125 replies to this topic

[Mchawkeye]

Lots of threads about targeting. Which makes sense, as it's arguably one of the make or break aspects of the game; how well it does or doesn't do this will either make this game to easy, to hard, to frustrating or to boring.

I've made this thread specifically without the want of mention of cone of fire because I feel that ERet supporters tend to shout down conversations. Which is great: they are obviously passionate about it and I wouldn't want anything else, but I do want a place for people like my self who don't believe that cone of fire is a way to go.

So, assuming that the fire in the game is simulated accurately (at least as accurate as can be considering it's all made up) how do you propose weapon fire and targeting to be approached? I still think that most targeting issues should come from the movement of the mechs themselves, as well as other factors like ballistics curves and heat generation. I think some guns should be more accurate than others and I believe rapid fire weapons should have their own inherent inaccuracies due to recoil and such like.

People suggest that lasers, in this instance would be too powerful as they are too accurate, but I think increased heat and more detrimental side-effects of that would even-out the playing field. PPCs would require a lead to target as they are slower than lasers etc...

Any other options?

Edited by Mchawkeye, 11 November 2011 - 10:06 AM.

[Glare]

1) PPCs are indeed slower than light. By about 20%. Not even enough to be perceptibly slower on a field the size of the average battlefield. Or the average city. Or, hell, the average planet.

2) I know you don't want CoF in here, but it's really impossible to talk about targeting without it coming into the conversation. If a weapon is not 100% accurate, then the only other option is cone of fire. However, that doesn't necessarily mean "90 degree cone of fire with everything." Even in the real world, accuracy is measure in cone of fire. Ever heard the term "a(n) <x> inch/centimeter spread"? That's referring to the grouping of shots at whatever range the target was. It measures the distance between the two farthest apart shots to determine the edges of the cone of fire.

Logically, how else do you miss? If your reticle is pointed at the target, how can you possibly miss at all? Recoil, you say, but recoil is just a way to say "cone of fire" without actually saying it.

[Mchawkeye]

Sorry, I should readjust my definitions.

Cone of fire, as many want it represented, is an expanding/contracting circle of your reticule.

This is what I don't want to talk about.

Accurate representation of guns, their inaccuracies et al, absolutely.

[Barbaric Soul]

I wonder if it would be possible, to appease the people that want a cone of fire(I'm not one of those people mind you), that if you fire without being zoomed in, you would have the cone of fire affect, but if you do zoon in, you have the acuracy that is currently in MW4(pinpoint accuracy for all weapons)

Edited by Barbaric Soul, 11 November 2011 - 04:28 AM.

[VYCanis]

I agree with you Mchawkeye

I'm of the opinion that CoF is a heavy handed solution that would simply make mechs feel ridiculously goofy.
CoF works as a decent mechanic for hip shooting in FPS games simply by virtue of it being an unsupported weapon held by a human being. So when you are spraying and praying in your FPS of choice, it does not bump into the average person's suspension of disbelief.

however this breaks down when you suddenly have some 31st century combat vehicle that can barely hit the broadside of a barn, with a laser no less.
.
this is mechwarrior and we aren't driving human beings, we aren't hip shooting, all these weapons are hard mounted. We are controlling multi ton articulated turrets. Weapons are all supported here. Weapons should be firing fairly accurately, not spraying wildly. They aren't held on to mechs by bungee cords and duct tape (which honestly would be the only rational explanation for CoF at the short ranges that combat will be taking place). I mean, I love the tabletop, but i don't care that dice rolls mean that a Nova to discoball lasers every which where whenever it alphas, it would look silly as hell from a pilot's perspective.

That being said, if there is CoF it should be limited to ACs at extreme far ranges.

Beyond that, the real issue should not be making weapons so over the top inaccurate that you can't hit stuff, the real issue should be to make it where weapons are accurate, but your aim is difficult, weapon convergence while consistent and predictable, takes effort to achieve, and lastly that weapon damage by virtue of how it is dealt, is not easily concentrated. (laser damage spread over its duration, ACs spreading fire in their bursts....)

i.e. If you are driving a laser boat mech. what would make more sense to you?

A. Having to deal with sway, knock, momentum, and other interference as you struggle your crosshairs over a moving target, having your lasers trying to align to the bouncing crosshairs, shooting lasery death, and having the lasers track a mostly concentrated line of damage from their right leg up to their left arm. of the lasers that miss, it was due to the arm they were mounted in getting hit by a missile at the last second, fouling their aim by a few degrees

or

B. aim at the general direction of my target, my firing cone is still kinda wide, alpha lasers, they discoball everywhere like a laser blunderbuss, even ones that are mounted in the same location or are parallel.

Edited by VYCanis, 11 November 2011 - 04:41 AM.

[Glare]

[quote name='VYCanis]however this breaks down when you suddenly have some 31st century combat vehicle that can barely hit the broadside of a barn' date=' with a laser no less.[/quote']

While I agree with your post, I thought that I'd point out that this is exactly what happens when you put a Green MechWarrior (G5/P6) in a 'Mech with medium lasers and park it about 200 meters away from the barn.

[wolf74]

http://home.grandeco...es/image007.jpg
http://home.grandeco...es/image008.png

The 3rd option I had in my Weapon Convergence Thread in the General Chat, Was Manual Control or With Targeting Computers a Slow Range Convergence on the selected Target. See the Image above for having the Convergence at Range and not at Range.

Edited by wolf74, 11 November 2011 - 05:10 AM.

[Xhaleon]

Barbaric Soul, on 11 November 2011 - 04:27 AM, said:

I wonder if it would be possible, to appease the people that want a cone of fire(I'm not one of those people mind you), that if you fire without being zoomed in, you would have the cone of fire affect, but if you do zoon in, you have the acuracy that is currently in MW4(pinpoint accuracy for all weapons)

Uh, Barbaric Soul? That would turn MW from Mechwarrior into Modern Warfare.

*NO*

The only thing I've ever seen is suggestions to make the aiming more difficult, but never really go in-depth.

I understand that anti-CoF people want the game to hinge on displays of skill rather than the computer's whim, but CoF can introduce different kinds of skill instead. The game wouldn't let you reliably hit targets far away as dictated by the canon weapon ranges, therefore the skill here is getting into range and making those shots count, where the cone is so small that it is practically pinpoint accurate. You want a game more about skill at controlling your shooting, I want a game more focused on maneuvering into position and planned ambushes to compensate for inaccuracy that you have no control over.

[Creel]

accurate weapons fire is an inaccurate simulation.

[Tweaks]

Mchawkeye, on 11 November 2011 - 03:57 AM, said:

Sorry, I should readjust my definitions.

Cone of fire, as many want it represented, is an expanding/contracting circle of your reticule.

This is what I don't want to talk about.

Accurate representation of guns, their inaccuracies et al, absolutely.

You got it completely wrong. Cone of fire as others percieve it in the forum is exactly what Glare said. It's the cone shape that the shots MAY fall within depending on the weapon's accuracy. Whoever thinks otherwise is mixing up terms.

What you are referring to is reticle accuracy indicator, and it is nothing but a way for FPS type games to give a visual clue to the player as to when he can fire a steady and accurate shot. If you move while shoooting in a modern FPS game, the reticle will be larger, and if you prone and take your time to aim, it will become smaller. It's a representation to the human skill it takes to aim accurately in addition to the base accuracy (cone of fire) of the weapon.

In World of Tanks, each gun has an accuracy statistic, and an aim delay statistic (in seconds). It essentially corresponds to the time it would take the gunner to aim and place a good shot on a target at the desired location. The better the skill of the gunner and the more accurate the weapon is, the faster the circle concentrates.

In BattleTech however, all weapons are actually aimed by a computer which tries to shoot precisely at what your reticle is pointing, and accounts for slight movement. That means the human factor is out of the equation in terms of accuracy. However, each gun, depending on the type, calibre and placement on the 'Mech, will have a different accuracy factor (which is referred to cone of fire). This should be a hard statistic that is unaffected by the skill of the pilot. It could be affected by the skills of his Tech crew however (if such thing is implemented), which could tweak the gun for better accuracy.

So in short...

Reticle accuracy indicatopr (the crosshair that shrinks or enlarges): Yes, but only to represent the actual gun accuracy, and not the pilot's skill.

Cone of fire: Has to be there, no doubt about it, but it has to be a hard statistic that is unaffected by the pilot's skill (unless they implement Tech crew skills).

[Halfinax]

Why couldn't we have an adjustable convergence range much like modern tanks? In flight sims you typically have to hard set the convergence range of all your machine guns before take off, so why couldn't we have something like that? The difference being you can adjust it during the battle since most of the weapons are at least semi turreted. You could have a precision convergence (so mouse scroll wheel), and perhaps 3 default convergence hot keys (short: 60m, Medium: 180m, and long 240m). This brings skill in, but allows for spread if the target is inside or outside the convergence range.

[diana]

Since aim will be affected, I hope, by walking\receiving hits\flying up, landing accurate hits will be hard enough without randomizer, so, I think that energy weapons should have pinpoint accuracy, but they should fire straight forward, instead of beams on different body parts all converging on a single point. This way, an alpha strike won't be able to hit a single point, unless all weapons are placed in the same spot, and damage will be spread.

Ballistic weapons and missiles can have a cone of fire, preferably not randomized, but following a pattern.

[VYCanis]

allow me to give a visual example as to why CoF looks bad

http://imageshack.us...coneoffire.jpg/

cause that is exactly what it will look like if you have CoF in effect. I don't care if you just did a 1080' while firing jumpjets and an atlas is now shaking you like a loud baby. Your weapons should not be doing that ever.

[Creel]

VYCanis, on 11 November 2011 - 06:39 AM, said:

allow me to give a visual example as to why CoF looks bad

http://imageshack.us...coneoffire.jpg/

cause that is exactly what it will look like if you have CoF in effect. I don't care if you just did a 1080' while firing jumpjets and an atlas is now shaking you like a loud baby. Your weapons should not be doing that ever.

That looks about right.

edit: for a long range shot, anyway. tighten it up a bit at shorter ranges and they're all more likely to hit.

Edited by Creel, 11 November 2011 - 06:51 AM.

[VYCanis]

Creel, on 11 November 2011 - 06:49 AM, said:

That looks about right.

oh jeez

come on, it looks like your mech isn't even trying to aim. This isn't G.I. Joe. My Ac20 only has so much ammo, and i sure as hell don't want to waste it digging fox holes

Edited by VYCanis, 11 November 2011 - 06:56 AM.

[Creel]

VYCanis, on 11 November 2011 - 06:52 AM, said:

oh jeez

come on, it looks like your mech isn't even trying to aim. This isn't G.I. Joe. My Ac20 only has so much ammo, and i sure as hell don't want to waste it digging fox holes

then you'll have to get closer. AC 20s are knife range weapons. it's the only thing that balances out the power.

[Barbaric Soul]

Xhaleon, on 11 November 2011 - 05:16 AM, said:

Uh, Barbaric Soul? That would turn MW from Mechwarrior into Modern Warfare.

*NO*

The only thing I've ever seen is suggestions to make the aiming more difficult, but never really go in-depth.

I understand that anti-CoF people want the game to hinge on displays of skill rather than the computer's whim, but CoF can introduce different kinds of skill instead. The game wouldn't let you reliably hit targets far away as dictated by the canon weapon ranges, therefore the skill here is getting into range and making those shots count, where the cone is so small that it is practically pinpoint accurate. You want a game more about skill at controlling your shooting, I want a game more focused on maneuvering into position and planned ambushes to compensate for inaccuracy that you have no control over.

How? You act like CoD is the only game with this in it.

I'll be perfectly honest with you, I DON'T want a mech game that every battle ends up being nothing but a furball. That will get old fast. I want a game where if I want to play the role of a sniper, I can. If I want to play the role of missle support, I can. If I want to brawl, I can.
.

[Mchawkeye]

You know, considering I requested this thread be sans CoF talk, there has been a lot of it. Some of it by me, I'll admit, but still, lets get back to what I was trying to express in the OP: Ways to increase the challenge without decreasing the realism by employing HUD based affectations.

I remember playing a flight sim more than a decade ago. Might have been F16 fighting falcon or something of that order; the lead computer was constantly reinterpreting the data in terms of lead and trajectory; on particularly expressive dogfights, the lead indicator would be all over the shop. Sounds like a fun way to deal with canon fire.

It also occurs to me that most people are talking about alpha strikes on desired locations...why not just out right disallow alpha strikes unless you level up or buy a certain piece of very expensive equipment that lets you disengage the safeties...same for <90m PPC fire...I would love to see more minimum range restrictions on weapons, they seem to be missing from the other games...

That said, I think we are going to see a lot for fast'n'nasty mechs hitting the field; it's not going to be a constant brawl of slow assault mechs; if that doesn't up the overall targeting challenge, they they probably aren't doing something right...

Actually, the more I think about it, the more the energy weaponry needs to be rebalanced no matter how we resolve targeting/firing issues.

[Halfinax]

VYCanis, on 11 November 2011 - 06:39 AM, said:

allow me to give a visual example as to why CoF looks bad

http://imageshack.us...coneoffire.jpg/

cause that is exactly what it will look like if you have CoF in effect. I don't care if you just did a 1080' while firing jumpjets and an atlas is now shaking you like a loud baby. Your weapons should not be doing that ever.

Yes your personally designed representation is a great example of how it should look. That reticule is like 1/3 of the screen. CoF has it's merits, and perhaps more than pinpoint accuracy.

I think a middle ground would be what I suggested further up with adjustable convergence range. If you have your convergence off the weapons fire will be spread out across the target, and if your convergence is right it will be dead on.

[Creel]

The goal is not to prevent alpha strikes, but to increase mech durability. You should be able to fire all your weapons at once, if you want to. But it shouldn't all be automagically focused on the same pixel. the weapons are on different mounts on different parts of the mech, all moving in different directions, they can't all be calibrated to perfectly converge at any range (much less every range). weapon spread is not only likely, it's inevitable.