125 replies to this topic

[Xhaleon]

Mchawkeye, on 12 November 2011 - 03:17 AM, said:

That's fair enough. But I think it's one of those occasions where The Lore has to take a back-seat to gameplay. That aspect of the lore was written in, possibly even retconned, to let the TT game devs expand the length of their games and attribute for the classic TT (that's pretty much any war games rules) exceptional miss.

I just don't think that should apply because this isn't the TT, and unlike the TT (where missing is all too frequent thanks to dice) random missing just because is deeply frustraiting...

If you are missing "just because", then you are firing at the extreme range of the weapon. If you want to hit your target consistently, THEN YOU MOVE CLOSER INTO THE WEAPON'S EFFECTIVE RANGE. At that point, the deviation of the weapon and the size of the reticule will be small enough to not matter.

Why is this so bloody ******* hard for you people to understand?

[Mchawkeye]

Kudzu, on 12 November 2011 - 04:07 AM, said:

The thing is, it's not written in just because, without misses it turns into a one hit kill kind of game.

If you make it harder to hit than in previous games it promotes teamwork and maneuvering instead of who can alpha strike first-- you need to focus fire if you want to finish someone off fast otherwise one on one duels turn into slugging matches (which are fun too, in all honesty).

The thing is, with CoF, you can adjust what you do in order to hit better; either get in closer or slow down (or both!) No one is saying that the cones have to be bigger than the mech when you're standing still and right next to someone, just that if your moving full out at max range it should be a lot harder. There's still a lot of twitch involved but it's blended with more tactical awareness-- do you slow down to give yourself a better shot while making it easier to hit you or do you keep moving and take your chances?

Holy Moses. I don't know how good your are at MW or whatever, but even online it was NEVER a one hit kill kind of game. I think that aspect of it is being blown out of all proportion. That and I think that there are others ways to prevent over powerful mechs and their pilots alpha striking the ***** of everyone than instituting a randomiser into shooting.
What if, that one time you do want to shoot and alpha strike; specs are gone red it's do or die sort of moment and you miss because someone, somewhere decided that guns in the battle tech universe shouldn't be more accurate because the TT top rules said so? Instead of your blaze of glory, which you should be perfectly entitled too, the target looks at you funny as your lasers shoot high left for no good reason and then plugs a PPC round down your face. Annoying much?

Cone of fire is fine for guns that deserve it; high rate of fire, recoil inducing inaccuracies and what not. but it shouldn't be the reticule of idiocy and it shouldn't be a random occurrence. You need at least a level of predictability to educate your own sense of accuracy.

Also, we really do all understand it now. It worth noting that even without that expanding reticule slowing down always made for a better, more accurate hit.

[Mchawkeye]

My thoughts so far.

Weapon simulation
Weaponry should have a maximum EFFECTIVE range; they should not stop existing or doing damage one meter beyond the stats; they should, however, become exponentially less powerful. Lasers should attenuate, Canon rounds should hit the deck and missiles probably shouldn’t get a lock on\target ID beyond maximum range.
Heat should be an issue not just from shooting, but from movement, the environment and such like; heat management should be a primary concern whilst piloting a 'mech.
Grouped weaponry should be dialled in at a convergence that is adjustable in game. This makes super accurate alpha strikes unlikely at best.
The ‘mechs should be susceptible to movement based shaking and seriously detrimental heat issues amongst other physical reactions to the universe.

Lasers.
Well. They are lasers. They should be accurate. Because they are lasers. They should be barbeque hot. No target impact force

PPCs.
Slower than lasers, require a minimal lead to target and recoil. Really, really hot guns. Minimal range. EMP disturbance, minimal target impact.

Autocannon.
Should be reasonably accurate on the first shot, require lead to target. They shouldn’t generate too much heat, but should generate recoil. Decent target impact. Some sizes with minimal range.

A\C LBX
Huge scatter and recoil, require significant lead; short range low heat. heavy target impact. Some sizes with minimal range.

Guass.
Recoil, minimal lead reasonably hot. Significant target impact. Min range.

Missiles.
Scatter, require lock on or similar. Generate a reasonable amount of heat and recoil (maybe shakes rather than a push) decent target impact. Minimal range depending on missile type.

The cockpit reticule should alter depending on the nature of the weapon, possibly stacked reticules if several different types of weapon are grouped. The reticules should portray the point of accuracy, possibly an indication of the weapon standard divergence, if relevant. For guns requiring a lead to target, this could be displayed similarly to current fighter aircraft depending on pilot preference; too many different guns in a group would lead to a very confusing HUD with lead reticules all over the place. This will either force people to stop grouping weapons to crazy or they turn off their targeting/lead computers.
As battle progresses, weapons that become damaged and that should be portrayed though inaccuracies, increased heat, increased likelihood of jamming, failure to launch, locking in position and such.

Just some thoughts that have congealed recently in my head. I want the game to be a fair mixture of ‘mech enhancement (better targeting computers, engines armour weapons and what not) as well as pilot skills (less shaking in the ‘mech for example, better resistance to weapon impacts) but I don’t want to remove my contribution as the pilot (or playing as the pilot. Whatever) or the fact that I have to deal with relative movements and speed, the shaking rattling and rolling and understanding the nature of the weapon systems I have at my finger tips and knowing how to use them effectively without having the game hold my hand.

[Black Sunder]

Here is what you DON"T want to do:

Don't be like WoT where you have ghost shells that disappear, shells that go outside the reticule. Its a big problem in that game and I don't want it to be a problem in this one.

[diana]

Hm, maybe energy weapons losing damage over distance traveled is a better way of dealing with weapon ranges, instead of making shots randomly spread. Ballistic arcs for projectiles and missiles.

[Kaemon]

One issue in this discussion is that for the newer lower 'level' players the system needs to work for just as those players who are running HOTAS/4 joysticks with 4 monitors (ok that's a bit of an exaggeration but you get my point).

I'm going to say the devs will keep it more simple than what most of us are discussing here, simply for the fact that performance of gameplay and the varying degree of input options from the players.

Yes it would be nice if I ran a 2 joystick setup with multiple reticules for each weapon I have mounted, yes it would be nice to have an 'auto-aim' option for new players so they can actually play (especially if there is no tutorial/PvE for them to practice in).

yes it would be nice that my fps don't crash everytime I alpha strike (or worse yet, everytime sometime throws the kitchen sink at me) because the server takes a dump trying to keep up.

This is going to be a tough one, pretty much any way they do it, someone's going to be unhappy.

[Mchawkeye]

Hmm...I Wonder if there should be a training element to it like there was in mech4V...that might be good. it would allow the newer lot to get to grips with the system before risking their hard earned cash. Though I don't feel there should be dumbing down options like auto aim, and if the game is balanced enough, there should be plenty of scope for someone new to begin a decent training regime once there have joined a a Merc Core.

As for controls, I actually suspect people will a mouse and keyboard might have an advantage with finer controls than gadget obsessed idiots like me and my X52...though hopefully my HOTAS set up should work effectively.

I don't think multiple reticules will cause the FPS to hit the deck, and while I agree that the game should be open to as many systems as possible, I don't feel they should sacrifice quality and depth to willingly.

[fearfactory]

Kaemon, on 12 November 2011 - 07:34 AM, said:

This is going to be a tough one, pretty much any way they do it, someone's going to be unhappy.

I'll still play no matter what happens. I just don't want this game to take ANYTHING from the previous installments... MechWarrior 4 being the first "NO" priority.

[John Dragon]

What if their was a multiple reticule system that incorporated a smaller version of the cone of fire? that way, those wanting cone of fire would be happy, and those wanting more accuracy would be happy.

[Mchawkeye]

John Dragon, on 12 November 2011 - 09:24 AM, said:

What if their was a multiple reticule system that incorporated a smaller version of the cone of fire? that way, those wanting cone of fire would be happy, and those wanting more accuracy would be happy.

do you mean cone of fire, or expanding reticule?

[UncleKulikov]

diana, on 12 November 2011 - 06:14 AM, said:

Hm, maybe energy weapons losing damage over distance traveled is a better way of dealing with weapon ranges, instead of making shots randomly spread. Ballistic arcs for projectiles and missiles.

damage drop off for energy weapons makes sense, and I support it.

Also, there would be recoil for something like an AC20 going off in your center torso. That should be a factor. Same for any ballistic weapon, higher rates of fire make them less accurate. But it should be relative to the power of the shots; machine guns should have almost no difference, but an AC20 would have a huge recoil.

Also if you are aiming too far to the left or right, weapons on the opposite arm should be "grayed out" so that you can fire out of their arc, but they would be disabled (so you don't shoot your own torso).

And for the last time, expanding reticule is the visual signal of a cone of fire. Both are used at the same time.

[John Dragon]

grr, tried to make a picture. Like their was a separate cone of fire for each arm and the torso, but the cone of fire was smaller than what alot of people are suggesting. Nobody wants to fire right at the torso and hit an arm, or miss entirely. And the cone of fire WOULD be slightly larger for torso weapons since u don't have a whole arm to aim with so accuracy is going to be limited

[John Dragon]

and yes I understand if u try to hit someone from 1000 feet away with an AC20 and aim straight on the torso your still gonna most likely miss. I'm just saying for ranges such as 400 feet and lower you should have a guarantee of at least hitting the mech on some part of its body.

[Kudzu]

Mchawkeye, on 12 November 2011 - 04:36 AM, said:

Holy Moses. I don't know how good your are at MW or whatever, but even online it was NEVER a one hit kill kind of game. I think that aspect of it is being blown out of all proportion. That and I think that there are others ways to prevent over powerful mechs and their pilots alpha striking the ***** of everyone than instituting a randomiser into shooting.

It certainly felt like it most of the time across the various titles, that's were people are coming from.

Quote

What if, that one time you do want to shoot and alpha strike; specs are gone red it's do or die sort of moment and you miss because someone, somewhere decided that guns in the battle tech universe shouldn't be more accurate because the TT top rules said so?

Then you miss, simple as that. It works in your favor too-- if you've worked your **** off to batter down a mech and are now about to finish him off why should he get a perfectly accurate last barrage into you?

Quote

Instead of your blaze of glory, which you should be perfectly entitled too, the target looks at you funny as your lasers shoot high left for no good reason and then plugs a PPC round down your face. Annoying much?

Except there is a very good reason for it as has already been explained. If they want to make mechs be super accurate then they need to remove all aspects of the battletech name/history/lore and call it something else.

Quote

Cone of fire is fine for guns that deserve it; high rate of fire, recoil inducing inaccuracies and what not. but it shouldn't be the reticule of idiocy and it shouldn't be a random occurrence. You need at least a level of predictability to educate your own sense of accuracy.

And as I and many others have already explained there is a perfect amount of predictability already built in to CoF-- range to target by weapon type, your speed, and your heat level. You, as the the player, control all of these things. The entire cone doesn't have to a perfect to hit % either, it could be weighted towards the center while still allowing for scatter and misses.

Edited by Kudzu, 12 November 2011 - 11:23 AM.

[guardiandashi]

what I am getting at is I think a good solution would be that there is a cone of probability of deflection for shots for a variety of reasons

weapon accuracy
all/most weapons of a certain type will have a base "accuracy score" IE to go by another battletech PnP/TT fluff lasers have a diameter equal to their damage IE a IS small laser would be a 3cm laser, a medium laser is a 5cm laser, and a large laser is an 8cm laser, the clan er lasers would be 5cm, 7cm and 10cm on the same system. If you accept those numbers as valid it would be on the lines of
0 0 0 for example.

now I am not saying this is perfect or absolute but on the scale of a battlemech the small laser would be effectively the size of a pinprick or a sliver for the actual area the laser covered, etc etc

a 200mm autocannon (large even for ac20's) is a 20cm cannon or somewhere between 8 and 9 ish inches thats a BIG gun and yet it is still pretty small for battlemechs, although it has enormous punch.

now what I would like to see for game ballance reasons is that at short range a laser might have a ~0.5-1 meter deflection at most, at medium range this could be ~1-2m, and at max range it could be say 2-4m now HORRORS many of the shooter people will say that is horribly inaccurate, well by todays standards yes it is, but when you are firing at a target ~9-15m tall and ~6-10m wide it really isn't all that much.

its the equivalant of a few inches on a person. additionally its like the thickness of a sight bar in most shooters at any kind of reasonable range.

ballistic weapons would typically have roughly equivalant amounts of spread (altho they would typically have other factors influencing their accuracy)

[omegaclawe]

The problem I'm seeing, with all these topics, is that a large number of people come in and bury the topic in "How else you gonna do it lololololol" posts, without actually bothering to read the solutions provided. Those that do usually only attack a single solution, usually the most flawed, and make a declaration based on that. This is extremely frustrating.

On the other side, you have a lot of people arguing that the reticule needs to display near-pixel perfect accuracy; that what is displayed on the screen must be an end-all be-all for exactly where the shot goes. This needn't be the case, either, and the failure to understand this is also frustrating.

The choices aren't between "completely random selection" and "pinpoint accuracy". You can, indeed, make a system that displays a "cone of fire" without just being random, or pseudo-random. In my opinion, the best solution is to have a "Flawed hud", where it may display a cone of fire, or not shoot directly at the reticule, but where the shot actually goes, in spite of all this, can be determined by a player who pays close attention to factors not directly displayed on the hud. This can include the position of the weapon on the mech, the angle of the mech, current movements, windspeed, shot recoil, terrain, etc. It should be possible to predict where the shot will go, with some accuracy. It should just be amongst the hardest things you will ever do in a videogame.

This is better than random because it allows a much larger development of skills by the person behind the keyboard, and makes sure games are not decided by rolls of the dice. This is better than pinpoint accuracy, because it's hard enough that only a rare pilot will be able to make use of it, much less regularly, and doesn't clutter the screen with "extra reticules". It means that the average player will more or less have a "random cone of fire", but there will be experts who can get around it.

This is called Having your cake, and eating it, too.

And before you start railing on about some other unrelated point, please read this, and think about it before posting your dissent.

[diana]

Well, easy to learn, hard to master, for example, choosing target, movement and position to decrease the time it takes your weapons to align and fire, or even hitting a new target while your arm is in the middle of moving to the side, is a good thing, but HUD must be trustworthy.

[Draco Argentum]

omegaclawe, on 12 November 2011 - 02:53 PM, said:

This can include the position of the weapon on the mech, the angle of the mech, current movements, windspeed, shot recoil, terrain, etc. It should be possible to predict where the shot will go, with some accuracy. It should just be amongst the hardest things you will ever do in a videogame.

How exactly are the players going to know the windspeed all along the shot path? This would make your idea the worst of both worlds. The skill only guys will hate the random element. OTOH its a random element that is much more computationally intense than a simple gaussian distribution.

[UncleKulikov]

Time to target would work, especially if your targeting computer projected a "lead fire" reticule,



The quality of the targeting computer would determine the accuracy of the lead fire indicator.

[Pht]

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 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?

Look to the tabletop for performance profiles of how well 'Mechs can concentrate their fire and how well the differing weapons types can hit things.

Take those parameters and put them into the game - have it calculate hit/miss and what is hit when you hit for each weapon on a 'Mech that fires based on those performance factors.

IE: At the extreme range of the normal range rating of a weapon, you stand more of a chance to miss - and if you are overheated and shooting at a fast moving target in cover, you're lucky if you hit.

No need for cones.

And as far as "Expanding reticules?" .... yeah, they're silly.

Do it like the lore does it. Color code the reticule for lock quality and use audibles. Changing the reticule shape or making it dance or having multiple pips for multiple weapons ... yech.

Edited by Pht, 12 November 2011 - 06:12 PM.