125 replies to this topic

[omegaclawe]

Lasers would be ridiculously accurate over a random cone of fire system for a standing target, too. THey're lasers. To do anything else would just be silly. They need to be balanced in other ways, such as:

• Emphasis on Movement
  
• Long Reload times
  
• Multiple avenues of attack (to stop camping)
  
• Information Warfare
  
• Massive amounts of heat generated
  
• Comparatively low damage output/armor penetration

Since many of these things are more or less inherent in lasers, taking accuracy away would more or less make them among the least useful weapons, and you'd just have some other sort of Uber-weapon.

You can honestly take out the laser boat factor simply by making a 7 ERLL alpha overheat the mech to the point where the heatsinks explode or something. If people have to be careful with their own heat, well, you aren't going to see a lot of shots from energy boats, in that case.

In fact, I think there was a whole topic about just this.

[Glare]

Of your list, bullet points 2, 5, and 6 are all already covered in canon and usually the opposite of what you're saying. Number 3 is not balance, it's map design, which doesn't help the poor ******* who gets stuck in the open one lick. Number 4 doesn't affect the accuracy of the lasers at all. Number 1 is even more effective at keeping everything else from hitting you, never mind lasers.

[VYCanis]

I don't see whats the problem with making lasers accurate. Lasers should be. Thats what they are for.

Just do the following and you could even have even the most laser boated configs be balanced

1. MWLL style damage over time lasers. Where its not enough to just hit your target, you have to hold your aim on your opponent and try to keep it from slipping off of them.

2. Make it so that if you have too many lasers hitting the same area, the lasers lose efficiency, and the more lasers you group into that shot, the less benefit you get from adding more, due to all the vaporized metal getting kicked up

Bam

Problem solved. Even a laser boat has got to work for its kills, and its gonna be running hot for its trouble.

In effect, just because its easy to hit a target, doesn't mean you are hitting them effectively. Sloppy aimed hill humping joe that pops up over a hill and snaps off a 3 large laser blast might put some hurt on his target in his haste. But a more patient player will be more likely to keep their aim steady and on target to really ruin someone's day with that same exact attack.

Honestly, you could probably even skip the inefficiency thing, cause really i've never had a problem ever in MWLL with the lasers. They always felt right, even though they were "pinpoint" on account of how much they spread their damage and how much skill they actually required to use.

[Datum]

What if the cone of fire did not change, but rather bobbed? As you walk along you would see the sway of the guns represented in the reticles? You could have the arm guns a bit more stabilized, even, as to counter the fact that nobody ever wants to put guns in the arms because they get blown off easier, and have the torso weapons, well, bound to the pitching and bobbing of the torso, so if you want to aim your heavy gauss you have to stand still for a minute?

[GreenHell]

VYCanis, on 13 November 2011 - 06:42 PM, said:

2. Make it so that if you have too many lasers hitting the same area, the lasers lose efficiency, and the more lasers you group into that shot, the less benefit you get from adding more, due to all the vaporized metal getting kicked up

Bam

Problem solved. Even a laser boat has got to work for its kills, and its gonna be running hot for its trouble.

This actually sounds exactly like what happened to the Binary Laser. It's basically two large lasers in one package, but you get double the heat and size for only 50% increase in damage due to "Diffusion by vapor".

In effect, wouldn't having multiple lasers hitting the same area all at once have the exact same problem?
This is how they explained why pulse lasers were better than normal lasers as well. There isn't any diffusion on the beam so the pulse laser is stronger. Maybe pulse lasers will become the new boat standard.

I know this will only cause the argument to become even more convoluted, but I couldn't stop myself from bringing it up.

[omegaclawe]

Glare, on 13 November 2011 - 06:29 PM, said:

Of your list, bullet points 2, 5, and 6 are all already covered in canon and usually the opposite of what you're saying. Number 3 is not balance, it's map design, which doesn't help the poor ******* who gets stuck in the open one lick. Number 4 doesn't affect the accuracy of the lasers at all. Number 1 is even more effective at keeping everything else from hitting you, never mind lasers.

None of those affect the accuracy of lasers, at it turns out. The information warfare bit is there because they can hardly hit you if they can't find you. Map design also happens to be a very large part of balancing a game, and as it turns out, standing out in the open waiting for someone to shoot you is a bad tactic no matter what game you're playing; the ***** who got caught out there deserves to get roasted. Number 1 was there because the original contention was about a stationary mech, shooting something that wasn't moving particularly fast. If the other pilot can't properly adjust the tracking speed, he's wont to get hit, by, say, a NARC beacon from the mech he's trying to shoot, and, not being a moving target, is also about to get hit by a missile barrage.

Besides, every weapon has to be good in some situation to ever get used, and this argument is getting increasingly situational. At some points, you just gotta give it to the laser, especially if it'd only be good in a few base cases.

[Mchawkeye]

GreenHell, on 13 November 2011 - 07:28 PM, said:

This actually sounds exactly like what happened to the Binary Laser. It's basically two large lasers in one package, but you get double the heat and size for only 50% increase in damage due to "Diffusion by vapor".

In effect, wouldn't having multiple lasers hitting the same area all at once have the exact same problem?
This is how they explained why pulse lasers were better than normal lasers as well. There isn't any diffusion on the beam so the pulse laser is stronger. Maybe pulse lasers will become the new boat standard.

I know this will only cause the argument to become even more convoluted, but I couldn't stop myself from bringing it up.

I like this idea. This is certainly interesting in my head; is there any real world science that suggests this?

And before anyone says it, yes. I know the battletech universe isn't our universe. I just find it odd how similar the basic physics can be between the two...

Once again, I would like to point out that this thread was designed to NOT talk about that expanding reticule. It would be nice if we tried not too. you want it in the game, that's great; there are many other threads to go and contend it's positives and negatives; what we are looking for in this thread are alternatives based in simulation, not affectation.

[Asmudius Heng]

I was trying to us MSpaint to draw an image I have of this but it sucked so bad I will try to use text instead

The things that effect aim include:

Movement of any kind
Speed
Knock from incoming fire
Knock from terrain
Heat build-up
Electronics failure (maybe)
Computers calculating fire
Actuators adjusting to fire

The other have also stated that there are many other ways fire is inaccurate, tiny things such as different weights of bullets etc (lasers might also have some sort of built in problems due to lenses or electronic flow who the hell knows)

So there is inbuilt inaccuracy that no amount of skill can cure and there is inaccuracy that might be mitigated by skill, piloting, steady hands, knowing when to fire etc. There is stuff you can effect and stuff that you cannot.

Most cone of fire games throw all of this into one system as an easy representation which in fast paced games is very needed. In mechwarrior how you pilot your mech and control your systems are all skills we love and add new elements into the equation.

In my perfect mech games there would be both a cone of fire - and individual targeting reticles for every weapon.

Let me explain.

When you select a weapon there will be a targeting reticle on the screen. This will bounce around as the mech moves and as heat builds up and other effects on the stability of the mech. If you stand perfectly still it will centre perfectly though.

This weapon will still have its own CoF though but it is VERY small. Small enough that at close range it doesn’t make much of a difference, but at range can put your sniping shots perhaps a little off where you might want to aim - but not enough to making sniping worthless.

If you alpha strike, or use a group of weapons - ALL of those reticles are on the screen at the same time. All of them bounce randomly as the mech moves. All eventually land to centre for an alpha too - but you run the risk of standing still for that long and being a massive target for everyone of course.

What this means is that if you have a single weapon activated for instance and your reticle is bouncing and moving, if it does drift over a mech and you fire it will hit that place (within the small cone of fire). This means snap shots will be able to land hits that someone less experienced might not be comfortable with taking - a skill difference we will all aspire too for mech 'hip shooting'.

Now another effect could be that the centre of your screen has a visible (or invisible) circles that when you aim it at a mech will tell your targeting computer to try to line up all your reticles. So the longer you aim at an enemy the quicker your aim will narrow. This would also be required to achieve a missile lock of course.

This way you have a number of factors all effecting your aim - that you can influence with skill of shooting, and skill of piloting. It will make alpha strikes dangerous when used well (watch your heat though!) and will make more people cycle weapons at different ranges to get the most benefit from only needing to concentrate on a single reticle.

I hope that explains my idea. Should allow for long range accuracy if done well, but allow damage spread in hectic fights. Allows individual location targeting also but without guaranteeing it either.

[Havoc2]

This is the 31st century and my giant walking robot can't hit what I'm pointing at? Why the hell do I have a targeting computer then? Is it built by Microsoft?


CoF (if there even is CoF) should do next to nothing to make me miss my target. The player skill should be in placing the targeting reticule over the target and (maybe) holding it there long enough for the targeting computer to get and use the data to properly aim my weapons and hit the mark.

To give this more realism (for those CoF advocates) maybe PRIOR to making a shot, a weapon or weapon group needs to be selected so that the targeting computer can make the required calculations based on CoF, range, whatever and THEN that weapon/group can be fired.
If the group contains a mix of weapon types/ranges (i.e. a PPC is mixed with a AC/20) the computer does a best mix for the tightest grouping but is not nearly as accurate as if the weapons were fired with a similar weapon group or by themselves.
This could also be a useful tool in quick firing (or "shooting from the hip") at closer ranges or with different weapon groupings (think Alpha strikes) that a great deal of damage can be instantly put out, but with varying degrees of accuracy.

Edited by }{avoc, 14 November 2011 - 06:20 AM.

[MaddMaxx]

In past games, and more and more with time, the Dev's had to add a more accurate firing model simply because of LAG. Yes, everyone remembered LAG right. Based on years of experience, and their desire to help everyone compete, the best way to beat LAG was to point click instant hit with no deviation at all.

The problem arises that some have better systems, network connections etc that offset the LAG monster and sadly others who don't often benefited from it. You can't hit a LAG based target as the system does not "see" what you "see". While other times, figuring out the LAG time based on your own set up allowed you to aim where the target was not and still get a "HIT"

Now the idea that guessing where your enemy would be when pulling the trigger was seen as Skill. I guess it was but in truth it was having information based on usage (learning hit boxes by design etc. etc.) and not a true overt skill.

Surely, in an effort to alleviate, as best as possible, the whole LAG monster, the Dev will implement a system accounting for it as much as computationally possible. There will always be folks whole can't HIT or be HIT with 100% certainty unless the Dev allow for Point - Click - Always Hit system. Despite that being BAD, imho, there may be little choice really.

What we, the Community, have to do, if it isn't already to late, is convince the Dev that a non Point - Click - Always Hit system will be acceptable and do so convincingly. Ummm,good luck with that right?

As for any comparisons of Ballistic weapon systems of today versus the 31 century a Mech uses a strict horizontal trajectory on all Ballistics weapons systems. The A1M1 uses Ballistic Arcs (major help over long distances) against targets who rarely know they are being targeted. An AC20 cannot be aimed into eh air and have the computer calculate an ARC. Wonder why that is???

So given the limitations, not of the Computers the Dev have at their disposal, for computational needs, but those of the World Wide Networks they have to operate over, it is obvious that using "simplistic" methods of how things all inter-depend/operate, ie: Weapons, Movement, Ranges, Radar etc. etc. on any platform will best serve our needs.

The real problem, as I read all this stuff, is how will it be represented graphically and can that be better developed and implemented to provide players with an offset to why something didn't happen when they "thought for sure" it should have.

Many want to "know" why, I would just like to "see" (in a really cool fashion) why it didn't and will grumble about as I adjust while trying it again. (nothing stupidly glaring of course) As a by-stander at a range, I can't see a bullet fly nor can I see it hit the target until informed verbally (but if it left a neat little entrail then what the hell, I can see where it went, not just wonder, did I hit the ******??? before looking at the HUD display of the enemy Mech and see the damage screen in the cockpit (like MW4) showing me the resultant damage inflicted.

P.S. If they do "Wind" calculations, then I also want "Relative Humidity", "Ambient Temperature" also included in any firing calculations.

Edited by MaddMaxx, 14 November 2011 - 09:01 AM.

[omegaclawe]

The lag issue has more to do with the network stack, which, in previous games, was based on a terrible DirectX model. Modern games usually have a proper network stack setup so that lag is -never- an advantage, and with the continued proliferation of broadband, they have no reason to switch to such a system. If mech's aren't teleporting around due to lag, there won't be much problem hitting them.

Such a decision also makes the game far more difficult to hack. Which is, of course, a good thing.

[MaddMaxx]

omegaclawe, on 14 November 2011 - 11:43 AM, said:

The lag issue has more to do with the network stack, which, in previous games, was based on a terrible DirectX model. Modern games usually have a proper network stack setup so that lag is -never- an advantage, and with the continued proliferation of broadband, they have no reason to switch to such a system. If mech's aren't teleporting around due to lag, there won't be much problem hitting them.

Such a decision also makes the game far more difficult to hack. Which is, of course, a good thing.

You don't need Mechs teleporting about the map to have Lag issues. Lag is a combination effect and as a rule the "lowest common denominator" (via graphic level selection, connection speed, PC stats, Hops etc) effects everyone else in any given Match.

Making the Net Code nice and clean (simple) is as important as a good Network Stack, which itself is imperative.

It always serves the Dev better to allow more players to participate. Setting requirements to high often removes participants. I myself have a Gaming Rig, self built so will not have an issue, but I play modern games and still face Lag that does not come from my setup. As sad as that is.

It will be very difficult for the Dev to set the requirement bar to high, Quad core 3.0 + 2Gb's video and 8Gb Ram over Broadband (or your not going to have any FUN, nor is any one you play with) so the code will have to be tight and the Specs moderate.

Sorry for going OT.

Edited by MaddMaxx, 14 November 2011 - 12:06 PM.

[UncleKulikov]

I suggest having client-side hit detection....unless that can be exploited by aimbots since the hit detection would be calculated from what the firing computer is updated with. Basically, client side hit detection makes it so that if you hit on your screen, it will register the hit with everyone else regardless of latency issues.

Because regardless of a network stack, there is still relative server proximity.

Ways to make lasers less omnipotent without affecting their "laser" quality:

Significant cooldown between shots
Much higher heat than in tabletop
Overheating significantly affects laser accuracy
Increased weight
Damage over time, requiring a steady aim to get the most out of the laser.

Edited by UncleKulikov, 14 November 2011 - 01:11 PM.

[Nik Van Rhijn]

MaddMaxx, the AC20 doesn't use a ballistic model as with a max range of 270m (go figure) it doesn't need one - this for a weapon with a caliber of 120 to 200mm, according to another post after that range it "drops to the ground" and yet another said thae short range was due to the extra short barrel which allowed (very?) incomplete combustion of the propellant. With regard to broadband - most places in the UK have a speed of about 2mb.sec - does this mean we will lag everyone out, especially if the server(s) are in the US?
The problems are not so much with the starting mechs, especially if no heavy customisation is allowed as to what happens a year down the line when the Clans arrive. At the moment much of this discussion is moot until we have an idea of what is happening in the game. I know at least some of these posts are read as you can see the occaisional name in red reading posts at the same time.

Edited by Nik Van Rhijn, 14 November 2011 - 01:14 PM.

[Mchawkeye]

Nik, i'm not entirely clear on what you are suggesting...could you clarify that for me a bit?

Though as for the discussion being moot, perhaps, but no more so than 90% of the topics on here. Its worth talking about as peoples expectations will be apparent to us and, hopefully, the devs. Though i'm not sure they can do anything about anything.

[VYCanis]

How about this....

-You have 3 crosshairs in a shallow triangle formation. They respectively show the firing lines for LA, Torsos/head, RA
-These crosshairs represent with considerable accuracy where a weapon in a given location is aiming, at any given range, they will normally yield impacts in a set pattern relating to how the weapons are mounted.
-At default, they are spaced a little bit apart.
-Arms will snap faster to aim, but are more greatly affected by any recoil or incoming weapons. Torso is slower to aim, is less affected by recoil, but is more affected by movement.
-Various external and internal affects will cause your crosshairs to bounce and sway and shake and such.
-Getting a solid target lock on an opponent will allow your crosshairs to converge considerably tighter, however they are still subject to external forces, so you'll still have to fight to keep the aim steady.
-Too many lasers hitting one location lose efficiency where by each additional laser adds increasingly less damage to the total(pulse lasers get a slight bonus against this due to the pulsing factor)

No CoF randomness, weapons take work to focus, mechs can actually hit the broadside of a barn, gives non missile users a reason to get target locks, effectors that would impede aim actually do so, lasers which are the easiest to boat prevented from being overpowered, pulse lasers a bit less so, but they have to pay more in tonnage, overall i think its a more realistic solution but still relatively true to the fiction, and doesn't involve mechs spraying bullets and lasers randomly at bizarre angles.


Also ac20s have **** range not because of the fiction, but because of table space. Really. Look at the aerospace range tables for the exact same weapons that go on mechs. You have weapons going the distance of multiple kilometers when they could barely clear a few hundred meters simply because their hexes represent a different size. The TT was balanced for dinner table space. IMO we are no longer constrained to dinner table ranges, we should expand past that.

Edited by VYCanis, 14 November 2011 - 01:53 PM.

[MaddMaxx]

Nik Van Rhijn, on 14 November 2011 - 01:13 PM, said:

MaddMaxx, the AC20 doesn't use a ballistic model as with a max range of 270m (go figure) it doesn't need one - this for a weapon with a caliber of 120 to 200mm, according to another post after that range it "drops to the ground" and yet another said thae short range was due to the extra short barrel which allowed (very?) incomplete combustion of the propellant. With regard to broadband - most places in the UK have a speed of about 2mb.sec - does this mean we will lag everyone out, especially if the server(s) are in the US?
The problems are not so much with the starting mech's, especially if no heavy customization is allowed as to what happens a year down the line when the Clans arrive. At the moment much of this discussion is moot until we have an idea of what is happening in the game. I know at least some of these posts are read as you can see the occasional name in red reading posts at the same time.

OK, Ballistic weapons in general. The AC20 was a bad choice, despite the Max weapons range is a Missile at 1Km

[Mchawkeye]

VYCanis, on 14 November 2011 - 01:43 PM, said:

How about this....

-You have 3 crosshairs in a shallow triangle formation. They respectively show the firing lines for LA, Torsos/head, RA
-These crosshairs represent with considerable accuracy where a weapon in a given location is aiming, at any given range, they will normally yield impacts in a set pattern relating to how the weapons are mounted.
-At default, they are spaced a little bit apart.
-Arms will snap faster to aim, but are more greatly affected by any recoil or incoming weapons. Torso is slower to aim, is less affected by recoil, but is more affected by movement.
-Various external and internal affects will cause your crosshairs to bounce and sway and shake and such.
-Getting a solid target lock on an opponent will allow your crosshairs to converge considerably tighter, however they are still subject to external forces, so you'll still have to fight to keep the aim steady.
-Too many lasers hitting one location lose efficiency where by each additional laser adds increasingly less damage to the total(pulse lasers get a slight bonus against this due to the pulsing factor)

No CoF randomness, weapons take work to focus, mechs can actually hit the broadside of a barn, gives non missile users a reason to get target locks, effectors that would impede aim actually do so, lasers which are the easiest to boat prevented from being overpowered, pulse lasers a bit less so, but they have to pay more in tonnage, overall i think its a more realistic solution but still relatively true to the fiction, and doesn't involve mechs spraying bullets and lasers randomly at bizarre angles.


Also ac20s have **** range not because of the fiction, but because of table space. Really. Look at the aerospace range tables for the exact same weapons that go on mechs. You have weapons going the distance of multiple kilometers when they could barely clear a few hundred meters simply because their hexes represent a different size. The TT was balanced for dinner table space. IMO we are no longer constrained to dinner table ranges, we should expand past that.

I can dig that. Love that idea.

And the fact that our giant 'mechs can now operate off the dinner table; weapon ranges are going to have to be looked at, simply from the tactical game point if nothing else. The fact that we aren't on our mummys dining room table is an equally good reason.

Perfick.

Works for me.

Gone right up my flag pole that has; I'm saluting that one.

[MaddMaxx]

VYCanis, on 14 November 2011 - 01:43 PM, said:

How about this....

-You have 3 cross-hairs in a shallow triangle formation. They respectively show the firing lines for LA, Torsos/head, RA
-These cross-hairs represent with considerable accuracy where a weapon in a given location is aiming, at any given range, they will normally yield impacts in a set pattern relating to how the weapons are mounted.
-At default, they are spaced a little bit apart.
-Arms will snap faster to aim, but are more greatly affected by any recoil or incoming weapons. Torso is slower to aim, is less affected by recoil, but is more affected by movement.
-Various external and internal affects will cause your cross-hairs to bounce and sway and shake and such.

I could go for this but would really prefer a Reticule and the selected weapons be represented by varying colored solid dots/circles inside that reticule and they follow a similar convergence rule based on the external and internal influence. The tightest the dots could get to each other would be just touching or 1-2 pixel apart max.

I guess it comes down to how the Weapon Ranges are handled. The Dev seem to want BT rules based game play (with tweaks surely) so perhaps the colored dots could vary in size based on weapon size in combination with distance to target (which is tracked in real time on the currently selected target)

[GreenHell]

MaddMaxx, on 14 November 2011 - 01:47 PM, said:

OK, Ballistic weapons in general. The AC20 was a bad choice, despite the Max weapons range is a Missile at 1Km

Max weapons range is actually 1.2Km with ATM's and Light Gauss