47 replies to this topic

[shihku7]

In most shooter games, moving around causes an accuracy penalty to your weapon. Should there be a similar feature in MWO? I kinda think there should be, and that it might make the game more interesting. I also read that in the tabletop game, there is an accuracy penalty to weapons when shooting on the move. If you're walking, it's +1 penalty, if you're running, it's +2 penalty. Jump jet shooting is +3 penalty. (Not having played the tabletop game in ages, I don't know if +1 or +2 penalties are significant though.)

In games like COD and Battlefield, you tend to temporarily sacrifice mobility in exchange for high accuracy for your weapon. You aim down the sights and your movement speed drops down a lot. So in exchange for offensive power, you become more vulnerable.

You can get perks or weapons attachments that let you shoot from the hip while moving around a bit more accurately, but there are tradeoffs there of course. In Battlefield 3, for example, if you get a laser sight that lets you shoot from the hip more accurately, you usually can't use a suppressor at the same time, which would let you shoot without appearing on the minimap radar. And even wtih the laser sight, firing from the hip and on the move isn't as accurate as aiming down the sights would be.

Anyway, if MWO had some big accuracy penalties applied while moving, perhaps it would lead to a more enjoyable game. (Could make it less fun though too, not disregarding that possibility). Perhaps it would help to get rid of the "Circle of Death" fighting where mechs are running around each other and blasting away, since the weapons would be less accurate while doing the circle dance.

I personally find the circle of death to be a weird and goofy way to fight people. It has a sense of awkwardness and clumsiness to it, IMO, that isn't very fun. (I'm sure others disagree though).

Also, perhaps accuracy penalties while moving would make it easier to do hit-and-run tactics and to disengage from fights. Right now it's hard to shake off a pursuer, IMO. If you run directly away from an enemy, the enemy can usually just chase you and shoot you to death, so people gravitate towards the circle of death instead. "If I run away, I'll just die from getting shot in the back. May as well fight to the death."

But with accuracy penalties with movement, I think running away would be easier to do. Your pursuer would want to prefer to slow down or stand still while shooting at your back, while you are free to maximize your speed and leave the battle. And "Circle of Death" would be discouraged. So there's still that window of opportunity for your pursuer to kill you with backshots, but it'd be smaller than it is now.

[Vrekgar]

Most movement has enough penalty as it is.

Jump Jetting, Needs a penalty.

Perhaps While your boosting into the air its bumpy and your aim jitters all over the place, but once your jets shut off and you freefall, it stabilizes until impact.

[Henry Hawkins]

I imagine the weapons are stabilized for movement by the computer. Also, in TT there is no accuracy penalty for your movement, only how much your target moved.

[Mxxpower]

Errrrr, this isn't quake or counterstike... This is giant mechanized tanks.

You are aware that all of our current computerized military equipment can fire accurately on the move? The M1 abrahms tank has been doing this for 25 years.

[Spheroid]

Henry Hawkins, on 19 March 2013 - 09:21 AM, said:

I imagine the weapons are stabilized for movement by the computer. Also, in TT there is no accuracy penalty for your movement, only how much your target moved.

The penalty is +1 for walking, +2 for running.

[XIRUSPHERE]

This is not COD, or Battlefield, or insert other game that uses a RNG or reticule mechanic as a crutch. Focused fire is a reality and it has to be earned, if you don't like playing with people that can aim pick another game and stop trying to suggest ruinous ideas.

[Henry Hawkins]

Yep, that's right my bad.

[shihku7]

So is a +2 penalty a significant penalty in the tabletop game? It doesn't sound too bad

How often does a circle of death occur in the TT game?

[Stygian Steel]

gryo scopes, the m1 abrams can maintain target while going full speed on most level planes so why not mechs?

[stjobe]

You don't aim in TT, hence the movement penalty to simulate aiming at a moving target from a moving platform.

In MWO you aim, no need for a movement penalty.

[xDeityx]

Do you mean more of a penalty than there already is? No, there should not be additional artificial penalties to the natural ones that already exist.

[Mackman]

Stygian Steel, on 19 March 2013 - 09:42 AM, said:

gryo scopes, the m1 abrams can maintain target while going full speed on most level planes so why not mechs?

Basically this. The gyro in a mech already manages to keep a 100-ton bipedal behemoth from toppling over even while moving at 50 kph... i think it can handle keeping the guns steady as well.

[Teralitha]

xDeityx, on 19 March 2013 - 09:45 AM, said:

Do you mean more of a penalty than there already is? No, there should not be additional artificial penalties to the natural ones that already exist.

Exactly, this topic is silly and should be jettisoned.....

[SteeLRaiN6]

Most of those M1 moving shots are at stationary targets, that's not to say that the M1 / M60A3 / M60A2 (not so good but could fire missile) / M60A1 had increasing better stabilization as the technology improved.

[Aym]

Maybe for JJ's, they're ridiculously stable now...

[Stygian Steel]

xDeityx, on 19 March 2013 - 09:45 AM, said:

Do you mean more of a penalty than there already is? No, there should not be additional artificial penalties to the natural ones that already exist.

^ this, seeing as most other games make use of RNG to simulate the character's penalty as a cop-out for not making the toons gun wobble everywhere when your running around, it SHOULD fall to the players own steady hand when firing from a stabilized platform

[shihku7]

stjobe, on 19 March 2013 - 09:44 AM, said:

You don't aim in TT, hence the movement penalty to simulate aiming at a moving target from a moving platform.

In MWO you aim, no need for a movement penalty.

I dunno bout you, but I find the difference in aiming while moving and aiming while stationary in MWO to be fairly negligible. The tabletop game applies a +2 penalty though.

[Panthead]

Stygian Steel, on 19 March 2013 - 09:42 AM, said:

gryo scopes, the m1 abrams can maintain target while going full speed on most level planes so why not mechs?

Todays weapons have much longer ranges. So by this logic we should be able to engage much further than a mere 1000 meters,

[Aaron DeChavilier]

Stygian Steel, on 19 March 2013 - 09:42 AM, said:

gryo scopes, the m1 abrams can maintain target while going full speed on most level planes so why not mechs?

mechs are fictitious...but if you really want to get into it.


-is the M1 abrams bouncing along on 2 steels rods 20ft tall? oh it's mounted on a series of wheels with torsion bar suspension...
-mechs themselves as weapons platforms are one of the worst a force could possibly field.
-as a mech bounces up and down; the point of origin for every shot is literally moving up and down.

Mxxpower, on 19 March 2013 - 09:22 AM, said:

Errrrr, this isn't quake or counterstike... This is giant mechanized tanks.

actually Quake and Counterstrike (v1.6) both utilize perfect accuracy like MWO.

Stygian Steel, on 19 March 2013 - 09:52 AM, said:

it SHOULD fall to the players own steady hand when firing from a stabilized platform

that's just it though, mechs are not stabilized platforms. The only mechs in battletech that could qualify as stabilized would be quadmechs, but the regular two-legged mechs? you scale up the human frame, the instability scales with it.

Edited by Aaron DeChavilier, 19 March 2013 - 09:59 AM.

[Stygian Steel]

well realistically speaking, the only viable use for a walking tank would be as mobile artillery or mobile anti air, with how effective AT mines and i.e.d's are against tanks imagine how easy it would be to disable something on two legs. no roughly man sized power armor would be more likely than giant mechs