47 replies to this topic

[Terror Teddy]

Vrekgar, on 19 March 2013 - 09:20 AM, said:

Jump Jetting, Needs a penalty.

Well, it already has. For that moment when you land you basically has zero speed. A light mech is at a severe disadvantage directy after a jump as their speed advantage is nullified for a brief moment.

[Dan Nashe]

Statistically, in TT the +2 or 3 was huge. You rolled 2 six sided dice and were often starting from a base of 5 to 7 (4 plus range plus target movement plus terrain). So a plus two could halve your chances of hitting.

The issue is actually terrain. Maps are unnaturally flat. Ever tried circle strafing on a part of the map that is not perfectly smooth? Ther you get the penalty. Fix the maps and you'd get the effect without cone or reticle jerk gimmicks.

Given that mechs like humans have an inflexible skeleton, even walking should cause your reticle to shake. Note that I am NOT sAying random cone of fire. I am saying reticle jerking as you move. Either via a bounce in time with your footsteps or as a natural consequence of natural terrain.

Also please remember that a modern american battletank has a MUCH more sophisticated targeting system than a battlemech.

That said, I don't think TT or IRL arguments carry much weight in this argument. The real issue is gameplay. Is consistent pinpoint accuracy at 800 meters while laterally jumping at 90 kph good for the game? Or should there be a tradeoff where going fast means sacrificing offensive power for defensive power? (Also I'd like to see your abrahms jump. Underwater. On the moon.)
This is a fair question and reasonable people can disagree.

As an aside, it could hurt small fast mechs. Although if jerk was based on current speed compared to your maximum' light mechs would be more accurate at 90 kph than heavies still. (This is how TT works, effectively).

Edited by DanNashe, 19 March 2013 - 10:10 AM.

[Aaron DeChavilier]

Stygian Steel, on 19 March 2013 - 10:00 AM, said:

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

even then, the walking arty would still have to stop moving to fire thus making marginally more useful than SPG's mounted on treads or wheels.

so now that we've agreed mechs arent real, you can't really compare them to abrams now can you?
I'd rather we go off the established mechanics and fiction of the game (mechanics hold more weight to me than fiction.)
mechanics say that mechs on the move have a harder time aiming (To-hit roll +1 for walking, +2 for running) compared to a mech that is stationary (To-Hit roll unmodified), therefore mechs do not have perfect accuracy when moving.

DanNashe, on 19 March 2013 - 10:05 AM, said:

the real issue is gameplay. Is consistent pinpoint accuracy at 800 meters while laterally jumping at 90 kph good for the game? Or should there be a tradeoff where going fast means sacrificing offensive power for defensive power?

Well if players love Quake, CounterStrike, and Hawken; then yes every mech should have 'consistent pinpoint accuracy at 800 meters while laterally jumping at 90 kph.'

which proves to me all along, that most players here don't want a mech sim so much as a Battletech-flavored Hawken.

Edited by Aaron DeChavilier, 19 March 2013 - 10:08 AM.

[urmamasllama]

i think the easy and most logical fix is cockpit motion. currently as the mech bobs up and down you don't giving you very steady aim but is seems odd because the cockpit is bobbing up and down while your view is stable

[Stygian Steel]

Aaron DeChavilier, on 19 March 2013 - 10:05 AM, said:

even then, the walking arty would still have to stop moving to fire thus making marginally more useful than SPG's mounted on treads or wheels.

well yeah exactly they would have to stop moving, my comment on that one wasn;t really necessary or even relevant to this post i just thought i;d toss it out there

[Stygian Steel]

urmamasllama, on 19 March 2013 - 10:08 AM, said:

i think the easy and most logical fix is cockpit motion. currently as the mech bobs up and down you don't giving you very steady aim but is seems odd because the cockpit is bobbing up and down while your view is stable

thats because mechwarrior pilots are all bobbleheads lol...you know with that big metal neuro helmet

Edited by Stygian Steel, 19 March 2013 - 10:19 AM.

[NKAc Street]

No but since pgi was dumb enough to nerf the cat torso they might listen to this crap too.

[Dan Nashe]

Stygian Steel, on 19 March 2013 - 10:00 AM, said:

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

It also works with mecha where they are a small percentage of your force and really powerful but expensive.

Imagine you only have enough money for 12 fusion reactors, and you need a fusion reactor to put a railgun on a tank. Now imagine you can also produce armor thaat stops everything short of a railgun, but it is, again, insanely expensive and you can only build half a dozen vehicles with it in a year. Now a battlemech makes sense because you literally can't afford to be deprived of that firepower if the fight happens in rocky canyons or other impassable terrain on other planets.

A second scenario is as a small force. Ther was an anime that did it well. You have battlemechs as a small fraction of your force, but augmof your force to support your armor. Again maybe the issue is reactor size so power armor can't compete with a walking tank.

Now of course, battletech is unrealistic. You just have to remember mechwarriors are knights in shining armor jousting above the peasnantry and/or cool looking giant robots in a fun game. You have to focus on the spirit of the game not the science. Suspension of disbelief is necessary. Ironically battletech has somewhat realistic space trvel.

Hint. Giant rocks from spce render armor formations pointless. The only use of ground forces is to occupy and defend things that can't be targetted with air strikes. So yeah. Battlespace should render battletech as open field battles obsolete. Stop thinking too much!

[Aaron DeChavilier]

Stygian Steel, on 19 March 2013 - 10:18 AM, said:

thats because mechwarrior pilots are all bobbleheads lol...you know with that big metal neuro helmet

if im sitting in a chair, and someone lifts that chair up; my head and therefore my eyes move up with it, no?

[TheRulesLawyer]

They really need to add bob to the crosshairs. I'm kind of shocked that it isn't in already. Having to slow down for accuracy was pretty fundamental to the TT and with the pin point accuracy it is absolutely needed to increase the difficulty of the shot.

[xDeityx]

Terror Teddy, on 19 March 2013 - 10:05 AM, said:

Well, it already has. For that moment when you land you basically has zero speed. A light mech is at a severe disadvantage directy after a jump as their speed advantage is nullified for a brief moment.

He's saying it needs a nerf due to poptarting. When you poptart, you stand behind a hill so the disadvantage you are describing is totally negated. If there was some reticle shaking while your jump jets were engaged it would help by making it harder to aim while you're floating a ~50-ton war machine in the air.

[Kyros von Richthofen]

shihku7, on 19 March 2013 - 09:39 AM, said:

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?

Yes. +2 is significant in a 2D6 system. There is also a +3 penalty for using jump jets. But it's a different system as others have said and the last thing we need to encourage is more of the "stand still and shoot" mentality.

Circle of death generally doesn't occur in the TT like it does in the video games, but the slower pace of the game allows for more thought on a 'Mech-to-'Mech basis and there are way more factors and randomness to consider as well.

[Vermaxx]

I think it's stupid that they put all this work into making the mech model and shadow move around, making the mech FEEL like you're actually walking...and when you look at your shoulders outside the cockpit they are perfectly still and the crosshairs never budge.

People can slam COD and BF titles all they want. Competitive play doesn't mean 'zero random chance' in my book and I'm not sure where that came from. A human holding a gun has to deal with movement of the barrel due to human locomotion. A mech is a giant metal human. Why is it bobbing like a person but the cockpit view is perfectly still?

Unless all our cockpits are mounted on Star Tours hydraulic lift platforms designed to ELIMINATE movement rather than simulate it, we should be seeing some cockpit bobble. It would be more realistic, and it might even cut down on complaints of boating.

They can do without it, sure, but don't back up your argument by how a mech is/is not like an Abrams, or how bad COD/BF/every popular FPS is.

Edited by Vermaxx, 19 March 2013 - 10:34 AM.

[Ghost_19Hz]

+1 to the troll OP. Accuracy penalties are nothing but frustration for anyone who can actually aim. Hm, what am i going to aim at? his damaged side torso? his head? his Centurion gun arm? his A1 missile pods? o... none of the above, CENTER MASS AGAIN.

[shihku7]

PythonCPT, on 19 March 2013 - 10:36 AM, said:

+1 to the troll OP. Accuracy penalties are nothing but frustration for anyone who can actually aim. Hm, what am i going to aim at? his damaged side torso? his head? his Centurion gun arm? his A1 missile pods? o... none of the above, CENTER MASS AGAIN.

If you're a light mech with rapid acceleration and deceleration abilities, you can easily run up to a firing position, stop or slow down, shoot accurately, then run off again. Good aim is still rewarded.

If you're a heavy mech you'd need to be more careful about shooting because it takes you longer to move, stop, and move again.

So it's not like good aiming is thrown out the window.

[TheRulesLawyer]

PythonCPT, on 19 March 2013 - 10:36 AM, said:

+1 to the troll OP. Accuracy penalties are nothing but frustration for anyone who can actually aim. Hm, what am i going to aim at? his damaged side torso? his head? his Centurion gun arm? his A1 missile pods? o... none of the above, CENTER MASS AGAIN.

If the crosshairs bob you just have to time your shot right. It adds skill to the game as only really skilled players will be able to pick specific parts on the move. Right now its easymode to target specific parts, let alone the whole mech.

[Moonsavage]

I always understood that aiming battletech weapons was the limiting factor to their usefulness.
As such, modern IS mechs were inferior to their lostech and clan counterparts.
MWO does not do this, however... every shot is 100% on target (arm movement and weapon type notwithstanding)

I would like to see a little "wander" from the intended aim on most weapons... ppl shooting blue blobs from 1600m range is silly and takes a big dump on canon.

[von Pilsner]

shihku7, on 19 March 2013 - 09:14 AM, said:

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.

No, I think it is a terrible idea for a skill based game.

[Mxxpower]

Aaron DeChavilier, on 19 March 2013 - 09:55 AM, said:

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.


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



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.

You are right! I am soooo stupid, I mean, gyroscopically balanced walking platform makes it completely IMPOSSIBLE to stabilize weapons.....sorta like a boat..



or maybe a humvee, truck http://www.eostech.com/d_systems.html

Yep... It would be UNPOSSIBLE to stabilize a weapon on a 2 leg platform

http://www.switched....ebuted-by-army/

Or even a 4 leg one...

http://www.blinkx.co...rtinXrgZuodpZmw

I guess the army should stop their purchase orders on them

#!

Edited by Mxxpower, 19 March 2013 - 11:46 AM.

[Zyllos]

Try looking at this thread (under Game Balance) for ways to keep skill involved but remove 100% weapon convergence:

How to Fix Pin-Point Aiming and Convergence

Any argument that "this is the future, they can do it" is instantly doomed because Battletech is based on a universe where technology does not make sense. How can you not stabilize weaponry but have a 100t 10m tall mech? Because that is how the universe was made. They bombed themselves into oblivion thus technology has been lost.

Now only beyond a lore perspective, there is a balance issue involved.

Edited by Zyllos, 19 March 2013 - 11:47 AM.