs. Why on earth would I disagree with you and then simply reiterate your own suggestion?

That's a very good question

Quote

What I am suggesting is that (reasonably) realistic ballistics come into play. so canon have an amount of travel time and thus would require the pilot to assume a lead to target; consequently you might be trying to HIT the moving torso of your target, but you would AIM in front of it.

This is what I suggested, part of the suggestion actually. This is not where the problem is though. I used "stationary shooter, stationary target" scenario in my post for a reason (assume that you have a proper lead on moving target if you want - it's the same thing). The question is what should happen if my crosshairs are in the right spot when I pull the trigger, in other words my shots are going to be on target as a given, but what should be done about damage?

Quote

Lasers are a different issue, I agree. my currently favourite idea to handicap laser boats is a batter reproduction of heat issues. especially negative heat effects as the scale climbs.

That would certainly help, but won't fix the problem. It's the path MW4 took - rebalancing via playing with heat/armor/weapon weight/damage values. Problem was that people were still boating weapons with the same projectile travel time. It wasn't as bad as in MW2/MW3, but still was an issue.

Quote

Also, as the thread was started, setting your lasers (for this example) to converge on a spot, say at 500m, at that point they come together, Before or after that point the lasers hit in the appropriate spread.

This is good in theory, but given the size of a mech and weapon range you won't be able to make it useful and look realistic at the same time. First, it would give an extra incentive to put all weapons into CT (thus decreasing the base). Second, a mech is roughly 10m tall - let's say (just to keep it simple) that it's also 10m wide. So, I have medium lasers in the arms (10m base, 270m range), set them to converge at max range (270m), and aim for CT of the target (3-4m wide, I guess). At what distance would they miss CT and hit RT+LT instead?

Quote

That, and as I already pointed out to you, various simulated effects (like shaking while moving, for one example) would make it significantly harder to aim accurately, again wearing down the effectiveness of laser boating.

That's irrelevant as it only affects aiming (i.e. do I hit or do I miss), instead of the spread. Regardless of the aiming mechanics, a situation where boating multiple small weapons does more damage to the single location than a single large weapon would make those large weapons useless. In BT AC20 is a deadly weapon because it does a lot of damage to a single location as opposed to a bunch of lasers that may do more damage overall, but that damage is spread all over the place. If damage is not spread at all, people will boat whatever weapons give the most overall (combined) damage.

Quote

It worth noting that laser boats exist as part of the BT canon, but I agree that boating is a potential issue that needs to thought about. that doesn't mean we have to resort to arbitrary randomness for the sake of balance; This is a simulator, not the TT.

As I see it, there are 2 ways to do it - to mimic what MW4 did and change the weapon characteristics (heat, damage, weight, etc.) or to introduce randomness. Former would allow for pinpoint accuracy, but will require a lot of work to redesign the whole rule set. Latter is easier to implement and is closer to canon BT, but your accuracy would not be picture-perfect.