198 replies to this topic

[Pht]

Dimento Graven, on 14 August 2013 - 04:24 PM, said:

Well when I've played we haven't used those rule sets, but even looking at THAT rule set the extended ranges ARE STILL SKEWED unreasonably.

In that rule set, the longest ranged IS weapon fires 36 hexes, or 1080 meters and that was the LB 2-X AC. Certainly NOT the 3xLong Range formula we see with ballistics in MWO now, or would have been 81 hexes on TT...

If MT rules were in place the farthest the ERPPC/gauss snipers could hope to hit you from was 840 meters.

So yeah, range is STILL skewed in MWO.

Extreme range:

Tactical Operations said:

Extreme Range

• Extreme Range starts 1 hex beyond long range and extends to a range equal to the weapon’s maximum medium range times 2. For example, extreme range for a medium laser extends from 10 to 12 hexes; the medium laser’s long range is 9 (9 + 1 = 10), and its maximum medium range is 6 (6 x 2 = 12). For Variable Range weapons, multiply the Long Range by 1.5 (round down). If a weapon does not have a Long Range, it cannot have an Extreme Range.
  
  
• Apply a +6 to-hit modifier to any weapon attacks against targets at extreme range.
  
  
• For any weapon that rolls on the Cluster Hits Table, apply a –2 modifier to the die roll result when rolling on the Cluster Hits Table (this is in addition to any other modifiers that may affect this die roll result). These modifiers never reduce a roll on the table below 2.
  
  
• Divide the Damage Value of any Pulse Weapon by 2, rounding down.
  
  
• Subtract 1 point of damage from any Direct-Fire Energy weapon or any weapon with the word “Gauss” in its name (except HAGs).
  
  
• Multiply the Damage Value of any Direct-Fire Ballistic (but not Gauss) weapons by .75 (rounding down).
  
  
• For Variable Damage weapons, use the long range Damage Value when determining the Extreme Range Damage Value.

Page 85, Tactical Operations : http://www.battlecor...roducts_id=2123

... funny. Seems pretty well saddled with downsides to me ... and this isn't all of them.

Edited by Pht, 14 August 2013 - 04:42 PM.

[Donnie Silveray]

Pht, on 14 August 2013 - 04:36 PM, said:

again, all that's needed is simple addition, a choice of 2 to 12, and a conditional yes-no database in the server (the db is probably already there in some form).

It could even be done with 1 or 2 real-time raytraces/casts per mech, IMO.

If only it were so simple, really. Not that the idea is terribly bad possibly (though I'd rather not have any form of randomness -if that's what you're suggesting- outside of reticle shake), but the devs likely can't do this until a good time later. Right now, technical hurdle or not, they are crunched down to get even the base features they have planned out. Pre-post release. I will agree of their problems if they fail to address some of this down the road but right now... I can't really expect anything but the base features in the short term.

[Joseph Mallan]

Mystere, on 14 August 2013 - 04:28 PM, said:

Ah, but my scheme allows me to shoot at 3 different targets at the same time. I bet you did not think of that.

Bah. You could do that all day on TT.

Pht, on 14 August 2013 - 04:36 PM, said:

I'm certianly not going to say that there's no skill in manipulating a controller and triggering it without upsetting the aim. There is.

There's certainly human choice factors involved in timing shots to hit what you want, in conjunction with the skill I just mentioned.

What there ISN'T - is any skill in considering how any given factors affect how your 'mech can handle it's part of the aiming equation. Because this factor simply IS NOT in the game in any meaningful form, outside of JJ shake and dual-reticules; which are SO much less than a good MW game would do.

Actually having the 'Mech part of the aiming equation in the game would make it ... far more fun, and rewarding.

I am sad that there is only one like I can give this!

[Nicholas Carlyle]

Wired, on 14 August 2013 - 04:41 PM, said:

Well here is a research topic to consider.

How did Mechwarrior 2 handle group firing weapons?
How did Mechwarrior 3 handle group firing weapons?
How did Mechwarrior 4 handle group firing weapons?
Did anyone else play EA's battletech game? How did it handle group firing weapons?

MW2 was never built to be a multi-player game.

MW3 was never built to be a multi-player game.

MW4 was never built to be a multi-player game.

They were all built as single player games with campaigns, and had haphazard multi-player thrown in.

The multi-player was never the main focus of the original game, and it was never polished or particularly good.

Not to mention none of those games decided to use CryEngine3 (which I feel is the number one biggest mistake PGI has made) and is hamstringing EVERYTHING at this point.

Edited by Nicholas Carlyle, 14 August 2013 - 04:47 PM.

[Pht]

Wired, on 14 August 2013 - 04:41 PM, said:

Well here is a research topic to consider.

How did Mechwarrior 2 handle group firing weapons?
How did Mechwarrior 3 handle group firing weapons?
How did Mechwarrior 4 handle group firing weapons?
Did anyone else play EA's battletech game? How did it handle group firing weapons?

MW 1 to MWO have all had pinpoint "perfect under the reticule" weapons damage for all direct-fire weapons of like velocity fired at the same time.

And this has always been wrong... and given the simplicity of implementing the combat mechanic that simulates the 'mechs part in the aiming equation ... probably possible since at least MW2. Maybe even in MW1, because it was single-player only. It's just simple math and conditonal data that most multi-player games have been collecting for a long time.

It's only a problem when developers make the mistake of thinking that both of the combat mechanics simulate murphy's law ("randomness") and pilot gunnery skill, and they get stuck inside of the box of "have to do it the FPS way."

[Joseph Mallan]

Nicholas Carlyle, on 14 August 2013 - 04:41 PM, said:

Yeah but keep in mind you are talking about a small really fast moving target, while you are theoretically in a larger mech that should have a hard time tracking it.

You are also using one of the most frustrating examples, because you chose a light mech.

Let me tell you what I see in my head.

Lights and Mediums mechs are your advanced forces. They are scouting and reporting, they might get into head to head fights with other lights and mediums attempting to secure the high ground or another position of importance.

They are also the forces that help spot targets for your LRM's and if the game was actually good they would be the premier mechs for doing things like finding the escort you need to kill for a mission. Or figuring out where that drop ship is that you need to stop from lifting off.

They might occasionally engage heavies or assaults, but only for passing shots before retreating.

Your heavier Mediums and Heavies will be your main "fighting force" when they show up they open up with their long range weapons until they can get into range to bring the full force of their mech into the battle. SRM's flying, lasers scalding armor, auto cannons bursting through the exposed innards.

These mechs can take a beating and keep on going, while waiting for the big guys to lumber over.

Eventually the few assaults you manage to have in your company make it to the main part of the fight. These mechs are the literally goliath's of the battle field. Taking and doling out major punishment once they get there. Taking out an assault mech is considered a feat in an of itself.

We don't have any of this? Instant convergence is one of the reasons behind it. But it's also a lack of dynamic missions, static drop points, maps are too small, god I could go on and on.

Right now it's just move as a blob, everyone shows up at once, and we all shoot out eachothers center torsos.

Yay.

Great game.

Theoretically, my Muscular Buttox! I do have a hella time tracking light Mechs, So when I do hit 'em, I want 'em Ded.

As to your vision...
...
...
Perfect

[Nicholas Carlyle]

Joseph Mallan, on 14 August 2013 - 04:48 PM, said:

Theoretically, my Muscular Buttox! I do have a hella time tracking light Mechs, So when I do hit 'em, I want 'em Ded.

As to your vision...
...
...
Perfect

And yet I will never see it come to fruition.

I can't even play the game anymore, 12v12 actually killed it for me.

I waited a full 3 weeks after 12v12 to patch. I didn't even play it with the broken FPS and such.

But mechs just melt...and everyone just stands together. It's just so mundane.

[Pht]

Donnie Silveray, on 14 August 2013 - 04:42 PM, said:

If only it were so simple, really. Not that the idea is terribly bad possibly (though I'd rather not have any form of randomness -if that's what you're suggesting- outside of reticle shake),

The stated requirements ARE just that simple. Those are ALL that the TT uses; with all of it's open-ended possibilities and reward for human skill.

The to-hit is a simple addition. I do mean simple - nothing even in the triple digits.

The hit-location is that simple; a choice between 2 and 12.

And a conditonal yes-no database.

"randomness" - What I'm suggesting is that the Battlemech part of the aiming equation be put into the game for the first time; and to that end you look at the rules and the lore that clarifies those rules ... rules and lore which discuss the MECH's part... and put those into the game.

You know, running hot = mech has a harder time with it's part of the aiming - moving really fast shooting at a target at long range - a harder thing for your 'mech to overcome.

All things that are under player control - All the while STILL requiring 100% of the skill used to manipulate the reticule and trigger your weapons.

http://mwomercs.com/...different-idea/

Quote

but the devs likely can't do this until a good time later. Right now, technical hurdle or not, they are crunched down to get even the base features they have planned out. Pre-post release. I will agree of their problems if they fail to address some of this down the road but right now... I can't really expect anything but the base features in the short term.

I've waited since 1999. I can wait a little longer ... it seems I WILL have to wait longer.

I just wish the DEVs would "get it" that this 'mech part of the aiming equation is there in the lore(THIS IS NOT JUST MY OPINION), would help them solve their problems... and SHOULD be in the game. It would mean more fun, more depth, more replayability.

Edited by Pht, 14 August 2013 - 04:55 PM.

[Joseph Mallan]

You should have seen the Scouts Murphy's has.

Remember these are present and retired Military. The scouts would give us information down to the color of your cooling vest of every member on your team! Then they would TAG one of you till we rained on your parade so our Brawlers could come in and finish what you started. Rinse, wash, repeat.

Good times, Good Times.

[Dimento Graven]

Pht, on 14 August 2013 - 04:42 PM, said:

Extreme range:

Page 85, Tactical Operations : http://www.battlecor...roducts_id=2123

... funny. Seems pretty well saddled with downsides to me ... and this isn't all of them.

Here's the table I'm getting my latest numbers from (copied from Maximum Tech (Revised), BattleTech Catalog 1700):

[Wired]

Nicholas Carlyle, on 14 August 2013 - 04:45 PM, said:

stuff

People still mostly played these games for multiplayer, so it is worth going back to look at what was done and why convergence wasnt something complained about until recently, or if it WAS actually complained about.

Edited by Wired, 14 August 2013 - 05:05 PM.

[Wired]

Pht, on 14 August 2013 - 04:46 PM, said:

MW 1 to MWO have all had pinpoint "perfect under the reticule" weapons damage for all direct-fire weapons of like velocity fired at the same time.

And this has always been wrong... and given the simplicity of implementing the combat mechanic that simulates the 'mechs part in the aiming equation ... probably possible since at least MW2. Maybe even in MW1, because it was single-player only. It's just simple math and conditonal data that most multi-player games have been collecting for a long time.

It's only a problem when developers make the mistake of thinking that both of the combat mechanics simulate murphy's law ("randomness") and pilot gunnery skill, and they get stuck inside of the box of "have to do it the FPS way."

Well, it seemed to work well enough in those games. Then again, the levels were never big open fields, and despite the popularity of gauss weapons and ppcs in this environment the prefered build in mw2 for competitive play was mplas and lrms. Then again we had horrible netcode to deal with, so that might of been the balancing factor there.

Edited by Wired, 14 August 2013 - 05:01 PM.

[Pht]

Dimento Graven, on 14 August 2013 - 04:56 PM, said:

Here's the table I'm getting my latest numbers from (copied from Maximum Tech (Revised), BattleTech Catalog 1700):

yeah. I have a copy of maxtech myself.

I seem to recall that the new core rules books have the weapons statted almost 100% the same - I think the real functional change is that the advanced targeting computer doesn't work as well with pulse laser weapons. Don't have that off the top of my head, just recall it foggily.

Having used extreme range in Megamek quite a bit (which is basically the TT, using the new core rules) ... it's pretty well balanced, until you get down to OBSCENELY low GSR numbers. Even than, you can still move in such a way as to make your to-hit 7 or above in most mediums/lights and some of the faster heavies.

Wired, on 14 August 2013 - 05:01 PM, said:

Well, it seemed to work well enough in those games. Then again, the levels were never big open fields, and despite the popularity of gauss weapons and ppcs in this environment the prefered build in mw2 for competitive play was mplas and lrms.

I depends on what your standard is for "worked" - if you mean simply that it did weapons fire, sure, it did.

However, it didn't and doesn't even come remotely close to simulating the 'mech's part of the aiming cores as the lore has it - which limits the game into a one-tactic fest of put the most damage into the softest part of the target the quickest. which obviously means less fun, if you enjoy doing more than one tactic; or seeing one tactic less than 90% of the time.

[Joseph Mallan]

Dimento Graven, on 14 August 2013 - 04:56 PM, said:

Here's the table I'm getting my latest numbers from (copied from Maximum Tech (Revised), BattleTech Catalog 1700):

Have you compared that to the Advanced rules in the new core rule books? Most of that will ave transferred over with some minor changes maybe.

[Corwin Vickers]

Why not just add craploads of bouncing from movement? I think these mechs move entirely too smoothly for multi ton walking robots.

Then it's not a luck issue but a skill issue on whether or not you're going to hit the location you are aiming at.

Of course if it's too hard to hit the lower skilled aimers will get peeved.

[Joseph Mallan]

Corwin Vickers, on 14 August 2013 - 05:04 PM, said:

Why not just add craploads of bouncing from movement? I think these mechs move entirely too smoothly for multi ton walking robots.

Then it's not a luck issue but a skill issue on whether or not you're going to hit the location you are aiming at.

Of course if it's too hard to hit the lower skilled aimers will get peeved.

From my travels in an AmTrack:

I cannot disagree with you

[Dimento Graven]

Joseph Mallan, on 14 August 2013 - 05:04 PM, said:

Have you compared that to the Advanced rules in the new core rule books? Most of that will ave transferred over with some minor changes maybe.

The "real" question I have is of the various rule sets, WHICH hex size are they using?

It actually changes depending on which rule set you're using:

Classic BT - 30m/hex
Solaris VII - 7.5m/hex
BattleForce - 180m/hex

And other sets (AeroTech) used other measurements as well..

Skimming through the various rule sets quoted I didn't see anything that specifies it, but I could easily be missing it...

[Pht]

Pinpoint fire to rule them all,

Pinpoint fire to find them,

Pinpoint fire to bring them all and in the one-dimensional gameplay bind them

In the land of ct-coring and legging, where the boredom lies.

[Pht]

Dimento Graven, on 14 August 2013 - 05:09 PM, said:

The "real" question I have is of the various rule sets, WHICH hex size are they using?

It actually changes depending on which rule set you're using:

Classic BT - 30m/hex
Solaris VII - 7.5m/hex
BattleForce - 180m/hex

And other sets (AeroTech) used other measurements as well..

Skimming through the various rule sets quoted I didn't see anything that specifies it, but I could easily be missing it...

The new core rules for BT still use the 30 meters per hex.

Solaris and hasn't be repubbed (as far as I know).

Haven't read the BF stuff. I should look into that. it's in the new core rules.

Aerotech has been integrated into the TT ruleset as a subsection of it.

1 space combat turn is 60 seconds and 1 space hex is 18 kilometers.

1 (TT) ground combat turn is 10 seconds and 1 ground hex is 30 meters.

[Joseph Mallan]

Pht, on 14 August 2013 - 05:13 PM, said:

The new core rules for BT still use the 30 meters per hex.

Solaris and hasn't be repubbed (as far as I know).

Haven't read the BF stuff. I should look into that. it's in the new core rules.

Aerotech has been integrated into the TT ruleset as a subsection of it.

1 space combat turn is 60 seconds and 1 space hex is 18 kilometers.

1 (TT) ground combat turn is 10 seconds and 1 ground hex is 30 meters.

Solaris was republished but with rules aligned with normal TT. 30M haxes.