459 replies to this topic

[One Medic Army]

JP Josh, on 13 June 2013 - 07:39 PM, said:

and that is what makes a jehner deadly the ability to target one part. you make weapons spread dmg over a large earea and the mech wont be effective at all.

do you have any idea how long it takes for a jehner to destroy a single limb on a atlas pilot who knows what hes doing?

I generally blow out a torso in roughly 4-5 passes if the atlas is actually moving/shifting, so around 30 seconds?
If I get behind someone it's much faster.

[JP Josh]

Waking One, on 13 June 2013 - 07:40 PM, said:

And you could even introduce better targeting computers as per lore to help mitigate it.

Convergence is a huge issue in this game and needs addressing, atm mechs die too fast to feel like actual mechs.

like i suggested in another thread arm mounted weapons should be the only weapons that converge.

tourse mounted weapons should be hardset.

[Arcturious]

No no a thousand times no. This sort of solution is lazy and takes away from player control.

I'm not even a great shot, most of my weapon stats are around the 60% mark. I still don't want this in game, because when I do hit I want to know it was because I actually hit. When I miss, I learn how to get better. It's part of life.

This is like the stupid participation rewards they hand out for failure in schools these days.

"Oh, that shot was good enough! You got really close that time! A for effort! Here, let me randomise that a little for you so you might hit next time!"

Also, look at all the complaints across the forums about hit registration. Think about it for a minute. What if the current hit registration was actually just about the amount generated from a cone of fire? How the hell could we troubleshoot or even know if we're hitting or not. You would all be basically giving PGI a get out of jail free card on developing the game and fixing bugs. "Oh yeah, we see your shot didn't connect properly, but don't worry we're just testing the new Cone of Fire system guys"

Edited by Arcturious, 13 June 2013 - 07:48 PM.

[Sybreed]

Arcturious, on 13 June 2013 - 07:46 PM, said:

No no a thousand times no. This sort of solution is lazy and takes away from player control.

I'm not even a great ****, most of my weapon stats are around the 60% mark. I still don't want this in game, because when I do hit I want to know it was because I actually hit. When I miss, I learn how to get better. It's part of life.

This is like the stupid participation rewards they hand out for failure in schools these days.

"Oh, that shot was good enough! You got really close that time! A for effort! Here, let me randomise that a little for you so you might hit next time!"

Also, look at all the complaints across the forums about hit registration. Think about it for a minute. What if the current hit registration was actually just about the amount generated from a cone of fire? How the hell could we troubleshoot or even know if we're hitting or not. You would all be basically giving PGI a get out of jail free card on developing the game and fixing bugs. "Oh yeah, we see your shot didn't connect properly, but don't worry we're just testing the new Cone of Fire system guys"

the proposed system's purpose isn't to make you entirely miss your shots all the time, it's mostly a fix to convergence once and for all, without removing it completely.

[Asmudius Heng]

JP Josh, on 13 June 2013 - 07:39 PM, said:

and that is what makes a jehner deadly the ability to target one part. you make weapons spread dmg over a large earea and the mech wont be effective at all.

do you have any idea how long it takes for a jehner to destroy a single limb on a atlas pilot who knows what hes doing?

What gives the Jenner the right to be able to cripple assault mechs with impunity?

with a CoF system YOU will be much harder to hit extending your own survivability. If you pilot well and watch your movement and heat you will still be able to land more and more of your weapons on a single location - but its not going to be as quick and easy meaning your playstyle might need to change - but so will that atlases.

Just imaging yourself laughing when he foolishly alpha strikes at you and misses because he is not paying attention to his piloting while you are.

[Slashmckill]

YueFei, on 13 June 2013 - 07:42 PM, said:

You don't exactly need fancy targeting computers to hit stuff at 500 meters. Some optics and robotics kinematics equations slaved to those optics and you can hit whatever you're pointing at.

No, you don't need the best targeting computer to hit a target from 500m away, but that wasn't my point.

YueFei, on 13 June 2013 - 07:42 PM, said:

A better option than taking away a player's control over where his shots go is to simply force him to space out his shots in rapid succession. That alone will remove the ability to put massive pin-point damage into one spot with a single shot. If you are being targetted and you sit there and don't move, I think you deserve to get hit in the same spot every single time by a "skilled" shooter (not that it would take much skill to do that).

It's not truly taking away aim though it's closer to limiting convergence, your aim is still there it's just that it's not pin-point anymore unless you fufill certain conditions. (Since this game is so very slow it doesn't take much to hit the location you are aimming at anyway so i don't feel elite at all when i peg a jenner in the ct a few times with a erppc/ac10, because it's not all that hard to guess where he will be on my screen in the next couple seconds)

YueFei, on 13 June 2013 - 07:42 PM, said:

I also support having actual recoil on the weapons, so that when you fire your crosshairs get shoved up or to the side (the same way Mechwarrior 3 did it), and you have to manually drag the crosshairs back into the target for follow-up shots.

I support recoil mainly because i am reaching for anything that makes it feel more like i am driving an actual giant stompy robot than what we have.

Edited by Slashmckill, 13 June 2013 - 08:03 PM.

[JP Josh]

Asmudius Heng, on 13 June 2013 - 07:49 PM, said:

What gives the Jenner the right to be able to cripple assault mechs with impunity?

with a CoF system YOU will be much harder to hit extending your own survivability. If you pilot well and watch your movement and heat you will still be able to land more and more of your weapons on a single location - but its not going to be as quick and easy meaning your playstyle might need to change - but so will that atlases.

Just imaging yourself laughing when he foolishly alpha strikes at you and misses because he is not paying attention to his piloting while you are.

if you read my earlier posts i said my family operats together a single atals vs 2-4 other jehners isnt going to last long on his own but still while we are crippling him the rest of his team is heading tward the base. we have learned the hard way many times not to count the pug players for squat. and the way subby has it worded its the faster you go the less accreate your aim will be. the atlas is slower.

[Haruspex Pariah]

YueFei, on 13 June 2013 - 07:31 PM, said:

I don't support a cone of fire, but I do support a total loss of convergence when firing a stack of weapons simultaneously. Weapons fired in rapid succession would still be pin-point accurate. You can still twist and maneuver to spread damage, but if you sit there you'll eat every shot to the same spot. That makes it so that the spread-out damage in TT is actually due to mech pilots maneuvering and shifting, not due to horrible aim or lousy targeting computers. I'd also make the mechs *more* maneuverable across the board, with better acceleration, and a sharper contrast in turn rates based on current speed. Making mechs shiftier will also make it harder to focus damage onto a single component.

This is a viable alternative. So long as you can't dump 30 tons of weaponry into a single location with one click.

[Thuzel]

Sybreed, on 13 June 2013 - 05:43 PM, said:

that's basically what I would want too, thx for making it clearer for me

Also, said circle would be wider the faster you move, so a mech going at cruise speed instead of max speed would perhaps be in a better position to fire instantly if needed.

I fully support that idea. Not only does it make good piloting a more integral part of the game, it also gives lights a very small edge due to their rate of acceleration and deceleration.

[Asmudius Heng]

JP Josh, on 13 June 2013 - 07:56 PM, said:

if you read my earlier posts i said my family operats together a single atals vs 2-4 other jehners isnt going to last long on his own but still while we are crippling him the rest of his team is heading tward the base. we have learned the hard way many times not to count the pug players for squat. and the way subby has it worded its the faster you go the less accreate your aim will be. the atlas is slower.

A fair point - I believe what most people including myself mean by speed affecting your aim is that it is based on your throttle percentage not your overall speed.

So a full speed atlas no matter what his engine would suffer the same CoF penalty as a full speed Jenner no matter its engine.

There could be some deviation though, for example a Jenner might get a quicker increase to its CoF, but a quicker decrease, while an assault might suffer a more gradual expanding of its CoF but a slower shrinking. I dont know if they would be good or bad but the idea is that each weight class would have some of its own quirks and high speed mechs do not suffer because they are high speed - that speed will keep them alive and thier CoF might suffer but not more than that Atlas pushing its max 55kph

Hope that makes sense and that is what i assume most CoF proponents are advocating.

[SweetWarmIce]

Insead of a cone of fire I'd like convergence to take time like in closed beta. Doesn't have to be drastic 1-2 seconds would do. Just not the instant convergence we have now. In addition to an expanding reticule when jump jetting, falling and high heat levels. Impluse from ballistics could even affect it as well.

[JP Josh]

Asmudius Heng, on 13 June 2013 - 08:03 PM, said:

A fair point - I believe what most people including myself mean by speed affecting your aim is that it is based on your throttle percentage not your overall speed.

So a full speed atlas no matter what his engine would suffer the same CoF penalty as a full speed Jenner no matter its engine.

There could be some deviation though, for example a Jenner might get a quicker increase to its CoF, but a quicker decrease, while an assault might suffer a more gradual expanding of its CoF but a slower shrinking. I dont know if they would be good or bad but the idea is that each weight class would have some of its own quirks and high speed mechs do not suffer because they are high speed - that speed will keep them alive and thier CoF might suffer but not more than that Atlas pushing its max 55kph

Hope that makes sense and that is what i assume most CoF proponents are advocating.

eh i would understand this for arms on a ceturian so on and forth but the arm mounted weapons on a jehners,catipults,stalkers arms should really be hard set so they really are only affected by a up and down motion if anything.

i still dont like this idea.

Edited by JP Josh, 13 June 2013 - 08:10 PM.

[Levi Porphyrogenitus]

Something to keep in mind is that this would need to be a matter of small changes adding up.

Let's say you have a 3 PPC plus Gauss Highlander. He's stationary and cool. He'd have 0 deviation.

Now let's say that Highlander was moving at 100% throttle. He's now at 0.5m deviation (ie, spread of half a meter).

Now let's say that Highlander is also at around 50% heat. This limits his accuracy a bit (say, 0.05m per % over 25), dropping it by a further 1.25m, for a total of 1.75m spread (taking his 100% throttle into account).

Now let's say that Highlander uses its JJs, significantly reducing his accuracy (say, 0.5m spread per weight class of mech for 2.0m for an Assault). He jumped while at 50% heat and moving at 100% throttle and fired almost immediately upon liftoff (before his throttle decayed enough to matter). He's now at 3.75m of spread.

Now let's say that Highlander is firing at a target beyond the Optimum range of his weapons, but inside the Maximum range. This adds a further scaling modifier to weapon spread. The numbers for this mechanic would need a lot of work, but for now let's say that the target is midway through his extended range band, leading to an additional 1m spread. This puts him at a total of 4.75m of weapon hit deviation.

Given all the penalties he's under, and that he's basically shooting at the worst possible time, is it too much to consider that his cone of fire might have a 4.75 m diameter? That's enough that he would likely be forced to shoot center mass, and might well miss a smaller target, but something like an Awesome or Atlas will likely still get hit by most everything he throws at them (assuming he compensates correctly for the reticule shake and such from the JJs).

Without jumping, while running pretty hot and moving pretty fast and inside his weapons Optimal ranges, he's looking at a mere 1.75m diameter. That's enough that he won't be hitting the same location on most mechs, but he won't be missing outright, either.

Numbers like the above seem eminently reasonably and more than sufficient to achieve what we're looking to do, namely, limit the ability of high-alpha builds to put consistent, repeated pin-point damage into specific locations with every shot no matter what.

That Jenner moving at 100% throttle having a half-meter spread on his medium lasers will hardly notice it. If he's also pushing his heat envelope, though, it might be an issue, but that's as it should be.

[Asmudius Heng]

JP Josh, on 13 June 2013 - 08:08 PM, said:

eh i would understand this for arms on a ceturian so on and forth but the arm mounted weapons on a jehners,catipults,stalkers arms should really be hard set so they really are only affected by a up and down motion if anything.

i still dont like this idea.

Indeed it gets a little bit complicated when we have locked arms - the "Cone" for those weapons would be much more about up and down not side to side, however i think there needs to be some deviation to each side, just reduced because each weapon system can aim within its set hardpoint from what i understand of the lore.

It might seem complicated form Chassis to chassis but a good HUD design showing your deviations per weapon or weapon group could be made to simplify it.

And yes, we can agree to disagree - this isnt the only thing that the devs can do to help the game, but it is something that aligns the game to the rules of BT - not for the sake of nerddom, but because the entire system and balance is based around that and pinpoint aiming breaks many of the checks and balances.

Something need to be done that is consistent across all mechs to help encourage spread damage without killing the skill of piloting and gunnery. This is one idea i could live with - but i am more worried the devs do not think that it is a problem because it really is.

[One Medic Army]

Levi Porphyrogenitus, on 13 June 2013 - 08:27 PM, said:

Something to keep in mind is that this would need to be a matter of small changes adding up.

Let's say you have a 3 PPC plus Gauss Highlander. He's stationary and cool. He'd have 0 deviation.

Now let's say that Highlander was moving at 100% throttle. He's now at 0.5m deviation (ie, spread of half a meter).

Now let's say that Highlander is also at around 50% heat. This limits his accuracy a bit (say, 0.05m per % over 25), dropping it by a further 1.25m, for a total of 1.75m spread (taking his 100% throttle into account).

Now let's say that Highlander uses its JJs, significantly reducing his accuracy (say, 0.5m spread per weight class of mech for 2.0m for an Assault). He jumped while at 50% heat and moving at 100% throttle and fired almost immediately upon liftoff (before his throttle decayed enough to matter). He's now at 3.75m of spread.

Now let's say that Highlander is firing at a target beyond the Optimum range of his weapons, but inside the Maximum range. This adds a further scaling modifier to weapon spread. The numbers for this mechanic would need a lot of work, but for now let's say that the target is midway through his extended range band, leading to an additional 1m spread. This puts him at a total of 4.75m of weapon hit deviation.

Given all the penalties he's under, and that he's basically shooting at the worst possible time, is it too much to consider that his cone of fire might have a 4.75 m diameter? That's enough that he would likely be forced to shoot center mass, and might well miss a smaller target, but something like an Awesome or Atlas will likely still get hit by most everything he throws at them (assuming he compensates correctly for the reticule shake and such from the JJs).

Without jumping, while running pretty hot and moving pretty fast and inside his weapons Optimal ranges, he's looking at a mere 1.75m diameter. That's enough that he won't be hitting the same location on most mechs, but he won't be missing outright, either.

Numbers like the above seem eminently reasonably and more than sufficient to achieve what we're looking to do, namely, limit the ability of high-alpha builds to put consistent, repeated pin-point damage into specific locations with every shot no matter what.

That Jenner moving at 100% throttle having a half-meter spread on his medium lasers will hardly notice it. If he's also pushing his heat envelope, though, it might be an issue, but that's as it should be.

Right idea, but slightly off terminology.
Since we're dealing with a cone, we have angular deviation.
Linear deviation from the target point depends on range to the target point. A shot vs someone 150m away will have half the linear deviation as a shot vs someone 300m away.
So it already takes into account penalizing longer ranges, though if you want to penalize weapons with minimum range you'd need to add an actual deviation for it.

This is why every weapon needs a coefficient, a weapon with twice the range should have half the applied deviation.

Edited by One Medic Army, 13 June 2013 - 08:36 PM.

[Levi Porphyrogenitus]

One Medic Army, on 13 June 2013 - 08:34 PM, said:

Right idea, but slightly off terminology.
Since we're dealing with a cone, we have angular deviation.
Linear deviation from the target point depends on range to the target point. A shot vs someone 150m away will have half the linear deviation as a shot vs someone 300m away.
So it already takes into account penalizing longer ranges, though if you want to penalize weapons with minimum range you'd need to add an actual deviation for it.

This is why every weapon needs a coefficient, a weapon with twice the range should have half the applied deviation.

Yeah, I just wanted to throw some really fast numbers out there so people could get a bit better of an idea about how much actual accuracy deviation we're probably talking about for a system like this. It wouldn't have to be much to make a difference, without impacting the need to aim at specific parts of a mech.

For that matter, even extreme cases the need to precise aim remains, as a true center mass shot would be needed to maximize the likelihood of a hit at all (we're talking about extreme range at nearly maxed out heat to get that kind of negative modifier).

[Elyam]

Inaccuracy due to a deteriorated technology/science/knowledge base is one of the most embedded and important parts of Battletech. Mechs are supposed to have limited targeting, tracking and aiming. It's a key flavor of the universe making it unique. Any Battletech game needs to apply this or they may as well drop the property in favor of making their own. I've said all along...MWO does a nice job capturing much of BT. But it will never really own it without coming to grips with methods for including the dwindled-tech realities of this amazing universe.

While I'd rather see an exact translation of the TT To-hit and location rules (if the system determines you've scored a hit at time of firing, then randomized body location table is referenced), this will never be accepted in the online FPS climate, so a cone deviation is likely to be the best possible approach as many here suggest (and as I have for some time).

[DocBach]

Elyam, on 13 June 2013 - 08:51 PM, said:

While I'd rather see an exact translation of the TT To-hit and location rules (if the system determines you've scored a hit at time of firing, then randomized body location table is referenced), this will never be accepted in the online FPS climate, so a cone deviation is likely to be the best possible approach as many here suggest (and as I have for some time).

I wish this was way more MMORPGish, where XP could be translated to improve your piloting skill to make convergence tighter and faster, and the pilot "skills" had different trees and such to unlock rather than the bland mastering system we have currently.

[Slashmckill]

DocBach, on 13 June 2013 - 09:03 PM, said:

I wish this was way more MMORPGish, where XP could be translated to improve your piloting skill to make convergence tighter and faster, and the pilot "skills" had different trees and such to unlock rather than the bland mastering system we have currently.

I would so love to play that mechwarrior game.... Too bad it doesn't exist. Now i'am sad.

[Adrienne Vorton]

i use a gauss/ac2 combo together with streaks and mlasers as an "assault setup"..i am not a sniper, i am a linebreaker...

Edited by Adrienne Vorton, 13 June 2013 - 09:29 PM.