141 replies to this topic

[Echo6]

I wonder how many of the people who think pinpoint convergence is just the bee's knees have every fired a real weapon.

It's not a point and click affair and introducing variables into a sim would be appropriate.

[Gaan Cathal]

DocBach, on 08 May 2013 - 07:54 AM, said:

ECM shouldn't affect it at all, think of direct fire locks like a LRF on a tank, your lasing the target and the computer is calculating range and trajectory to the target due to internal factors like your movement, heat, damage, ect, and external factors like wind, enemy movement ect.

ECM shouldn't affect basic missile locks either.

R.e. the OP. I like the core principle of the idea, but think it's frankly too extensive a change for PGI to realistically implement at this point. What I do think would be plausible would be to link convergence to the distance of the targeted mech, with a substantial convergence time (faster but not instant for arm mounted weapons relative to torso mounts). If fired without convergence-lock, weapons simply converge to their optimal range (allowing for some judgement of snapshots). This wouldn't require reticule-maintenance, but frankly there's plenty of ways to break hostile lock in the game at the moment, and it would solve the target-leading problem, since you'd be converging on the target distance, not the distance-to-reticule-object.

[Bishop Steiner]

Echo6, on 08 May 2013 - 12:50 PM, said:

I wonder how many of the people who think pinpoint convergence is just the bee's knees have every fired a real weapon.

It's not a point and click affair and introducing variables into a sim would be appropriate.

I would speculate that the vast majority of "experts" on here have about as much time behind personal OR support weapons as most of those telling us how easy it is to fix all the code, have actual programming experience.

[Gaan Cathal]

Bishop Steiner, on 08 May 2013 - 01:22 PM, said:

I would speculate that the vast majority of "experts" on here have about as much time behind personal OR support weapons as most of those telling us how easy it is to fix all the code, have actual programming experience.

In fairness, I imagine the number of people on this forum with experience piloting in a live-combat situation a 35-100 ton armoured humanoid wherein the smallest mountable weapon is a close analogue of the GAU-8 is fairly limited.Their opinions and expert knowledge should be given due respect by the developers of course, they're a valuable resource.


Having fired a real gun does not give you special insight on game design, any more than being able to 'code' their own website gives any of the people to which you refer special insight on game coding.

[Echo6]

Gaan Cathal, on 08 May 2013 - 01:30 PM, said:

In fairness, I imagine the number of people on this forum with experience piloting in a live-combat situation a 35-100 ton armoured humanoid wherein the smallest mountable weapon is a close analogue of the GAU-8 is fairly limited.Their opinions and expert knowledge should be given due respect by the developers of course, they're a valuable resource.


Having fired a real gun does not give you special insight on game design, any more than being able to 'code' their own website gives any of the people to which you refer special insight on game coding.

Not having fired a real gun definitely deprives one of insight into the firing of weapons and, maybe, just maybe, how a game that purports to simulate the firing of weapons should behave. But, just maybe.

Maybe firing real weapons is a point and click affair after all, though. It's funny that I don't remember it that way.

Edited by Echo6, 08 May 2013 - 01:40 PM.

[Gaan Cathal]

Echo6, on 08 May 2013 - 01:38 PM, said:

Not having fired a real gun definitely deprives one of insight into the firing of weapons and, maybe, just maybe, how a game that purports to simulate the firing of weapons should behave. But, just maybe.

Maybe firing real weapons is a point and click affair after all, though. It's funny that I don't remember it that way.

For one thing, firing a mounted weapon (and no, not a manually aimed co-ax) is dramatically different from a personal weapon of any sort. About the only reasonable modern analogue are aircraft weapons, though you could make an argument a that the 4-PPC Stalker kind of equates to a really bad tank. Maybe.

Never mind the fact that until recently the only true instant-convergence weapons were lasers, which more or less simulates c-speed delivery and I guarantee you no-one here has live-combat experience of firing. (I am, obviously, not including dazzlers or similar Geneva-convention-breaching goodies.)

[Cyke]

I'm agreeable with the idea, but only for convergence.. there must be NO random deviation involved here.

I don't think it really needs to be that strict about holding your crosshair directly over the target. Holding it near the target (much in the same way as getting an LRM lock now) should suffice. So you start off with zero convergence (parallel weapon trajectories), and as the lock improves, your convergence increases until it becomes perfect pinpoint convergence.
Sounds workable.

In case nobody noticed, there's already an Efficiency that increases convergence time.. but auto-convergence is already so fast by default (almost immediately) that I think nobody notices.


To pre-empt anyone who's going to start claiming this idea somehow involves using less "skill", I'd like to once again state that what we have right now is an automatic assistance system that helps you converge your shots perfectly.. and it attains that convergence almost immediately.
This idea here involves reducing the effectiveness of the helpful hand-holding, and putting forethought and tactical decision-making into the game (fire early or wait). Or one might say, more "skill" required to score concentrated hits.

Note that even with no convergence at all, a skilled player can still chain fire his weapons to hit precisely where he wants (when you fire your left torso guns, you aim at a spot a few meters to the right to compensate, and vice versa), then as convergence lock is achieved he can group fire if he wishes.

[Bishop Steiner]

Gaan Cathal, on 08 May 2013 - 01:44 PM, said:

For one thing, firing a mounted weapon (and no, not a manually aimed co-ax) is dramatically different from a personal weapon of any sort. About the only reasonable modern analogue are aircraft weapons, though you could make an argument a that the 4-PPC Stalker kind of equates to a really bad tank. Maybe.

Never mind the fact that until recently the only true instant-convergence weapons were lasers, which more or less simulates c-speed delivery and I guarantee you no-one here has live-combat experience of firing. (I am, obviously, not including dazzlers or similar Geneva-convention-breaching goodies.)

Hmmm... i was under the impression we were manually aiming them, and they converged when the reticle passed over a target. Not terribly different than the way one aligns and aims the main gun on a tank. Or a Bofors Cannon blister on a Warship. Computer aided, but still manually aimed. (advanced arty firing in some next generation combat vehicles, anti Air cannons, be it remote, humanly controlled or computer guided)

And last I checked, even with computer correction, and predictive software, one can't instantly account for all the bumps and humps in terrain in a tank, or a ship and the waves and chop, let alone a humanoid "walker" which is inherently LESS stable and smooth a firing platform.

Edited by Bishop Steiner, 08 May 2013 - 02:07 PM.

[Gaan Cathal]

Bishop Steiner, on 08 May 2013 - 02:06 PM, said:

Hmmm... i was under the impression we were manually aiming them, and they converged when the reticle passed over a target. Not terribly different than the way one aligns and aims the main gun on a tank. Or a Bofors Cannon blister on a Warship. Computer aided, but still manually aimed. (advanced arty firing in some next generation combat vehicles, anti Air cannons, be it remote, humanly controlled or computer guided)

And last I checked, even with computer correction, and predictive software, one can't instantly account for all the bumps and humps in terrain in a tank, or a ship and the waves and chop, let alone a humanoid "walker" which is inherently LESS stable and smooth a firing platform.

I am interested to know what precise make of tank main gun, warship canon or anti-aircraft weapon is controlled by a neurohelmet. My saying aircraft-mounted weapons were the best analogy was based on the use of HMDs to aim air-air and air-ground weapons as much as the remote mounted nature of the weapons themselves. Modern combat aircraft are the closest analogue as far as weapons platform goes, in my opinion, and that's due to the combination of HOBS weaponry with HMD targeting.

As for the computer correction and walker stability: 60m lasers. Drawing parallels between MW tech and real-world tech for demonstrative purposes is one thing, but nothing about MW/BTech follows anything close to the constraints of reality, and it's a dead-end as far as discussion goes.

[Bishop Steiner]

Gaan Cathal, on 08 May 2013 - 02:29 PM, said:

I am interested to know what precise make of tank main gun, warship canon or anti-aircraft weapon is controlled by a neurohelmet. My saying aircraft-mounted weapons were the best analogy was based on the use of HMDs to aim air-air and air-ground weapons as much as the remote mounted nature of the weapons themselves. Modern combat aircraft are the closest analogue as far as weapons platform goes, in my opinion, and that's due to the combination of HOBS weaponry with HMD targeting.

As for the computer correction and walker stability: 60m lasers. Drawing parallels between MW tech and real-world tech for demonstrative purposes is one thing, but nothing about MW/BTech follows anything close to the constraints of reality, and it's a dead-end as far as discussion goes.

Those guns aren't controlled via neurohelmet.

The Neuro Helmet provides ONE service, transmitting the pilots sense of balance into the Mechs Gyro. They have added the HUD to it as window dressing for this game, but the weapons are still aimed via those joysticks you see in your cockpit.

And if you wan't to use the sci-fi element as an argument to throw ALL reality out the window, then basically, we can argue ANYTHING we want, as the basis of any argument has about as much weight as fairy dust.

[Markus Keller]

I'm just going to leave this here...

A modern main battle tank, say the Abrams, has a targeting system. You lock the target, the computer measures range, wind direction/speed, and turret rotation(thus target speed relative to you) which then "jumps" the turret forward to the appropriate lead and elevation to score a hit. Of course you can fire without the lock if you choose to, but the computer generally does a wonderful job of smoking a target. I should also add that it can accurately deliver a 120mm round to about 4000m effectively. While moving at almost 45mph...

sources:
http://www.fas.org/m...sys/land/m1.htm
http://www.fas.org/m...ys/land/120.htm
working along side them in two combat deployments
history (desert storm)

Just food for thought to anyone touting realism as their goal.

[Gaan Cathal]

Bishop Steiner, on 08 May 2013 - 02:35 PM, said:

Those guns aren't controlled via neurohelmet.

The Neuro Helmet provides ONE service, transmitting the pilots sense of balance into the Mechs Gyro. They have added the HUD to it as window dressing for this game, but the weapons are still aimed via those joysticks you see in your cockpit.

And if you wan't to use the sci-fi element as an argument to throw ALL reality out the window, then basically, we can argue ANYTHING we want, as the basis of any argument has about as much weight as fairy dust.

The left hand controls the throttle. We have a single right-handed joystick. I had been assuming that controlled the mech's leg rotation and torso pivoting. Whilst the triggers on the joystick function perfectly well for weapons fire (as per the HMD/HOBS combo) I can't see another option for weapons aiming, particularly the arms. I'll grant your point on the BTech neurohelmet (though I guess you could argue that's only the neuro-interface and a HMD could be added?) being limited to gyrostability and refinement of control, but frankly MechWarrior and MechCommander have both visibly departed from the Neurohelmet quite some time ago, and certainly they appear to me to correlate with the HMD/HOBS method rather than the joystick being used.

That said, we're rather derailing here, and the point raised by the OP (and the alternative solutions posted in the thread) warrant discussion. I'm perfectly willing to continue the debate on in-character targeting methods elsewhere but this should probably go back to being about convergence control.

[Bishop Steiner]

Gaan Cathal, on 08 May 2013 - 03:08 PM, said:

The left hand controls the throttle. We have a single right-handed joystick. I had been assuming that controlled the mech's leg rotation and torso pivoting. Whilst the triggers on the joystick function perfectly well for weapons fire (as per the HMD/HOBS combo) I can't see another option for weapons aiming, particularly the arms. I'll grant your point on the BTech neurohelmet (though I guess you could argue that's only the neuro-interface and a HMD could be added?) being limited to gyrostability and refinement of control, but frankly MechWarrior and MechCommander have both visibly departed from the Neurohelmet quite some time ago, and certainly they appear to me to correlate with the HMD/HOBS method rather than the joystick being used.

That said, we're rather derailing here, and the point raised by the OP (and the alternative solutions posted in the thread) warrant discussion. I'm perfectly willing to continue the debate on in-character targeting methods elsewhere but this should probably go back to being about convergence control.

Mech Leg movement and Jumpjets are traditionally controlled by pedals, actually, not a traditional throttle.

[Taemien]

As people said before, Blender BattleTech does this...

And to be honest. That would be HORRENDOUS for an online game. Its a fine distraction for about 15 minutes. But that is it. It gets very annoying when 75% of your shots just go wide because the system says so. There's no skill involved, just who would get a lock first.

It would also make every mech going over 120kph invulnerable.

[El Bandito]

Taemien, on 08 May 2013 - 11:07 PM, said:

As people said before, Blender BattleTech does this...

And to be honest. That would be HORRENDOUS for an online game. Its a fine distraction for about 15 minutes. But that is it. It gets very annoying when 75% of your shots just go wide because the system says so. There's no skill involved, just who would get a lock first.

It will make the game more unique and less common FPS. And will make the lame snipers much more susceptible to counter attack and make lame poptarting much harder to achieve. Also brawlers can have some face time.

Quote

It would also make every mech going over 120kph invulnerable.

At 800+ meters maybe but that will also mean Lights will not go extinct.

Edited by El Bandito, 09 May 2013 - 02:42 AM.

[Zylo]

Jammerben87, on 08 May 2013 - 02:07 AM, said:

I prefer what someone suggested, the longer you hold your reticle over the target, the better the weapon convergence.

As long as it doesn't involve any sort of randomness or cones, and I can still snap shot if I have to.

Maybe requiring an active target for weapons to converge is the answer. If you fire at that mech in the distance without targeting the weapons should all fire in a parallel path (no convergence point) meaning some shots may land but damage will be spread all over the mech. This would force mechs to either get close enough to target or give light mechs something else to do relaying target information to both snipers and LRM boats.

[Sam Slade]

Thundercles, on 01 May 2013 - 11:59 AM, said:

Interesting concept, not sure how it would pan out in practice though.

How would you keep lock on something at the same time as leading it, for example?

NARC just found it's place. Also th Darget Decay module would become mandatory

[Cyke]

Zylo, on 09 May 2013 - 02:53 AM, said:

Maybe requiring an active target for weapons to converge is the answer. If you fire at that mech in the distance without targeting the weapons should all fire in a parallel path (no convergence point) meaning some shots may land but damage will be spread all over the mech. This would force mechs to either get close enough to target or give light mechs something else to do relaying target information to both snipers and LRM boats.

That's an interesting idea.
So we attain a "convergence lock" the same way we currently attain missile locks.. makes sense.
And of course, even without a lock, we will still be perfectly able to fire and hit with direct-fire weapons.. just without convergence.

Here's an idea:
Maybe you get the convergence lock to kick in more quickly if you're nearer to the target.
And maybe light 'Mechs should only be able to relay targeting data (to speed up the lock for far away allies) if they're all part of a C3 network.
Possible implementation idea for C3!

[DocBach]

Cyke, on 09 May 2013 - 08:54 AM, said:

That's an interesting idea.
So we attain a "convergence lock" the same way we currently attain missile locks.. makes sense.
And of course, even without a lock, we will still be perfectly able to fire and hit with direct-fire weapons.. just without convergence.

Here's an idea:
Maybe you get the convergence lock to kick in more quickly if you're nearer to the target.
And maybe light 'Mechs should only be able to relay targeting data (to speed up the lock for far away allies) if they're all part of a C3 network.
Possible implementation idea for C3!

that's actually a great idea to implement C3. Itd be a huge rework of the system and I don't think we'll ever see it, but man would it be cool.

I envision the OP's system somewhat similarly. Step 1 is press R to lock on target, step two is put reticle on target for a moment for the reticule to tighten into a golden dot, then when you shoot your weapons get point of aim, point of impact accuracy. If you are shooting at an untargeted 'Mech your targeting computer does not recieve the targeting data necessary to plot the trajectory of convergence so your shots are less accurate. For funsies, lets let ECM still affect targeting so direct fire weapons aren't as accurate against ECM mechs and see if the people who said it was fine that ECM completely blocked missile weapons think ECM is still so balanced.

Edited by DocBach, 09 May 2013 - 09:47 AM.

[Taemien]

El Bandito, on 09 May 2013 - 02:41 AM, said:

It will make the game more unique and less common FPS. And will make the lame snipers much more susceptible to counter attack and make lame poptarting much harder to achieve. Also brawlers can have some face time.



At 800+ meters maybe but that will also mean Lights will not go extinct.

Unique, maybe. But then again everyone hates LRMs because of their 'no-skill' lockon. This turns every weapon into that. While its unique, its also incredibly boring. Its also not what MechWarrior is. You might want to look into MechCommander if you wish something like this.

And lights aren't extinct, neither are mediums. Just poor light/medium pilots are going extinct. Just as the players who can't deal with snipers.

If you all feel it will be that much better, get up with the creator of the Blender BattleTech program and see about making an online version. Surely if its good enough it will be able to compete. MWLL had more players than MW4 when it went F2P for that short bit. So an indie group can definitely compete. And you all claim that PGI has no idea what its doing, so this should be a piece of cake.

Once we see who plays what, then we can say which is better.