141 replies to this topic

[DocBach]

The lock on doesn't make direct fire weapons hit guaranteed, it makes your accuracy increased against it.

ie without a lockon your weapons can hit within a cone, the cone tightens to perfect accuracy as a lock is achieved

[Cyke]

Taemian, the thread has moved past the initial suggestion. Check out my post on page 2, let me know what you think.
Perhaps I need to start new threads more frequently..


On a completely different note, I agree with you about LRMs. They need to be changed so using them needs more skill. If and when that happens, then ECM won't need to block them.

[Taemien]

Cyke, on 09 May 2013 - 12:49 PM, said:

Taemian, the thread has moved past the initial suggestion. Check out my post on page 2, let me know what you think.
Perhaps I need to start new threads more frequently..

I have mixed feelings about convergence. In fact I think convergence should just be locked to infinity(horizon) regardless of what you're targeting. Meaning lasers will always hit what you're pointing at (it will be trying to fire through the target). And same thing for ballistics as long as the target hasn't moved since the trigger was pulled (requiring leading). And since it never changes, you can fire more consistently rather than trying to guess.

This allows them to play around with projectile speeds. Right now weapons fire projectiles are speeds that convergence means very little. This was sort of needed because of how it works.

But here's what I would change so Throttle, Jumping, and Heat can affect your aim. An unstable firing platform. You all have probably played a FPS where you can use a sniper rifle. Most of them have sway in the aim. This could be introduced here. All factors stack. When walking it sways a little. Running (67-100% throttle). Heat progressively makes it more so. If you're overheating, jumping, and running, good luck landing a shot... BUT it would still be possible by pro players.

Pinpoint would decrease the severity of these factors by 10-15%. They would still stack, but each would be affected by the efficiency. Targeting computer could reduce it by 10-15% more and highlight a component you select for aimed shots.

What I like about this the most is you have to play smartly and conservatively to get prime shots off. Play aggressively and you have to get closer to make sure the hits land. This provides a choice to a player. "Do I get closer and do more DPS?" or "Do I stay back and deal less at longer ranges?"

High Alpha configs will be accurate on their first shot. God help them if they miss however and start getting heat. Thats when more aggressive players can pounce in on them. This would make chain firing more desirable as they would want to manage the heat below 50% rather than 100% so they can land all their shots.

Quote

On a completely different note, I agree with you about LRMs. They need to be changed so using them needs more skill. If and when that happens, then ECM won't need to block them.

ECM doesn't need to be changed. Here's what I would do with LRMs specifically.

If you have Line of Sight. Placing the reticle over a target initiates a lock. This happens regardless if you can target the opponent with 'R' or not. Even if they are under ECM. This makes it a little harder to get a lock, but your more likely to get a lock on targets since range and ecm won't hinder you. ECM blocks Artemis IV FCS tight groups that pass through it.

If you do not have line of sight then you need to lock LRMs like you do now. ECM prevents this unless the target is TAG'd. Narc also lets you target them unless ECM is present. No Artemis, and I would actually give the spread a penalty when doing such indirect fire.

After those changes go in, balance damage to make them a threat, without being OP.

Same thing with streaks, need to put reticle on target, no indirect fire ability. Adjust damage as needed.

For both missile types, make it so they home in on individual hardpoints based on launcher size. LRM 5 hits one with 5 missiles, LRM 20 hits 4 with 5 missiles a piece, and allow for some groups to target the same place. SSRMs do this for each missile.

[DocBach]

I could live with sway and LRMs locking without needing R to lock, but requiring R locking ie spotter maintaining visual lock for indirect fire

[Valrin]

I voted "worth it", however, I feel that there is one big problem with this: The fact that it will make it almost impossible to hit lights with slow moving projectiles (gauss, etc) because you will not be able to lead them far enough without losing the "hard-lock". I know you mentioned in one of your other posts that this would help prevent Lights from going extinct. I have to say, though, that I believe creating an artificial means to preserve Lights is probably not the way to go. Other than that I think this is a very sound idea.

[Asmudius Heng]

Valrin, on 09 May 2013 - 06:09 PM, said:

I voted "worth it", however, I feel that there is one big problem with this: The fact that it will make it almost impossible to hit lights with slow moving projectiles (gauss, etc) because you will not be able to lead them far enough without losing the "hard-lock". I know you mentioned in one of your other posts that this would help prevent Lights from going extinct. I have to say, though, that I believe creating an artificial means to preserve Lights is probably not the way to go. Other than that I think this is a very sound idea.

One thing to remember though is that if weapons become less accurate overall due to some changes then the damage of those weapons can be looked at.

It might be that damage can be raised in some instances so when that hit does land it causes serious grief to a light.

This might cause other issues against bigger targets but it really depends on how the accuracy is handled overall.

Also lights are too small in volume compared to all other mechs - they are artificially harder to hit right now. If they were a little bigger then they would not be so difficult to target which is another side fix to look at.

[Adrienne Vorton]

basically that says: re-enable convergence and give the reticule an indicator for the convergence status... i can live with that ^^

[Phalanx100bc]

Anything thats adds Battletech realism I'm for ( I voted yes duh).....

The cries of anyl penetration from the lowest common demoninator XBOX arcade crowd here would be epic.

Edited by Phalanx100bc, 10 May 2013 - 11:52 AM.

[-Muta-]

whats the point of changing er ppcs, what you need to change is your strategy. Get a team together and support each other with different efficiencies

[El Bandito]

Mutaroc, on 10 May 2013 - 10:07 AM, said:

whats the point of changing er ppcs, what you need to change is your strategy. Get a team together and support each other with different efficiencies

You do realize that vast majority of MWO players are solo droppers, right? They don't get to choose which mechs they will team with or whether their team will actually listen to him. This whole "teamwork beats everything" nonsense is getting old, to be honest.

Edited by El Bandito, 10 May 2013 - 07:28 PM.

[Gaan Cathal]

Mutaroc, on 10 May 2013 - 10:07 AM, said:

whats the point of changing er ppcs, what you need to change is your strategy. Get a team together and support each other with different efficiencies

Yeah. Four guys in a lance all with various combinations of PPCs and Gauss Rifles as their primary armament is really spreading those efficiencies out. Full of variety there.

Unless you mean like...two guys with PPCs/Gauss a scout and a medium blocker. That's called 'loosing to the all-gunline guys' currently. Which is different. Not what I'd call efficient though.

[Dusty Sandals]

A little late to the party... I believe that the convergence system is the way to go. Fire in parallel lines without locks and slowly converge to a point over time. Having the mech lead your target by hovering over it is debatable and I think we would have to see how that works as everyone is probably seeing it differently in their heads. I have one add-on though. The heavier/bigger a weapon is the longer it takes to lock. One's medium lasers won't need as much time to lock to a target as say a gauss rifle, and as long as your within that optimal range for the lay-zorz they should converge more quickly (inherently accurate energy anyone?) It should help lights against the onslaught of pinpoint alpha going on right about now and should buff the use of beam weapons against said lights. That is encouragement against boating. If you get thrashed by two lights because you didn't bring lasers it's your fault. It's just like how it's supposed to be in a perfect world. Now if we could implement it and get this awesome idea to work then I might pass out from the fan-boy squeals emitting from my lungs.

Debate all you want about ECM and stuff I already said all I wanted to in this post. Another post tomorrow maybe.

Edit for grammar and what-not

Cheers

Edited by Dusty Sandals, 19 May 2013 - 12:32 AM.

[Escef]

Because the problem is that sniping just isn't good enough, right?

[Cyke]

Escef, on 19 May 2013 - 01:28 AM, said:

Because the problem is that sniping just isn't good enough, right?

Your clever sarcasm burns and stings our hearts, but please pay attention.

The way the game works right now, a shooter instantly gets perfect convergence on a stationary target regardless of its range, in the blink of an eye.

The idea here requires an R-lock followed by a certain duration (depending on range) to obtain convergence. The idea would make sniping harder than it is now, requiring more forethought and coordination.
Do you disagree with this?

Edited by Cyke, 19 May 2013 - 05:21 AM.

[PanzerMagier]

I don't like where this is going... Trying to get a lock on with something I can just point and shoot? So what happens when I am swarmed and I need to hip fire at a lot of swarming lights? Do I then have to lock on individually to just fire at them? Will aiming then be completely removed? Rubbish idea. Will take too much time/resources to be implemented and then this game sounds like something that was ported from console.

*feels sick just reading the OP*

Edited by PanzerMagier, 19 May 2013 - 07:29 AM.

[C E Dwyer]

Pinpoint accuracy in a game that is supposed to be mech warrior is throwing away everything the genre is supposed to be, so any idea that will reduce this is going to get my support

[Prezimonto]

The idea (I think) is that the lock for direct fireweapons is the computer lining up your shots for that distance... So you can fire with some spread before the lock, or fire with no spread after the lock... This type of lock should be independent of ECM completely, as it would be internal to your mech, not a guidance system.

I'm generally okay with this. It would leave highly accurate fire in the game, but require that it take a little time to gain that level of precision... which would help pull LRM's back into the game since they not only need to gain a lock, but also need to hold the lock during a missile travel time.

Edited by Prezimonto, 19 May 2013 - 08:16 AM.

[NotEnoughDakkaDakka]

PanzerMagier, on 19 May 2013 - 07:28 AM, said:

I don't like where this is going... Trying to get a lock on with something I can just point and shoot? So what happens when I am swarmed and I need to hip fire at a lot of swarming lights? Do I then have to lock on individually to just fire at them? Will aiming then be completely removed? Rubbish idea. Will take too much time/resources to be implemented and then this game sounds like something that was ported from console.

*feels sick just reading the OP*

You missed the very first few lines of what he suggested; The lock-on for perfect convergence only applies after 400m (or 500-600). If you're getting swarmed by lights at 400+ meter distance, then they're doing it wrong. Lights are meant to get close to do a lot of damage, hence why their optimal weapons are medium lasers.

At 450m, the medium laser does about 2 damage. At 405m, it does 2.5 damage. Even if a Jenner is boating 6 of them, they are doing 12-15 damage tops, and that's with an alpha (going up 30-35% heat every time they do so).

Ravens can't touch you with SSRMs past 270m. Spiders might have a single ERPPC, which will have a CD of 4.0s after the nerf. Commandos... why do we need to bring this up?

The only weapon that will actually do damage to you at that range is a large laser, and they'll have to mount at least two to do reasonable damage.

TL;DR, lights are ineffective at range where you can't lock (don't forget, they can't lock either), and you can still pinpoint damage if they're within distance.

[Pht]

El Bandito, on 01 May 2013 - 11:45 AM, said:

Basically the parts I selected all talk about novel's characters trying to lock on to the enemy with direct fire weapons such as Rotary AC, Gauss Rifle, and Lasers. That's right, to make an accurate shot they need to wait for a solid lock using direct fire weapons. (not even guaranteed then).

To start, a small quibble over the language.

The MW isn't the one trying to lock onto the enemy - it's the 'Mech that's trying to get a good firing fix on what the MW is indicating to their 'mech.

Quote

Why not use the novel's idea of targeting in MWO to address pin-point shooting with direct fire weapons (non-missile) from 1000 meters away? With some tweaks?

Why not indeed... It would actually mean that the 'Mech's weapons handling abilities would be present in the game.

In fact, it's not even just the novels that bear this out:

TechManual, pg 42 said:

But BattleMech computers do handle an incredible amount of lower-level decision-making. The T&T system, for instance, sorts, processes and interprets sensor data for the MechWarrior, who only has to look at his screens or HUD to get a concise picture of the battlefield. When targeting, a MechWarrior merely uses a control stick to aim a crosshair on a display that shows the enemy. It is up to the BattleMech to actually aim the weapons with all the calculations that entails.

It is also mostly up to the BattleMech to compensate for the recoil of its autocannons or the blasts of hostile fire while moving in the direction a MechWarrior sets. Yes, a MechWarrior can correct the BattleMech on its balance, such as telling the BattleMech when to ride with the blasts rather than leaning against them, or when to throw itself off -balance and into another BattleMech, but a lot of the decision-making gets done by the DI computer.

http://www.battlecor...roducts_id=1876

... and yes, this TM source is authoritative on the topic *points down to quote*

Cray said:

Quote

For example, are the Tech Manual "fluff" descriptions of how a BattleMech's targeting and tracking system and diagnostic interface do the grunt work of aiming 'Mech weaponry something that novelists and other writers would have to adhere to? Or can such "fluff" be ignored at will by novelists to provide their versions of how BattleMech's perform and behave?

That fluff of Tech Manual would be adhered to by default. I can and have pointed out mistakes in control descriptions in BattleCorps stories and referred the author to the Tech Manual for the correct descriptions.

http://bg.battletech....html#msg591660

Cray, FYI, is the guy who pretty much gets paid to know and write up the stuff on how the 'Mechs perform in the lore. AKA, he's the "horse's mouth" here.

Quote

Suppose every mechs' targeting computer--being Inner Sphere junk--can only give you 100% accurate shots with ballistics and lasers/PPCs within 400 meters (actual distance is subject to change--it can be 500 or 600 depending on balance). To shoot accurately over 400 meters you will need to lock on to the enemy and hold your targeting reticule for 0.5-2 seconds (also subject to change) depending on how far the enemy is. Further away the enemy is, longer you will have to keep you cross hair over the enemy before it achieves hard lock.
Once a hard-lock is achieved, the cursor will change color and/or give you a warning sound (or have some different animation), and the direct fire weapon will hit the exact spot when fired.

You can still immediately fire (ie, without hard lock) any direct fire weapons if you choose to, but it will only hit targets accurately up to 400 meters. More than 400 meters and without a hard lock, the shot will not go straight forward, instead it will shoot at slight angle (the path of the shot is random within certain limit). How wide the shot will go will depend on the distance. For example, if the enemy is standing at 600 meters, your shot without hard lock will most likely still hit the enemy but might not hit the section you targeted. If the enemy is over 1000 meters your shot will probably completely miss him even if he is standing still, without hard lock.

We don't need to make these things up from whole cloth with the attendant problems of not knowing what sort of gameplay will result.

In short, we already know how well, in black and white math, a BTU battlemech can get it's weapons to converge on a mobile 'mech sized target in the lore... if you read at the link above where cray and herb have replied, it's stated that the novelists have had to keep the 'Mechs combat behavior in their novels within the overall guidelines of the parent gaming system (which actually came before the novels and established the way the 'Mechs behave).

Below is the cliff's notes version of the final and ulitmate ceiling on how well a BTU battlemech can get their weapons to converge "under the reticule" VS a mobile 'Mech sized target.


"front/rear" is for a shot to center of mass, left side is for left center of mass, right side is for right center of mass.



Shot from Above is for when a Mechwarrior is trying to aim for the neck/shoulders/cockpit area, shot from below is from aiming at legs, and notice, if you aim low or high, you can't hit the opposite end, so no, you can't aim at his foot and hit his cockpit - people who tell you this don't know what they're talking about.

... and yes, the hit-tables represent the MECH'S ability (NOT the Mech's pilot's gunnery skill) to get multiple independently aimed weapons aimed onto a single location versus a mobile 'Mech sized target:

Herb Beas BT Line Developer said:

As to Hit Location Tables, they are designed to approximate the basic targeting system's goal of aiming for center mass (which is why they weight the bell curve to the torsos), while both attacker and target are in motion on a chaotic battlefield filled with ambient electronic noise.

http://bg.battletech...j6gd6#msg676405

Above tables are from:

Total Warfare - http://www.battlecor...s=total+warfare

&

Tactical Operations - http://www.battlecor...roducts_id=2124

More detail here: http://mwomercs.com/...different-idea/

Quote

Biggest con--Introducing RNG, or luck in this game. Your shots might still hit the moving enemy at long distances even without lock depending on the random path of the shot. Or you might completely miss a target that is traveling around 600 meters without hard lock.

RNG does not equal "you HAVE to be lucky to win." If you looked at the "more detail here" link above, you'll quickly realize that the RNG math simply is a percentage representation of the BattleMech's ability to overcome any given situation and "make the shot" that it's pilot is indicating for it.

The FPS style mental skill in calculating lead (weapons convergence) is still present, but in different form. Instead of having to directly calculate it yourselfe, you have to know how well your 'Mech can "lead" (converge) it's weapons onto any given target in any given situation.

Or, in other words, you have to have skill at piloting and knowing your armored combat unit.

[Pht]

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?

The MW still has to mainpulate a reticule on his main HUD in order to target and track what he wants his 'mech to try and hit, but the mech actually calculates the lead math.

So you have to know how well your 'Mech can handle whatever is occuring as you're targeting and tracking something with the reticule.

Davers, on 01 May 2013 - 12:00 PM, said:

I am assuming ECM would disrupt the lock in the same manner it does LRMs/Streaks?

No, ECM can't jam enough of a 'mech's sensors to keep it from calculating a lock.

Edited by Pht, 19 May 2013 - 11:43 AM.