41 replies to this topic

[Creel]

I'm choosing to begin referring to mechanical weapon accuracy (typically measured in minutes of angle) as "base deviation". I will refer to the overall spread as a result of cumulative effects (movement, damage, heat, whatevs, etc...) as "net deviation".

[KnowBuddy]

Creel, on 11 November 2011 - 01:20 PM, said:

I'm choosing to begin referring to mechanical weapon accuracy (typically measured in minutes of angle) as "base deviation". I will refer to the overall spread as a result of cumulative effects (movement, damage, heat, whatevs, etc...) as "net deviation".

Your deviation is gross.

[CaveMan]

Creel, on 11 November 2011 - 01:20 PM, said:

I'm choosing to begin referring to mechanical weapon accuracy (typically measured in minutes of angle) as "base deviation". I will refer to the overall spread as a result of cumulative effects (movement, damage, heat, whatevs, etc...) as "net deviation".

Circular Error, Probable (CEP) is the term for the cumulative spread cone. It's defined as a circle at the target's distance whose radius is equal to the maximum likely deviation. ~95% of shots should fall within that circle.

'Mechs don't have pinpoint targeting even with lasers. As another poster state upthread, every weapon is mounted to a "building sized" vehicle that aims those multi-ton weapons using servo motors and myomer bundles. Reaction is not going to be instantaneous when you shift the aimpoint and precision alignment of a 5-ton barrel is going to take a moment. Try manually focusing a digital camera through the video screen while using a telephoto lens sometime; it takes a while to get it right. (auto-focus takes even longer and half the time the **** thing doesn't even focus on what you're looking at) Yes, if the 'Mech stands stock-still for several seconds with the reticule centered over the target the weapons will align enough for precision shooting, but you're not going to peg a precise location on a moving target at 1000 meters while running the way you can in MW3/4.

[Creel]

KnowBuddy, on 11 November 2011 - 01:33 PM, said:

Your deviation is gross.

Well played, sir. I chose net to reflect that there are many factors which will expand and contract the margin of error. It is, entirely possible, that there are better terms to use. Caveman uses CEP, which I like. My terms have the undeniable benefit (from my perspective) of being my idea.

[MaddMaxx]

Glare, on 11 November 2011 - 09:37 AM, said:

Two parts of a post addressing two different aspects of weapon accuracy. The base weapon spread, the one that will never change, is if there is time to reset the weapon perfectly after each and every shot before the next. 'Increasing the cone' is what happens when there is not an ideal amount of time to reset your sights.

Nope. He stated Cone never changes. Then stated it did. So? Which is it?

[Creel]

MaddMaxx, on 11 November 2011 - 01:48 PM, said:

Nope. He stated Cone never changes. Then stated it did. So? Which is it?

read more carefully. he said that the cone representing the weapons base deviation value does not change, but that the net deviation is subject to modifiers

[MaddMaxx]

Creel, on 11 November 2011 - 01:51 PM, said:

read more carefully. he said that the cone representing the weapons base deviation value does not change, but that the net deviation is subject to modifiers

Once again, if that was true the OP would contain those terms. At time of reading it, and still at this time, it contains neither. Making stuff up to help the OP didn't actually say doesn't prove your point any better.

P.S. Reading what is not there is difficult to say the least.

Edited by MaddMaxx, 11 November 2011 - 02:02 PM.

[Creel]

MaddMaxx, on 11 November 2011 - 01:59 PM, said:

Once again, if that was true the OP would contain those terms. At time of reading it, and still at this time, it contains neither. Making stuff up to help the OP didn't actually say doesn't prove your point any better.

P.S. I read well enough

They don't contain those terms, because I made them up 20 posts after the OP.

When he references cone of fire as dynamic, rather than static, it is in the context of having been modified by factors other than base weapon deviation.

Edited by Creel, 11 November 2011 - 02:05 PM.

[Tweaks]

UncleKulikov, on 11 November 2011 - 12:03 PM, said:

Except that he says that cones of fire don't change, and that makes no sense to me from the games i've played. But either way, as long as it's harder to hit things when moving or firing on full auto or jump jetting, and there isn't a way to macro around it, I'm happy.

Not what I said. I said the cone of fire always has a base value that never change for a given weapon (thus a hard stat), and then movement or other external factors can cause it to temporarily INCREASE but never to shrink.

Edited by Tweaks, 11 November 2011 - 05:04 PM.

[Tweaks]

oops... clicked Quote on my own post instead of Edit...

Edited by Tweaks, 11 November 2011 - 05:04 PM.

[Draco Argentum]

CaveMan, on 11 November 2011 - 01:41 PM, said:

Circular Error, Probable (CEP) is the term for the cumulative spread cone. It's defined as a circle at the target's distance whose radius is equal to the maximum likely deviation. ~95% of shots should fall within that circle.

This is true, it would be dissappointing from a sim angle if mechs could shoot with pinpoint accuracy.

[Tweaks]

Draco Argentum, on 11 November 2011 - 05:10 PM, said:

This is true, it would be dissappointing from a sim angle if mechs could shoot with pinpoint accuracy.

Yup, me too. As many others pointed out, the simple fact that a 'Mech's weapons are mounted mechanically means that they can't possibly be 100% accurate. Especially after reading the novels, it's clear they were often failing or misbehaving. Even lasers, which by themselves ARE pinpoint accurate, are not 100% accurate because of the fact they are mounted.

[VYCanis]

Look,

Just because weapons on the TT have difficulty in hitting, and tend to spread because of dice rolls is not directly indicative that mechs are literally just spraying lasers everywhere.

In the same way that all TT weapons have 10s recycle times, or how certain mechs on the TT could torso twist despite not having any discernible hips, or how mechs like the thug could have weapons extend so far past their hands that there is no way they'd be able to pick stuff or punch properly, or how in the TT weapons disappear after hitting invisible walls, or how you could never get DFAed or meleed if you won initiative unless you willfully put yourself in that situation, or how in the TT difficulty of aiming was only based on how fast you are moving, regardless of whether its straight at the firer or perpendicular, or involved trees between you and your opponent for 90% of the run before ending within clear LOS.

ABSTRACTIONS

Mechs do not have babby's first mickey mouse calculator attached to a Speak and Spell as their fire control computer. It doesn't matter how bad tech declines, tanks before many of you were born could shoot straight out to several miles. If there is tech to make fusion, there is tech to shoot straight.

What we should be thinking about is preserving relative balance the TT rules are trying to convey. Direct cone of fire is a lazy, and inelegant solution that looks horrible if applied to any mech with more than one weapon in a given area.

lasers should be laser accurate and ballistic MOA barely even be a factor at the ranges this game is likely to take place. in. Unless extreme LOS range rules are being represented.

All you have to do is factor in all the stuff that should be messing with your aim, to do just that. actually mess with your aim. Make aiming difficult. Not make aiming some sloppy imprecise affair like some dude shooting from the hip. After that it should be a matter of making most weapons tend towards spreading their damage by messing with the weapon performance, such as rate of fire, projectile speed, ballistic drop, laser duration, laser recycle times, splash damage vs concentrated damage, etc.

I mean, what would make more sense. A heavy laser being inaccurate because it veers off to the right like a shot from a cheap paintball gun, OR A heavy laser being inaccurate by virtue of spreading its damage over a long fire duration that allows targets to move around, get to cover, or otherwise try and spoil the firer's aim?

What would be more satisfying? going POW POW POW with an ac20 and watching shots go everywhere except where you want them to go, OR going POW POW POW and controlling your recoil while compensating for drop and projectile speed?

Let me say it again, there is more to weapon inaccuracy that simply arbitrary spray and pray factor, there is a game engine here, lets take advantage of it and actually simulate the sort of stuff that would make hitting difficult, rather than just defaulting back to dicerolls and assuming the involved mechs are being produced by mental defectives and piloted by spastics

[Neutron IX]

I think we'll need Cray on this one...

[Joachim Viltry]

I love how people will argue absolute bullshit based upon their entirely missing the point.

Guess what, shooting from a moving target is hard, and rightly should be represented. Weapons should not ever be perfectly accurate, because in the real world -wait for it- weapons aren't perfectly accurate. A rifle for instance has it's inherent accuracy (which could be quite high), but still can only be as accurate as the SHOOTER. shooting and moving is difficult, as you have to maintain your balance over rough terrain, now instead of being a guy with a rifle wearing body armor you are in a 65 ton war machine that cannot keep it's limbs perfectly on target and still stay upright, on a battlefield so full of electronic noise that modern military radios have been acknowledged to be essentially useless- so targeting is inhibited. This is Battletech, good luck kid, here's your helmet.

Lets cut the **** here, the OP is explaining semantics, stop trolling and pay attention. Your laser may draw a perfect line but bear in mind it's mount ain't perfectly still, so if you want MW4 style perfect POA- tough ****, cause its POA is gonna be all over the place as you move.

Threads keep going on about this and boil down to 2 real camps. People who want a SIMULATION that takes the various factors in play and tries to replicate them, and people who miss the ******* point. This second group are the people that maintain such things as ''lasers are perfectly accurate'' and that TT rules mean weapons fire randomly at the area around target rather than at point of aim. Missing the idea that the TT rules represent the inherent problem of shooting AT a moving target FROM a moving target. This difficulty is cannon, and the reasons for it are ultimately irrelevant to the discussion. Those of us with a penchant for SIMULATIONS appreciate games that factor in difficulties rather than those that simplify things to play towards audiences who want things watered down because making things hard frustrates them.

Whether you want the game to avoid the TT rules like the plague or not, the fact is the Devs have stated that they want to emulate Battletech as much as possible, and for those of us who value some realism/cannon/common sense this means no pinpoint-where-i-aim-i-always-hit BS. you want to go play a game on easy mode, might I suggest you go find an aim-hack for the FPS of your choice.

[VYCanis]

and i whole heartedly believe that the inherent difficulty in hitting a target should be represented, however what i am saying is arbitrary cone of fire is the wrong way to do that when there are many other better looking, more involved ways of doing it

Cone of fire is low hanging fruit. It looks cheap and detracts from visuals.

What i want to avoid is seeing lets say a mech like a Nova, with all those medium lasers mounted in its arms, group firing, and somehow scattering all those lasers all over the place. despite half of them being mounted parallel to each other in the same locaton. It looks stupid. Additionally trying to implement cone of fire according to the TT rules and ranges would also yield such weird *** stuff as machine gun bullets spraying out with all the accuracy of the mist setting on a spray bottle at their "long range" of 90m, which would look silly and make them useless. Or such gems as the large laser on a mech's right arm hitting at 270m but the medium laser underneath it missing, even though they are both perfectly aligned.

And even if you end up with a bunch of weapons focused on a particular location, there are multiple gameplay solutions that can keep that from being game breaking, so long as you are able to spread damage around effectively.

[KnowBuddy]

VYCanis, on 11 November 2011 - 09:18 PM, said:

and i whole heartedly believe that the inherent difficulty in hitting a target should be represented, however what i am saying is arbitrary cone of fire is the wrong way to do that when there are many other better looking, more involved ways of doing it

Cone of fire is low hanging fruit. It looks cheap and detracts from visuals.

What i want to avoid is seeing lets say a mech like a Nova, with all those medium lasers mounted in its arms, group firing, and somehow scattering all those lasers all over the place. despite half of them being mounted parallel to each other in the same locaton.

You have a point, that a shotgun-laser effect would be somewhat ridiculous (even given that although lasers are as pinpoint as you'll get, they will still not be pinpoint accurate in practice). But I haven't seen anyone arguing for the total randomness inherent in the TT rules. It still makes sense that you will get some deviation for each firing platform, so I think it would be perfectly acceptable, when alpha striking in a hypothetical mech with 3 lasers in the left arm, 3 lasers in the right arm, and 2 lasers in the center torso, to see 3 points of impact for the left arm platform, the right arm platform, and the center torso platform, respectively (with a very limited spread).

[Strum Wealh]

To build on VYCanis' post above, perhaps something like what was done in From Software's Chromehounds might work:

"Due to mechanical differences in the weapons themselves and small errors in the fire control software software", the weapons could have small (say, no more than ~0.05 seconds), individually randomized delays between trigger pull and firing.
Combined with recoil effects, even clusters of weapons mounted to each other (that is, in the same location) and linked to the same trigger could and would, when fired, experience significant spread at range, while symmetrical set-ups would show a small offset to one direction or another depending on which the order in which the weapons were fired, the recoil for each individual weapon, and where the weapons were mounted relative to one another and to the torso's axes of rotation.

The effect, allowing for the above and the (generally adequate) compensation systems built into the BattleMechs' movement and fire control systems would be that targeting and firing are highly accurate for recoilless weapons (all energy weapons except PPCs) and weapons with negligible recoil (machine guns and smaller (x<10) LRM/MRM/SRM/rocket launchers/launcher-clusters), with accuracy decreasing as recoil (and damage output) increases:
-- light recoil for light (-2 class) autocannons and mid-capacity (10<x<20) LRM/MRM/SRM/rocket launchers/launcher-clusters, then
-- middling recoil for medium (-5 class) autocannons and large (21<x<30) LRM/MRM/SRM/rocket launchers/launcher-clusters, then
-- high recoil for heavy (-10 class) autocannons, light Gauss rifles, PPCs, and very large (x>31) LRM/MRM/SRM/rocket launchers/launcher-clusters, then
-- very high recoil for very heavy (-20 class) autocannons, standard and heavy Gauss rifles, and artillery (Arrow IV missiles, Long Toms and such)

Your thoughts?

[Tweaks]

KnowBuddy, on 11 November 2011 - 10:11 PM, said:

It still makes sense that you will get some deviation for each firing platform, so I think it would be perfectly acceptable, when alpha striking in a hypothetical mech with 3 lasers in the left arm, 3 lasers in the right arm, and 2 lasers in the center torso, to see 3 points of impact for the left arm platform, the right arm platform, and the center torso platform, respectively (with a very limited spread).

As you mentioned, the spread doesn't have to be wide for lasers, as the weapon itself is known to be very accurate. However because of its unpredictable mount point (whether it's an arm, shoulder, leg or torso), it will not always hit the same spot after every shot, BUT there will still be a tight spread.

Remember my OP... Each weapon would have a BASE spread "hard" statistic. In case of lasers, it would be very tight, but in case of an AC/10 for example, it would be much wider just because of the explosion and recoil effect shaking the cannon after every shot.

I don't see what you guys are afraid of really. It just makes perfect sense and wouldn't make a 'Mech feel sluggish or clumsy in any way. Just look at how they did it in World of Tanks, and apply the same style to ballistic weapons in MWO. Lasers and other energy weapons would have a tighter spread of course, but still have one. PPC weapons for example, even though they are energy based weapons, are shaking the 'Mech with every shot, not to mention that its heat can warp a cannon over time (it becomes red hot, check the MW trailer, and it does so clearly in the novels too). It's therefore likely that its accuracy becomes affected over prolonged use (theoretically at least)

[Creel]

VYCanis, on 11 November 2011 - 09:18 PM, said:

trying to implement cone of fire according to the TT rules and ranges would also yield such weird *** stuff as machine gun bullets spraying out with all the accuracy of the mist setting on a spray bottle at their "long range" of 90m, which would look silly and make them useless.

That's pretty much how machine guns actually work. I like to think of it as the 'wall of lead' school of fire discipline. In mech v mech combat, MGs are useless. They're anti-infantry weapons.

VYCanis, on 11 November 2011 - 09:18 PM, said:

Or such gems as the large laser on a mech's right arm hitting at 270m but the medium laser underneath it missing, even though they are both perfectly aligned.

They aren't.

VYCanis, on 11 November 2011 - 09:18 PM, said:

And even if you end up with a bunch of weapons focused on a particular location, there are multiple gameplay solutions that can keep that from being game breaking, so long as you are able to spread damage around effectively.

yeah, that's what I want.

edit: bold isn't as bold as I'd like so, to clarify... Spreading the damage around effectively is what I want.

Edited by Creel, 12 November 2011 - 09:34 AM.