125 replies to this topic

[Mchawkeye]

True. I think with the proposed convergence settings, setting up an alpha strike to be super accurate would be tough if not nigh on impossible. If you do getting your setting bang on, you probably deserve it.

[KingCobra]

I see it like this go back to the Mechwarrior 3 floating reticule it was quite a challange just to bring your reticule to bear on a target and shoot straight due to the bouncing and movement of the mech at walk or run speed.It the reticule also was quite small and the zoom was smaller than MW4 series which made it that much more fun to get a great shot.All weapons were more equil under this system becouse your hit rate was much lower %60 compared to MW4 series 90%.As far as targeting i like the advanced radar of the mektek mod it alows for great game play in that its not predicktable like the standard radar you have to work to find your target becouse there not showing up all the time due to buildings,terrains,and LOS.The old radar would show your position nomatter what you tried to do even with ECM,BAP,ECT it sucked as far as a defensive role.After reinstalling MW3 and playing it on Gameranger you can see how it was really intended to work compared to the old MSN online days it works just like your offline playing this might be due to the newer net.code and packet acellerators that gameranger uses plus less hops between server&client.Also i mentioned no alpha strikes in the new game that would make it much more of a challenge and more time at the reticule to kill your target.

[TheForce]

Mchawkeye, on 11 November 2011 - 03:45 AM, said:

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 CoF 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?

On average, how many shots do you think it should it take to kill an Atlas with a Grasshopper? Assume you're always aiming for the CT, and you never miss.

1-3?
4-10?
11-20?
> 20?

Just pick one of my possible answers.

Edited by TheForce, 11 November 2011 - 08:18 AM.

[ice trey]

I find that a lot of folks tend to think of CoF as being something related to Recoil.
I just want CoF based on movement. Recoil has little to no effect in Battletech.
However, if you're mid-jump, you should NOT reliably be able to hit targets more than 90 meters away.
Just the opposite, if you're stationary, your cone of fire should be very small, so accuracy should not be a problem.
While Recoil might not be an issue, 50-ton footsteps shuddering through a mech with a bobbing gait sure is.

The only time that CoF makes for a bad game in my books is when Recoil has too much of an effect. It made Bloodlines nigh unplayable with any sort of automatic weapon. Still, I think that CoF would act as an excellent game-balancing tool for this game in particular.

Edited by ice trey, 11 November 2011 - 08:51 AM.

[azov]

Again, I only want a cone of fire to be placed on torso mounted weapons, but leave the arms relatively unaffected. It would be completely unrealistic if a torso mounted weapon would have perfect aim. Think about it, 'mechs walk, run, and fly they don't hover over it, so those weapons would should be susceptible to the jarring effects of movement in a 'mech. The arms of a battlemech will be able to absorb some of the shock from movement giving it a MUCH less cone of fire if any at all.

[Mchawkeye]

I get it folks. Topic title changed.

[Ansel]

If there is to be a cone of fire in this game it needs to work differently.

Allow for time spent on target to decrease the cone, say the maximum size of the cone based of the pic used earler, it should decrease to around half that or less depending on how long you can hold crosshairs on target, IE now you have a targeting computer that takes some time to lock onto a target and bring your weapons to bear, the crosshairs should turn Gold on a full lock so you know when the cone will not get any smaller.

Next allow for a increase when your crosshairs move off the target, not an instant jump back to the max size but enough that the PIOLET can be very skilled in aiming and not suffer the increase as much as someone who cannot keep their crosshairs on a target.

This would be differen't from missle lock of course but it would be one of the few acceptible ways of using a cone type of targeting.

[Kudzu]

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.

If that is supposed to represent medium lasers firing from a mech that is moving full out at a moving target 200 meters away it looks perfect.
You want to snipe something at range? Use long range weapons like PPC's, AC/5's or /2's, or LRM's and slow your movement down or even stop.

The size of the cone needs to represent a combination of the weapons range, the firing mechs movement, and heat. The MW franchise has been completely twitch-based, let's move it towards a combination of twitch and tactical and see a better overall game that is actually based on battletech instead of just bearing a passing resemblance.

[Corsair114]

Ooh, cone of fire... lets hope they add something super narrow, like the Centurion, so we can all take it 'cause you have the lowest chance of being hit when driving it!

The whole "cone of fire expands/contracts" with movement is a bit bogus in practice too, isn't it? Unless you want all play to be waiting in ambush for someone to walk into your gunsights.

Mark me down for staunchly supporting pinpoint aiming (which still is affected by the above narrow-Centurion situation, but at least you are in charge of shooting the target, instead of hoping for a hit).

[Sirisian]

That image is indeed very good representation of what I want. CoF systems with expanding reticules are perfect for simulation games. It takes into account the moving of the mech along with the weapons base accuracy and recoil.

There's something that should happen. You notice in that image the player is doing an alpha strike. Weapons should have recoil even for laser based weapons.

Also each weapons needs its own reticule. If you take damage on a weapon it should not maintain its base accuracy in the simulation.

I made a picture showing a mech aiming at another mech's leg from a distance. Say they have 4 weapons. A left arm, right arm, and top two rockets that are dumb fire. I would expect to see separate reticules. This changes how I set up groups of weapons. I wouldn't group all my lasers to alpha strike for instance if firing them boosted the reticule and made me miss. This forces players to group weapons in an intelligent way and to control their CoF greatly increasing the level of skill in the game. It also gives you a clear indication of the damaged limb and the accuracy penalty applied. Imagine the left arm in the picture was damaged. The accuracy reticule representing the CoF would be further out and wouldn't return to its base accuracy.

[Kaemon]

I agree that different weapon systems should have different reticles of different sizes to denote the different usage/tactics associated with the weapon.

I would like the reticles to have the options to be hidden until the weapon is brought online (live) to avoid screen clutter.

If you want to bring them all up at once, make sure the reticles lock into a somewhat discernible master reticle, but this should probably take quite a while to 'aim' (as your targeting computer(s) are working overtime at this point).

I for one, do not want to use a gun reticule to aim LRMS and vice versa.

[Mchawkeye]

Guys, I appreciate all the replies, but as the i stated (and is now clarified) chat about that smegging expanding reticule is for other threads...

[Kaemon]

Sirisian, on 11 November 2011 - 11:01 AM, said:

That image is indeed very good representation of what I want. CoF systems with expanding reticules are perfect for simulation games. It takes into account the moving of the mech along with the weapons base accuracy and recoil.

There's something that should happen. You notice in that image the player is doing an alpha strike. Weapons should have recoil even for laser based weapons.

Also each weapons needs its own reticule. If you take damage on a weapon it should not maintain its base accuracy in the simulation.

I made a picture showing a mech aiming at another mech's leg from a distance. Say they have 4 weapons. A left arm, right arm, and top two rockets that are dumb fire. I would expect to see separate reticules. This changes how I set up groups of weapons. I wouldn't group all my lasers to alpha strike for instance if firing them boosted the reticule and made me miss. This forces players to group weapons in an intelligent way and to control their CoF greatly increasing the level of skill in the game. It also gives you a clear indication of the damaged limb and the accuracy penalty applied. Imagine the left arm in the picture was damaged. The accuracy reticule representing the CoF would be further out and wouldn't return to its base accuracy.

No to laser weapons having recoil, even if a solid laser there would be no recoil, however there could be 'bounce' added due to a reflective surface/armor, or a slight time delay to fire, if you are looking to add difficulty in using that weapon.

[Glare]

Mchawkeye, on 11 November 2011 - 11:13 AM, said:

Guys, I appreciate all the replies, but as the i stated (and is now clarified) chat about that smegging expanding reticule is for other threads...

Welcome to thread drift. It happens. Get used to it.

[Corvus Antaka]

We simply need to prevent concentration of fire to one point on a mech - no alpha striking 6 ER Larges at the Center torso twice and blowing the enemy up in 2 shots. if instead the pilot is forced to link fire those 6 er larges then his skill determines if he can hit the same spot 12 times in a row. Heat management, ammo limitations are better solutions to dealing with this. weapons like ppc, lbx and ac require leading the target which already gives them a challenging factor.

Edited by Colonel Pada Vinson, 11 November 2011 - 01:17 PM.

[Mchawkeye]

Glare, on 11 November 2011 - 11:16 AM, said:

Welcome to thread drift. It happens. Get used to it.

You are right, it does and it's up to someone to point that out and try to bring things back on track.

What I don't think I'll get used to is the propensity for the need to be randomly aggresive. There is no need to post a sentence like that at all. People started that sort of comment in another thread and it rapidly went down hill.

So please just take it easy.

[Glare]

My apologies, text is difficult to determine how your conversation partner will read your tone. I meant no offense.

[Mchawkeye]

Glare, on 11 November 2011 - 11:49 AM, said:

My apologies, text is difficult to determine how your conversation partner will read your tone. I meant no offense.

No worries at all....I just really don't want to see this thread deteriorate like the last one...

[Creel]

Mchawkeye,

Before I get to the criticism, let me say that I appreciate your enthusiasm in participating in these discussions, and I think you're adding a valuable voice.

That said, you seem to be a bit quick to take offense. Try to be less defensive, and rather than assume aggression, assume sarcasm. It's much more likely that Glare is a smart ***, than that he's angry with you. (no offense, glare )

I only mention this, because he's not the first person that you've called out for aggression when others saw nothing offensive.

Edited by Creel, 11 November 2011 - 12:08 PM.

[Glare]

Very well put!