141 replies to this topic

[Pht]

Asmudius Heng, on 01 May 2013 - 04:17 PM, said:

Yes, i agree, some element of randomness is acceptable in a game like this as long as that randomness can be negated by skill, careul aiming and piloting etc. Waiting for a lock to gain greater convergeance is a fine idea to me. Different weapons might need different lock speed as well so brawling weapns can be snap shot more and snipers at long range need to be more careful.

Using the baseline that the novels use/used for a baseline would indeed reward skill.

The skill would be knowing how well your 'Mech could handle it's weapons.

Quote

However it will never happen. PGI have flatly stated they do not like any randomness in thier game at all ever even though it would be a much better addition to the game because it is controlled and requires skill to negate. Either it is too hard for them to add in now, or they never even considered it which would be a damned shame.

It is part of the lore, the IP they are using, it is also key mechanic from the mathematical balance of the TT game that if removed breaks the system when they implement all the other parts.

Anyway - its a dead topic PGI will never do it much to thier discredit,

Sad to say I have to agree with you that PGI dropped the ball very badly here and that given the only evidence we have, thier past comments on the topic, that they are going to be obstinate and not make a MW game that actually simulates the battlemech's combat performance with their (the mechs) weapons.

[Pht]

cjmurphy87, on 07 May 2013 - 05:27 AM, said:

One thing the devs haven't adequately addressed is there are plenty of NON RANDOM methods to spread damage. Perfectly repeatable, consistent methods that can be compensated for by skill and planning. This raises the skill threshold of the game, not lowers it like truly random based methods would.

This indicates a less than complete understanding of how the baseline system handles these percentages - there is nothing at all about the RNG mechanic used that means that human skill cannot control those percentages.

It's all about how the RNG is expressed - as uncontrollable nonsense (which the baseline system doesn't have) or as percentages, which can be controlled by controlling what you're doing with your 'mech when you want it to make the shot you're indicating for it.

Quote

Exception to the above: I wouldn't mind seeing different weapons having different inherent accuracy using a tight "cone of fire" method. With the potential introduction of "varients" or different manuafactures/models of weapons I think this could be an interesting and realistic dynamic. Obviously lasers would have extremely high inherent accuracy.

There's no need for a COF to individualize the weapons. They already have a math mechanic of "to hit" attached to them: http://mwomercs.com/...different-idea/

Edited by Pht, 19 May 2013 - 12:00 PM.

[Pht]

DuoAngel, on 07 May 2013 - 02:38 PM, said:

Can't say what would feel lights about hard locked gausses on them. Yet I support idea, ever since shortening range for sniper play will be also in favour of brawler game.

Do it like the parent system does it and the "hard lock" doesn't mean insta-death for lights - hard lock doesn't mean anything more than "it will hit somewhere on the targeted mech" - in the novels and in the rest of the lore, you don't get to pick your part of a MOBILE targeted 'mech without some extreme hardware tradeoffs and the use of a LOT of skill with the reticule AND a lot of skill in putting your 'mech in a good set of circumstances to make said shot.

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.

This is already present. It's called "careful aim," from the advanced combat stuff in Tactical Operations.

[Pht]

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.

BattleMech weapons are not controlled by the neurohelmet:

RE: http://mwomercs.com/...y-an-education/

And search for "5 The Neurohelmet" minus the quotes.

Quote

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.

Amen.

[Pht]

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

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.

It's not "the system" that says so - it's the conditions that your mech is encoutering when you pull the triggers AND the 'mechs ultimate capabilities in weapons-handling that defines convergence; both things you can know quite easily AND control for.

If you want everything to hit, slow down, operate at medium range, and run cool.

Quote

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

It would also make every mech going over 120 kph have a REALLY hard time making shots.

[El Bandito]

Bump for more feedback.

[Screech]

I don't use any weapon that uses a lock-on in general and probably wouldn't in the future. So I hope they don't do it as it would just push me out of the game.

[DocBach]

an awesome idea that unfortunately will never see reality because "OMG HOW CAN I MISS SOMETHING! MY MOUSE WAS RIGHT OVER THAT GUY!"

[PEEFsmash]

Projectiles should go where you are pointing them.

[3rdworld]

Introducing RNG to reduce somethings effectiveness. No thanks.

You are basically reverting HSR.

[DocBach]

Screech, on 08 June 2013 - 08:58 AM, said:

I don't use any weapon that uses a lock-on in general and probably wouldn't in the future. So I hope they don't do it as it would just push me out of the game.

its not turning ballistics or energy into seeking weapons, for all intensive purposes the lock is obtaining proper convergence and tightening the accuracy of a weapon. Until the targeting computer gains a full lock, the shots fired at the target won't be offered pinpoint accuracy.

[S p a n i a r d]

El Bandito, on 01 May 2013 - 12:05 PM, said:

Yes, weapon convergence can also be implemented using this lock model. I am also just throwing out ideas here.
Only problem with the convergence model is that people will simply macro their chain-fire.

I think this model you presented from the novel IS weapon convergence. The time spent before acquiring a lock is the time the weapons on the mech's arms and torso(?) converge their aim/direction at the target. Because if they do not converge, then the weapons in the different parts of the mech will just fire forward, and all those shots will not "meet" at the intended target.

This is also the reason why there will be some sort of "error" at very long ranges. Because even just a 0.5 degree movement of the direction of the arm is greatly exagerrated at long range.

I'm a Mechwarrior player so i think ill vote yes since for me, the closer the realism to the Battletech Universe the better.

But if this model is ever implemented, most likely it will change the game drastically (i think even this is an
understatement). From a complex FPS this game will become more like a simulator.

Edited by S p a n i a r d, 08 June 2013 - 09:48 AM.

[Odins Fist]

Since when has MWO stuck to BT/TT/Mechwarrior lore. other than the awful idea of a timeline?

[Rebas Kradd]

Pht, on 19 May 2013 - 11:55 AM, said:

Sad to say I have to agree with you that PGI dropped the ball very badly here and that given the only evidence we have, thier past comments on the topic, that they are going to be obstinate and not make a MW game that actually simulates the battlemech's combat performance with their (the mechs) weapons.

You're surprised that they're not going to start all over and rebuild MWO from the ground up after a year of work? Especially having just announced launch in September? Can't say I blame them.

[S p a n i a r d]

Odins Fist, on 08 June 2013 - 09:46 AM, said:

Since when has MWO stuck to BT/TT/Mechwarrior lore. other than the awful idea of a timeline?

MWO = Mechwarrior Online?

For me your statement is confusing because Mechwarrior games are not stand alone games which then
created the Battletech lore. "Lets create a story about the Clans from Mechwarrior 2 that'd be cool".

Mechwarrior games are entertainment formed from the Battletech Universe. Someone who read the novels
(or maybe the authors themselves, i dont know) decided to create Mechwarrior games based on the lore.
The mech's appearance (in every novel there is a section which are just drawings of the mechs, hence my
utter disdain at the appearance of the Blackjack), the weapons, everything.

So, Mechwarrior is not some game that is "burdened" by being close to Battletech realism.
"What is this sh_t Battletech anyways? it makes the game complicated. It's just Sh_ttletech for me"

It is a "pathetic" attempt of creating Battletech realism itself.
"We are limited by (computer) technology but the best we can do to create a game from
those Battletech novels is this.."

Mechwarrior 1
Mechwarrior 2
Mechwarrior 3.. etc.

from the sh_ttest Mechwarrior game to the latest/best. So it just makes sense that the newer the
game / the better the technology, the game creators will try to achieve realism closest to
Battletech itself (im not sure with PGI tho). That's the natural direction.

Although i maintain that if they ever implement the model suggested by the OP, the game will really
change.

Edited by S p a n i a r d, 08 June 2013 - 10:16 AM.

[El Bandito]

3rdworld, on 08 June 2013 - 09:00 AM, said:

Introducing RNG to reduce somethings effectiveness. No thanks. You are basically reverting HSR.

Not at all. HSR will still be there. All of your hits will still register. You just need to make sure the shot is accurate. Don't know how did you come to this conclusion.

S p a n i a r d, on 08 June 2013 - 09:43 AM, said:

But if this model is ever implemented, most likely it will change the game drastically (i think even this is an understatement). From a complex FPS this game will become more like a simulator.

I never wanted MWO to be just another FPS shooter. I wanted it to be as close to a mech simulator. That's its selling point to me.

Edited by El Bandito, 08 June 2013 - 10:24 AM.

[Odins Fist]

S p a n i a r d, on 08 June 2013 - 10:07 AM, said:

MWO = Mechwarrior Online?

For me your statement is confusing

Mechwarrior games are entertainment formed from the Battletech Universe.

Confusing..?? From your reply I can see that..

Your statement - ("Mechwarrior games are entertainment formed from the Battletech Universe.")

No kidding, but lossely created from BT, which I had already mentioned.

"Since when has MWO stuck to BT/TT/Mechwarrior lore." <---- See the slashes..??

I understand your statement - ("It is a "pathetic" attempt of creating Battletech realism itself.")
That was pretty much my point to begin with.

Perhaps you misinterpret or assume, then assign meanings that aren't there.

Your statement - ("Mechwarrior games are not stand alone games which then created the Battletech lore")

F.Y.I., I know MechWarrior didn't create BattleTech, where the "F" did you come up with that..???

(Facepalm)

Edited by Odins Fist, 08 June 2013 - 10:33 AM.

[S p a n i a r d]

Odins Fist, on 08 June 2013 - 10:31 AM, said:

Confusing..?? From your reply I can see that..
Your statement - ("Mechwarrior games are entertainment formed from the Battletech Universe.")
No kidding, but lossely created from BT, which I had already mentioned.
"Since when has MWO stuck to BT/TT/Mechwarrior lore." <---- See the slashes..??
I understand your statement - ("It is a "pathetic" attempt of creating Battletech realism itself.")
That was pretty much my point to begin with.
Perhaps you misinterpret or assume, then assign meanings that aren't there.
Your statement - ("Mechwarrior games are not stand alone games which then created the Battletech lore")
F.Y.I., I know MechWarrior didn't create BattleTech, where the "F" did you come up with that..???
(Facepalm)

A simple misunderstanding then lol. I stand corrected.

Odins Fist, on 08 June 2013 - 09:46 AM, said:

Since when has MWO stuck to BT/TT/Mechwarrior lore. other than the awful idea of a timeline?

But, to return the favor,

(Facepalm)

[Odins Fist]

S p a n i a r d, on 08 June 2013 - 10:45 AM, said:

A simple misunderstanding then lol. I stand corrected.

But, to return the favor,

(Facepalm)

Touche, well played sir..

[East Indy]

Yeah, I don't know.

The point of loading up on heavy direct-fire weapons is to get around the developers' intent for blow-by-blow grinds. Everybody using this tactic aims at the center torso and tries to get a kill in a couple volleys. It's obvious.

Why not limit big weapons to two in a group, and give all such groups a short global cooldown? There isn't a single reason not to, other than contravening the spirit of the game.