172 replies to this topic

[Pht]

Suberoa Zinnerman, on 26 August 2013 - 09:17 AM, said:

I have no idea what you're claiming here, because unless things have changed in standard tabletop battletech in the past few years, you cannot selectively target what hit table you're going to use (punch vs kick vs normal) - it is entirely situational.

"Selectively target" is not the opposiite of "spray damage all over."

You've made the claim that damage spreads "ALL over."

It does not.

Quote

If you are firing at a mech standing in the open, your shots will spray all across the target.

They will not.

• There's a 13.89% or 5 out of 36 chance of hitting the right arm
  
• There's a 13.89% or 5 out of 36 chance of hitting the left arm
  
• There's a 11.11% or 1 out of 9 chance of hitting the right leg
  
• There's a 11.11% or 1 out of 9 chance of hitting the left leg
  
• There's a 13.89% or 5 out of 36 chance of hitting the right torso
  
• There's a 13.89% or 5 out of 36 chance of hitting the left torso
  
• There's a 16.67% or 1 out of 6 chance of hitting the center torso
  
• There's a 2.78% or 1 out of 36 chance of hitting the cockpit

This is a bell curve, not "spray all over" Most of your shots, when you are merely aiming for center of mass, hit the CT and side torsos and arms.


However, if you want to narrow your field of fire, you can do:

Called high:

• A 16.67% or 1 out of 6 chance of hitting the left arm
  
• A 16.67% or 1 out of 6 chance of hitting the right arm
  
• A 16.67% or 1 out of 6 chance of hitting the left torso
  
• A 16.67% or 1 out of 6 chance of hitting the center torso
  
• A 16.67% or 1 out of 6 chance of hitting the right torso
  
• A 16.67% or 1 out of 6 chance of hitting the cockpit

Called Low:

• A 33.34% or 2 out of 6 chance of hitting the right leg
  
• A 33.34% or 2 out of 6 chance of hitting the left leg
  
• A 16.67% or 1 out of 6 chance of hitting the right torso
  
• A 16.67% or 1 out of 6 chance of hitting the left torso

Also there is called left or called right.


And than there are aimed shots vs immobile targets, and aimed shots vs mobile targets using the advanced targeting computer hardware.

Quote

It spreads around the exact same amount. There are no rules - or didn't used to be, anyhow, I'm not up on all the optional rules - that you're more likely to hit a selected location up close, or that you're even allowed to aim for specifics parts at all barring certain circumstances (such as the use of a Clan targeting computer).

It does not spread the "exact same amount" - even by YOUR quote of the spread it doesn't - you did use differing numbers. Options to narrow the field of fire listed above.

Quote

You are conflating accuracy with precision.

I have not. If I have to, I can quote myself from elsewhere in these forums from a previous post to give an example contra.

Quote

To put this in context, the closest approximation of how Btech weapons work on the tabletop is the LBX - it fires shots in a cone which hit all across the target. But to get it to work like it does in tabletop, the cone of fire would have to adjust depending on how far away the enemy is.
Am I simply explaining this poorly?

Direct fire non-cluster ammo BT weapons are insanely accurate, as you have defined the term. Look at the to-hit modifiers on the individual weapons. Note that most of them are at zero. Even under the maxtech extreme range bracket rules, they are very accurate.

It's getting multiple weapons to all hit the same part that is what gives rise to spread damage with non-cluster direct fire weapons; and it's because of the Battlemech.

Quote

The cone here is your scatter. d is your mech (and the shots scattering across it)
To have your shots scatter by the same amount up close - position delta - your cone - your (im)precision - would need to expand hugely. You could be up close to an Atlas where he's filling a good chunk of your view and you press your trigger and your guns would shoot in all sorts of random directions to hit his shoulder, his leg, his torso, his other leg . . . while if you shot at the same Atlas out at 500 meters where he's just a little blob your guns would all shoot in pretty much the exact same direction - even if they're hitting his shoulder, his leg, his torso and his other leg.

You need not theorize what I may be proposing. I've put it in this thread: http://mwomercs.com/...different-idea/ The rules and the maths are all in the OP in that thread, so you can actually pick a situation and work it as I've proposed it. No need to guess.

"Random directions" - a bell curve is not random. most of the shots hit on or close to the highest hit percentages, in your example, aiming for mere center of mass.

At 500 meters you get the exact same bell curve, when aiming center of mass, btw. The hit-table is the same. You don't have 1/10th the accuracy/precision (whichever term you want to use) at closer range. You have the same spread across the target. However, at closer range FAR more of your weapons are going to hit than at longer range.

Quote

I am using the core battletech rules without any optional/higher level rules. Now maybe there's some rules that let you nudge your rolled location up or down, but those aren't in the basic rules (Total War) which are what I've been looking at.

The core rules only form the basic basis for the conversion to the MW format. The advanced rules that "fill in" the combat system should also be used - they fill in gaps and cause things to make more sense. Most people don't use them in the BG implementation because they make the games run a lot longer.

Quote

Thank you for missing the point entirely.

I could only work with the language you posted.

Quote

You're aiming a reticle that your guns are slaved to. You're not picking up dice and rolling them to see what happens. The dice are an abstraction. Pointing a reticle is not.

... and those guns that are "slaved" to the reticule are physically aligned by the battlemech. It is also the battlemech that does the calculations in software of what points to physically align those weapons to in order to get them to hit what you're aiming at with the reticule.

Battlemechs in the BT setting are not capable of doing their part as MWO and the previous MW video games have portrayed them.

Edited by Pht, 30 August 2013 - 09:42 AM.

[Pht]

Almond Brown, on 26 August 2013 - 09:48 AM, said:

A tad mellow dramatic don't you think?

Absolutely not.

I want a game that is, by definition of it's very name, ABOUT doing combat in battlemechs as they exist in that setting ... to have battlemechs that do combat like they do in that setting.

Quote

What will be required to have a true system where the machine factor is used and accepted by those playing the game would be Neuro linked Helmets. Until they become a reality, folks have to see and what they can target, is what they get to hit. The closer the ranges, the better the specific panel selection gets.

No. The neruohelmet is not needed for this. It does not even do this stuff in the setting.

At this link: http://mwomercs.com/...y-an-education/

Do a page search for "5 The Neurohelmet" minus the quotes. It'll tell you exactly what the nerohelmets can do and can not do.

Almond Brown, on 26 August 2013 - 09:52 AM, said:

And I believe that is why another company is making MWTactics. A BT game that uses the Core Rules of rolled and hit shots as the TT game represents.

I've not argued we should have MW Tactics in first person.

In fact, I've not seen ANYONE argue this.

WHO... are you referring to?

Quote

It would be so very frustrating firing a weapon on a seen target and not be sure it would go where it was aimed.

You mean like every time you use any weapon?

Or will you quibble over going "where it's aimed," thus exposing your standard to public view, so we can have a meaningful discussion?

Quote

As to the 4 Rifles and moving targets thought above. Is the unit carrying those 4 Rifles called a BattleMech or just a bipedal humanoid?

?

[OneEyed Jack]

Pht, on 30 August 2013 - 09:39 AM, said:

However, if you want to narrow your field of fire, you can do:

Called high:

• A 16.67% or 1 out of 6 chance of hitting the left arm
  
• A 16.67% or 1 out of 6 chance of hitting the right arm
  
• A 16.67% or 1 out of 6 chance of hitting the left torso
  
• A 16.67% or 1 out of 6 chance of hitting the center torso
  
• A 16.67% or 1 out of 6 chance of hitting the right torso
  
• A 16.67% or 1 out of 6 chance of hitting the cockpit

Called Low:

• A 33.34% or 2 out of 6 chance of hitting the right leg
  
• A 33.34% or 2 out of 6 chance of hitting the left leg
  
• A 16.67% or 1 out of 6 chance of hitting the right torso
  
• A 16.67% or 1 out of 6 chance of hitting the left torso

Also there is called left or called right.

Those are not standard BT rules.

[Pht]

OneEyed Jack, on 30 August 2013 - 11:27 AM, said:

Those are not standard BT rules.

So?

[Suberoa Zinnerman]

Pht, on 30 August 2013 - 09:39 AM, said:

"Selectively target" is not the opposiite of "spray damage all over."
You've made the claim that damage spreads "ALL over."
It does not.
They will not.
⦁ There's a 13.89% or 5 out of 36 chance of hitting the right arm
⦁ There's a 13.89% or 5 out of 36 chance of hitting the left arm
⦁ There's a 11.11% or 1 out of 9 chance of hitting the right leg
⦁ There's a 11.11% or 1 out of 9 chance of hitting the left leg
⦁ There's a 13.89% or 5 out of 36 chance of hitting the right torso
⦁ There's a 13.89% or 5 out of 36 chance of hitting the left torso
⦁ There's a 16.67% or 1 out of 6 chance of hitting the center torso
⦁ There's a 2.78% or 1 out of 36 chance of hitting the cockpit
This is a bell curve, not "spray all over" Most of your shots, when you are merely aiming for center of mass, hit the CT and side torsos and arms.

What sort of crazy world do you live in where randomly hitting all locations on a target is not spraying damage all over? Do you have problems with colloquial language?
"Most of your shots will hit the torsos and arms."
No ******* **** sherlock, that's most of the target!

Quote

It does not spread the "exact same amount" - even by YOUR quote of the spread it doesn't - you did use differing numbers. Options to narrow the field of fire listed above.

Yes, they spread by the exact same amount. Because they use the same hit table.
A shot at 1 hex has the exact same (un)likelyhood of striking the CT than a shot at 20 hexes, despite the fact that the CT of a mech at 1 hex will present a bigger target than an entire mech at 20 hexes.

Quote

I have not. If I have to, I can quote myself from elsewhere in these forums from a previous post to give an example contra.
Direct fire non-cluster ammo BT weapons are insanely accurate, as you have defined the term. Look at the to-hit modifiers on the individual weapons. Note that most of them are at zero. Even under the maxtech extreme range bracket rules, they are very accurate.
It's getting multiple weapons to all hit the same part that is what gives rise to spread damage with non-cluster direct fire weapons; and it's because of the Battlemech.

And this is what I'm objecting to, in that when put in perspective of a first person real time cockpit view instead of an omniscient map view, having weapon strikes spray all over inexplicably is bunk.

Quote

You need not theorize what I may be proposing. I've put it in this thread: http://mwomercs.com/...different-idea/ The rules and the maths are all in the OP in that thread, so you can actually pick a situation and work it as I've proposed it. No need to guess.

To be entirely blunt, I'm not wading through 11,000 words to get to whatever point you're trying to make.

Quote

"Random directions" - a bell curve is not random. most of the shots hit on or close to the highest hit percentages, in your example, aiming for mere center of mass.

A bell curve is an expression of probabilities. You're saying this isn't random?
The result of any specific roll are entirely random. You can determine the probability of any given action, but just that - it's a probability.

Quote

At 500 meters you get the exact same bell curve, when aiming center of mass, btw. The hit-table is the same. You don't have 1/10th the accuracy/precision (whichever term you want to use) at closer range. You have the same spread across the target. However, at closer range FAR more of your weapons are going to hit than at longer range.

What you continue to misunderstand - probably because you seem to be more concerned with Btech purism than verisimilitude in a simulator environment - is that any set of shots that reliably hit all across our Atlas at 500 meters (because he is a small target) will reliably tear out the CT or whatever other thing you're aiming at when he's only 50 meters away.
If half your shots connect at 500 meters, at least half of them will easily strike the CT at 50, simply because the CT is so much bigger. This, however, is not what happens.
Angular measurments, how do they work.

Quote

The core rules only form the basic basis for the conversion to the MW format. The advanced rules that "fill in" the combat system should also be used - they fill in gaps and cause things to make more sense. Most people don't use them in the BG implementation because they make the games run a lot longer.
I could only work with the language you posted.

And where are these advanced rules?

Quote

... and those guns that are "slaved" to the reticule are physically aligned by the battlemech. It is also the battlemech that does the calculations in software of what points to physically align those weapons to in order to get them to hit what you're aiming at with the reticule.
Battlemechs in the BT setting are not capable of doing their part as MWO and the previous MW video games have portrayed them.

You, the player, are telling the guns where to point and when to shoot.
This whole tangent about how you're not actually aming them because you're not physically manhandling the guns onto target is irrelevant and stupid. Modern tank guns are aimed via scopes to which the actual gun is slaved to - are they not being aimed by the gunner then?

[Leafia Barrett]

Tell me, what are your accuracy percentages? I'm guessing somewhere between 50-70% is the average for most people. Me, I'm a pretty bad shot, so other than lasers (sweeping still counts), I only have 20-40% accuracy, and even with lasers, only 60-70%. There's one thing that people don't seem to get when they talk about convergence. Theoretically, yes, you can drill the entirety of your shots into a target at any range that they'll reach. Key word theoretically. In practice? You don't always hit where you're aiming, only what your cursor is pointing at, and even that's not a given (lead times).

Now, this can vary from weapon to weapon, i.e. the PPC's projectile could maybe stand to be slowed down to make extreme range a little harder (again, lead times), but fact is, if someone lines up a good shot on me from across the map, then they deserve to hit, because it's not nearly as easy as everyone makes it out to be.

Nik Van Rhijn, on 25 August 2013 - 10:43 AM, said:

Pht I am afraid your wasting your time. People insist that if they can put a mouse cursor over a point that is where there shot(s\) should hit due to their "skill". Personally I'll believe it when someone posts a video of them firing 4 rifles simultaneously at a moving target at 500m, as everyone is so interested in RL comparisons.

Yes, skill. And before you accuse me of being a poptart sniper alpha whatever-the-f***, don't waste your time- I'm a light pilot, so the slower conversion would probably help me. A lot, in fact. Doesn't mean I can't see the difficulty of lining up a shot from long range.

Edited by Leafia Barrett, 30 August 2013 - 01:29 PM.

[Erebus Alpha]

Agreed with OP.

If anything, I think that the armor disparity should be narrowed from TT. Look at the huge disparity in armor values from TT. It's absolutely insane that assaults should have four to five times the armor of a light.

The game would be a thousand times more interesting if any single, unsupported player (even a medium or a really mean light) could go and blast an Atlas into slag in a matter of seconds. There's no reason a match should last more than 3 minutes or so. MWO already has LOLeasymode aiming and shooting, considering how huge and slow the targets are.

[Pht]

Suberoa Zinnerman, on 30 August 2013 - 12:22 PM, said:

What sort of crazy world do you live in where randomly hitting all locations on a target is not spraying damage all over? Do you have problems with colloquial language?
"Most of your shots will hit the torsos and arms."
No ******* **** sherlock, that's most of the target!

The crazy world where "randomly" + "hitting all" can validly mean "in a totally unpredictable pattern that makes no sense" - which is what your language appeared to mean.

Quote

Yes, they spread by the exact same amount. Because they use the same hit table.
A shot at 1 hex has the exact same (un)likelyhood of striking the CT than a shot at 20 hexes, despite the fact that the CT of a mech at 1 hex will present a bigger target than an entire mech at 20 hexes.

which is it? You've just contradicted yourself.

I posted:

"Again, it doesn't spread all over. It bell curves under the reticule; in relation to the conditions of the shot. There is nothing "nonsensical" about it."

I was clearly discussing the way the hit-location table spreads the damage;

To which you replied:

It spreads around the exact same amount. There are no rules - or didn't used to be, anyhow, I'm not up on all the optional rules -"

You stated in reply that the hit-table doesn't bell curve. "exact same amount" of spread = perfectly equal spread percentages on the hit-table.

Methinks that the dance card should be watched more carefully.

Quote

And this is what I'm objecting to, in that when put in perspective of a first person real time cockpit view instead of an omniscient map view, having weapon strikes spray all over inexplicably is bunk.

Again. They do NOT "inexplicably spray all over." Most shots concentrate under the reticule with a lowering of chance to hit the further away from the reticule you get.

The to-hit modifiers are the mechanic that models for RANGE differences in accuracy; this is clearly indicated by the to-hit modifiers for ... range.

The hit-location tables do NOT model for range - expecting them to do so is wrong.

Quote

To be entirely blunt, I'm not wading through 11,000 words to get to whatever point you're trying to make.

You only had to read 15 sentences/9 short paragraphs to "get whatever point." I put it right at the top. Besides which, you don't have to even read the whole thing. The math i referred to is in the third spoiler fold; and because you seem to know the basics of the combat system, that's a large chunk you don't even have to read.

Or I could just say "to be entirely blunt, your post is too long, I'm not going to read it, you're wrong" ...

Quote

A bell curve is an expression of probabilities. You're saying this isn't random?
The result of any specific roll are entirely random. You can determine the probability of any given action, but just that - it's a probability.

-----

What you continue to misunderstand - probably because you seem to be more concerned with Btech purism than verisimilitude in a simulator environment - is that any set of shots that reliably hit all across our Atlas at 500 meters (because he is a small target) will reliably tear out the CT or whatever other thing you're aiming at when he's only 50 meters away.
If half your shots connect at 500 meters, at least half of them will easily strike the CT at 50, simply because the CT is so much bigger. This, however, is not what happens.
Angular measurments, how do they work.

The language of your posts seemed to indicate that you didn't mean "probabilities" when you used the word random, but rather the meaning "utterly unpredictable in any way."

I probably should have asked you to define what you meant, but I'm getting tired of asking and having people tell me I'm only asking to try and divert the discussion.

If you simply mean probabilties - hit percentages based upon conditions occuring when you pull the trigger ... how is this objectionable?

----

Again, the "tear out the CT" effect is modeled by the TO HIT. At the longer range less of your weapons are going to hit. At closer range MORE are going to hit. Targets at closer range that are standing still will have virtually EVERY weapon hit them. Immobile targets will have their CTs cored out by an OBSCENE amount of weapons fire under the aimed-shot vs immobile targets rule.

Quote

And where are these advanced rules?

---

You, the player, are telling the guns where to point and when to shoot.
This whole tangent about how you're not actually aming them because you're not physically manhandling the guns onto target is irrelevant and stupid. Modern tank guns are aimed via scopes to which the actual gun is slaved to - are they not being aimed by the gunner then?

Tactical operations has virtually all of them... maxtech is very similar. The advanced hit-location rules are in the third spoiler fold in the thread I linked you to.

----

I didn't post that the pilot/player isn't taking part in the aiming.

I pointed out that it's pure nonsense to posit that the player is in direct physical control of the alignment of the weapons.

Your ducks are very out of order.

It's also wrong to conclude that it's the pilot/player that's doing the lead calculations for all of the weapons in order to make them converge at any given point for any given range when the setting quite clearly says that the 'Mechs do this calculation.

Clarifying what part of the overall aiming that the pilot and the 'mech does is not saying that the pilot doesn't have any part in the aiming.

[MustrumRidcully]

Leafia Barrett, on 30 August 2013 - 12:50 PM, said:

Tell me, what are your accuracy percentages? I'm guessing somewhere between 50-70% is the average for most people. Me, I'm a pretty bad shot, so other than lasers (sweeping still counts), I only have 20-40% accuracy, and even with lasers, only 60-70%. There's one thing that people don't seem to get when they talk about convergence. Theoretically, yes, you can drill the entirety of your shots into a target at any range that they'll reach. Key word theoretically. In practice? You don't always hit where you're aiming, only what your cursor is pointing at, and even that's not a given (lead times).

It is basically just an "offset" of 100 %. You still benefit from convergence even if you're not 100 % accurate.

Yeah, if you miss, you miss completely with an alpha. But on average, you waste just as many shots if you'd fire in chain-fire mode.
Except perhaps... in chain-fire mode you are more under pressure, you have less time to aim, so you probably hit a bit less.

In addition, not all "misses" are complete misses. If you aim for the CT but instead hit the RT, that's suboptimal, of course, but if you land all your damage in that spot, that means the RT is now a valuable target - you already lost your chance to core the enemy quickly, now it might be okay for the disarm option instead and aim for the RT.

Statistically, all this might even out in the long run, but in a specific, individual combat, there is not that much evening out, since we're talking about 4-8 salvos to kill a typical mech, and so combat will be more swingy.

[Sakuroshin]

I dunno how it is for everyone else, but when i play either game mode, it just comes down to my team and the enemy team wanting to smash together and see whats left at the end. Kinda removes the need for light mechs. A better solution would be to give some sort of objective award that is worth a pilots time. Spotting bonuses kinda help, but you only get them from long range missiles. Right now as a light I can coordinate the entire enemy teams positions and get my team to flank in from the side, but if nobody shot lrms at my target then it was just a waist of my time.
Also generally if I can spot a target for lrms then I'm being shot at by enemy lrms.(with my no ecm jenner).

I dunno how it is for everyone else, but when i play either game mode, it just comes down to my team and the enemy team wanting to smash together and see whats left at the end. Kinda removes the need for light mechs. A better solution would be to give some sort of objective award that is worth a pilots time. Spotting bonuses kinda help, but you only get them from long range missiles. Right now as a light I can coordinate the entire enemy teams positions and get my team to flank in from the side, but if nobody shot lrms at my target then it was just a waist of my time.
Also generally if I can spot a target for lrms then I'm being shot at by enemy lrms.(with my no ecm jenner).

I dunno how it is for everyone else, but when i play either game mode, it just comes down to my team and the enemy team wanting to smash together and see whats left at the end. Kinda removes the need for light mechs. A better solution would be to give some sort of objective award that is worth a pilots time. Spotting bonuses kinda help, but you only get them from long range missiles. Right now as a light I can coordinate the entire enemy teams positions and get my team to flank in from the side, but if nobody shot lrms at my target then it was just a waist of my time.
Also generally if I can spot a target for lrms then I'm being shot at by enemy lrms.(with my no ecm jenner).

[Aym]

Thomas Dziegielewski, on 25 August 2013 - 02:11 PM, said:

Feels like internal HP should be doubled instead. Then more gameplay would emerge from having modules disabled/destroyed when internals are crit.

How hard would it be to start testing this with the PTS? Also how hard would it be to implement armor for areas that wasn't all doubled from TT... for instance slightly more durable on CT's, to make it a more viable strategy to target arms/side torsos (ie disable weapon systems).

[Tesunie]

Aym, on 09 September 2013 - 06:28 AM, said:

How hard would it be to start testing this with the PTS? Also how hard would it be to implement armor for areas that wasn't all doubled from TT... for instance slightly more durable on CT's, to make it a more viable strategy to target arms/side torsos (ie disable weapon systems).

One problem with this idea, anything that gets tested on the public test servers, even if it's a "how would this change look like" would be perceived as a change soon to be implemented onto the real game. If people didn't like it, then the forums would be flooded with complaints. Even if PGI made a HUGE announcement about it being a test to see how well it might work.

Though, I see it as we are here to test the game, so let us test it. But some players even complain about the game being in beta and how it should be bug free already.