A lot of the game mechanics that worked in Battletech just didn't transfer well to Mechwarrior.
Alpha Strikes are too powerful.
Recoil, I feel, could go a long way towards discouraging alpha strikes with concussive weapons. Fire too many at once and your mech falls down. With energy weapons heat does a pretty good job of discouraging alpha strike abuse, but with concussive weapons its hard to justify high heat outputs.
Another thought, since we're here, the idea of deflection. I feel it works great in red orchestra, and really adds alot of tactics and tension to the game. Overall it might encourage hitting targets dead center rather then aiming for their limbs.
Finally, reticle speed. It takes time for muzzles to aim on a target, even for energy weapons. Arm weapons track faster, chest weapons track slower, etc. The mouse itself would move as fast as ever, but the reticle for the actual weapons would trail it depending on the traits of the weapons.
1
Recoil, Deflection, and slow reticles
Started by deckard, Oct 31 2011 04:42 PM
25 replies to this topic
#2
-
-
- 230 posts
Member
- LocationMica Majority
Posted 31 October 2011 - 05:02 PM
Tracking should definitely be made more realistic. A Hunchback can waggle his arms where ever he wants to line up a medium laser shot, but to line up his AC-20, he has to pivot his entire body. Want to aim the AC-20 to the left? Torso twist and/or pivot in place. Want to aim the AC-20 down? Bend over. Where's that picture of the Hunchback in the city bending over at a wild angle to line up an AC-20 shot with some people on the ground? Cool image.
In MW3 I believe I recall that chest mounted weapons could still track lef/right/up/down, without torso movement, which I always found very odd.
---Buck.
In MW3 I believe I recall that chest mounted weapons could still track lef/right/up/down, without torso movement, which I always found very odd.
---Buck.
#3
-
-
- 417 posts
Member
Posted 31 October 2011 - 06:20 PM
deckard, on 31 October 2011 - 04:42 PM, said:
...
Alpha Strikes are too powerful.
Recoil, I feel, could go a long way towards discouraging alpha strikes with concussive weapons. Fire too many at once and your mech falls down. With energy weapons heat does a pretty good job of discouraging alpha strike abuse, but with concussive weapons its hard to justify high heat outputs.
...
Alpha Strikes are too powerful.
Recoil, I feel, could go a long way towards discouraging alpha strikes with concussive weapons. Fire too many at once and your mech falls down. With energy weapons heat does a pretty good job of discouraging alpha strike abuse, but with concussive weapons its hard to justify high heat outputs.
...
well, the power of an alpha strike really depends on the mech and its load-out, so it's unfair to say that ALL alpha strikes are OP, so they should ALL be nurfed. Shooting all your weapons at once is a valid tactic after all, though, granted, not every iteration of MW has handled alpha strikes very well.. (I'm looking at you MW4/mercs)
#4
-
-
- Elite Founder
- 1,633 posts
Member
- LocationWashington, USA
Posted 31 October 2011 - 06:22 PM
deckard, on 31 October 2011 - 04:42 PM, said:
A lot of the game mechanics that worked in Battletech just didn't transfer well to Mechwarrior.
Alpha Strikes are too powerful.
Recoil, I feel, could go a long way towards discouraging alpha strikes with concussive weapons. Fire too many at once and your mech falls down. With energy weapons heat does a pretty good job of discouraging alpha strike abuse, but with concussive weapons its hard to justify high heat outputs.
Another thought, since we're here, the idea of deflection. I feel it works great in red orchestra, and really adds alot of tactics and tension to the game. Overall it might encourage hitting targets dead center rather then aiming for their limbs.
Finally, reticle speed. It takes time for muzzles to aim on a target, even for energy weapons. Arm weapons track faster, chest weapons track slower, etc. The mouse itself would move as fast as ever, but the reticle for the actual weapons would trail it depending on the traits of the weapons.
Alpha Strikes are too powerful.
Recoil, I feel, could go a long way towards discouraging alpha strikes with concussive weapons. Fire too many at once and your mech falls down. With energy weapons heat does a pretty good job of discouraging alpha strike abuse, but with concussive weapons its hard to justify high heat outputs.
Another thought, since we're here, the idea of deflection. I feel it works great in red orchestra, and really adds alot of tactics and tension to the game. Overall it might encourage hitting targets dead center rather then aiming for their limbs.
Finally, reticle speed. It takes time for muzzles to aim on a target, even for energy weapons. Arm weapons track faster, chest weapons track slower, etc. The mouse itself would move as fast as ever, but the reticle for the actual weapons would trail it depending on the traits of the weapons.
I completely disagree. You aren't talking about a human that needs to aim down sights. A barrel stabilized platform like modern tanks have are capable of firing on target immediately. An M1A2 is going to hit whatever is in its cross hairs regardless of terrain and speed (as long as the other target doesn't change direction rapidly, but that's not covered by reticle size). This includes swinging the turret around to aim. Why would mechs with 1000 years of tech over a modern tank lose this ability?
Now, the weapons can track slower (increasing turret rotation speed is an ever increasing problem in armored vehicles). But they wouldn't be any more or less accurate in doing so.
#5
-
-
- 604 posts
Member
- LocationGMT -6
Posted 31 October 2011 - 06:44 PM
s3dition, on 31 October 2011 - 06:22 PM, said:
Why would mechs with 1000 years of tech over a modern tank lose this ability?
Because it's a game that makes the most advanced ballistic weapons in the universe unable to shoot accurately across a football field. You gotta get close and dirty, like the armored knights of old!
#6
-
-
- Stone Cold
- 3,272 posts
Member
- LocationColumbus, Ga
Posted 31 October 2011 - 06:57 PM
MWLL does a great job modeling the concussive nature of hits from ACs ,LRMs, SRMs, etc.
The heavier the round the more sway introduced to the recipient , the harder it is for them to aim, etc etc.
The heavier the round the more sway introduced to the recipient , the harder it is for them to aim, etc etc.
#7
-
-
- 24 posts
Member
Posted 31 October 2011 - 07:18 PM
youngblood, on 31 October 2011 - 06:44 PM, said:
Because it's a game that makes the most advanced ballistic weapons in the universe unable to shoot accurately across a football field. You gotta get close and dirty, like the armored knights of old!
Then that's quite dumb, having to charge into a 500m radius to shoot off a Gauss Rifle that has an 800m range is rather neglectful on the pilots part. Your also discounting all the technology at this time. Without the Gyro every time a Battlemech fires off its AC/PPC/LRM/ the mech would quickly fall to the ground because of the recoil.
I mean a mech that has a targeting computer, a Gyro with biofeedback handles like a 1945 Sherman tank is laughable. Lets keep to the actually technology in 3040's and stop forcing deflection on weapons that travel at hyper velocity.
#8
-
-
- 604 posts
Member
- LocationGMT -6
Posted 31 October 2011 - 07:54 PM
I was actually thinking more about the Autocannon/20 than a Gauss Rifle, but regardless--yes, of course it is a 'Mech simulator. However, it is still science fiction, so it does not have to directly reflect real physics and future technology. Honestly, with how the BattleTech universe is unable to keep up with even our -modern- real-life military technology, it really deserves to be called something like "fusionpunk", or the future of the 1980s, just like "steampunk" is the future of the 1800s.
I tend to enjoy 'Mechs when they're mashing up against each other like in a rugby scrum, and if the game balance makes it a game like that, I'd enjoy it, surely. And well, if it doesn't, I think I'd be okay with it, too.
I tend to enjoy 'Mechs when they're mashing up against each other like in a rugby scrum, and if the game balance makes it a game like that, I'd enjoy it, surely. And well, if it doesn't, I think I'd be okay with it, too.
Edited by youngblood, 31 October 2011 - 07:55 PM.
#9
-
-
- 66 posts
Member
Posted 31 October 2011 - 08:12 PM
Quote
Tracking should definitely be made more realistic. A Hunchback can waggle his arms where ever he wants to line up a medium laser shot, but to line up his AC-20, he has to pivot his entire body. Want to aim the AC-20 to the left? Torso twist and/or pivot in place. Want to aim the AC-20 down? Bend over.
I love this idea. If you look at the evolution of tank design you'll notice they've gone from fixed chassis weapons (except in the case of demo weapons) to turret based. This is because turning the entire vehicle to aim the weapon takes a long time and very fine adjustment. There are some armored vehicles that still used fixed weapons, notably some tank destroyers, but they are expected to fight under conditions that allow them to engage at a range or position favorable to that design (and likely have support from other AFVs anyway). Now admittedly a mech with a rotating torso should function in some capacity like a tank turret but having it take longer to bring it's weapon to bare would be realistic and interesting. This would add a bit of tactical thinking to what mechs you choose to pilot and how you fight against them in the field. It's also a nice tradeoff for putting a strong weapon in the heavily armored CT position. I can't disable that weapon without **** near killing you anyway.
#10
-
-
- The Money Maker
- 542 posts
Member
Posted 31 October 2011 - 08:33 PM
They better do put in some form of static spread or dynamic reticle bloom in order to simulate how everything in the universe has terrible accuracy and range, and prevent QuakeWarrior from happening.
Most weapons shouldn't really do anything aside from the bit of torso twist recoil effects that you see in MW3. We can assume that whenever a player initiates an Alpha Strike, the pilot, the character you are taking the role of, is assumed to have thought of doing an Alpha Strike at the same time as you have (before you press the buttons), and thus would have subconsciously shifted his mech's balance to the front to counter the recoil.
Them neurohelmets are hot jazz.
Most weapons shouldn't really do anything aside from the bit of torso twist recoil effects that you see in MW3. We can assume that whenever a player initiates an Alpha Strike, the pilot, the character you are taking the role of, is assumed to have thought of doing an Alpha Strike at the same time as you have (before you press the buttons), and thus would have subconsciously shifted his mech's balance to the front to counter the recoil.
Them neurohelmets are hot jazz.
#11
-
-
- Legendary Founder
- 100 posts
Member
Posted 31 October 2011 - 08:52 PM
I already did the math on the Mektek forum once; an M1 Abrams (which is actually a tank from the 1980's) would absolutely beat the heck out of a Mech as described in the Mechwarrior games, and, lets face it, Tanks are far more stable firing platforms, anyway. The only advantage conferred, in real tactics, to a bipedal armor platform, is maneuverability, which breaks down past 20 tons anyway (probably earlier than that, too.). Based on real-world physics, Mechs are a bad choice, especially at such sizes.
But they are #$@%ing awesome. So shut up and enjoy the awesome game.
From a game standpoint, the more of a pain it is to do something (e.g. hitting a target at 1000m; an immensely easy shot for a modern tank), the more the player's skill is a factor in the game. And I, for one, would like to see skills being a factor more than twitchy reflexes. I even wrote a looooong thing about how things like recoil can be used to help with that, among other, somewhat moot points.
But they are #$@%ing awesome. So shut up and enjoy the awesome game.
From a game standpoint, the more of a pain it is to do something (e.g. hitting a target at 1000m; an immensely easy shot for a modern tank), the more the player's skill is a factor in the game. And I, for one, would like to see skills being a factor more than twitchy reflexes. I even wrote a looooong thing about how things like recoil can be used to help with that, among other, somewhat moot points.
#12
-
-
- Overlord
- 845 posts
Member
Posted 31 October 2011 - 09:01 PM
omegaclawe, on 31 October 2011 - 08:52 PM, said:
would like to see skills being a factor more than twitchy reflexes.
Twitchy reflexes ARE skills. Some players work for years to develop a good fast aiming twitch. What "skills" would you be referring to?
#13
-
-
- 230 posts
Member
- LocationMica Majority
Posted 31 October 2011 - 09:07 PM
The Battletech universe is in fact cyberpunk 
. A mech mounted machine gun weighs .5 tons, a 20mm cannon weighs as much as a big rig, and you have to close to spitting distance to land laser beam shots.
The rules governing mech combat take themselves very seriously.
But the universe itself does not. One of the great mech designers in-universe is Dr. B. Banzai, as in, 'Buckaroo Banzai Across The 8th Dimension'. Theres a planet named after manga artist Rumiko Takahashi. There are probably hundreds of references to stuff the original writers were fans of.
Masked men in sneak suits with vibroblades prowl the night. Men with goggles, mohawks, and cybernetic arms haunt the bars.
Definition cyberpunk
.
---Buck.
. A mech mounted machine gun weighs .5 tons, a 20mm cannon weighs as much as a big rig, and you have to close to spitting distance to land laser beam shots.The rules governing mech combat take themselves very seriously.
But the universe itself does not. One of the great mech designers in-universe is Dr. B. Banzai, as in, 'Buckaroo Banzai Across The 8th Dimension'. Theres a planet named after manga artist Rumiko Takahashi. There are probably hundreds of references to stuff the original writers were fans of.
Masked men in sneak suits with vibroblades prowl the night. Men with goggles, mohawks, and cybernetic arms haunt the bars.
Definition cyberpunk
.---Buck.
#14
-
-
- 10 posts
Member
Posted 01 November 2011 - 10:36 AM
red beard, on 31 October 2011 - 09:01 PM, said:
Twitchy reflexes ARE skills. Some players work for years to develop a good fast aiming twitch. What "skills" would you be referring to?
Edited by Insaniti, 01 November 2011 - 10:36 AM.
#15
-
-
- Legendary Founder
- 100 posts
Member
Posted 01 November 2011 - 10:51 AM
Timing is a skill. Pressing the button the fastest, with the current network disparity, isn't. Whomever shot first shouldn't be the deciding factor; the aim, skills, maneuvers, and yes, tactics, should be a larger factor. There's more on that in the link, there... well, less on tactics, but you get the idea.
#16
-
- 1 posts
Rookie
Posted 14 November 2011 - 03:43 PM
I just want to register my preference for unconstrained mouse aiming a la BT3025 (and as opposed to MW4).
Though one might argue that slow aiming is more realistic, I hate having "laggy" controls and slow torso aiming just feels like the game is being unresponsive to me. A humanoid weapons platform controlled via a neural helmet should be controlled like an extension of one's body, not like a big tank with legs.
Though one might argue that slow aiming is more realistic, I hate having "laggy" controls and slow torso aiming just feels like the game is being unresponsive to me. A humanoid weapons platform controlled via a neural helmet should be controlled like an extension of one's body, not like a big tank with legs.
#17
-
-
- 597 posts
Member
Posted 14 November 2011 - 04:45 PM
i keep seeing it brought up again how much BT tech sucks so much.
and how we should just settle for directly representing how much it sucks, at least according to the TT rules
why?
This is essentially a reboot after all. So why not make mechs appropriately capable of meching properly? There is nothing to be gained by making a bunch of sci fi robots that can have their metal behinds kicked by a 1000 year old tank. So i'd much rather interpret the fiction in the most technologically favorable manner by whatever means capable.
and how we should just settle for directly representing how much it sucks, at least according to the TT rules
why?
This is essentially a reboot after all. So why not make mechs appropriately capable of meching properly? There is nothing to be gained by making a bunch of sci fi robots that can have their metal behinds kicked by a 1000 year old tank. So i'd much rather interpret the fiction in the most technologically favorable manner by whatever means capable.
#18
-
-
- 358 posts
Member
- LocationGermany
Posted 14 November 2011 - 05:08 PM
Recticules should be slow, and I'd use 3, a full one that is representing the torso, and 2 half ones that are combined to form a full one, representing the arms.
If I move the mouse to the right the "arms" crosshair starts moving in that direction with a fixed speed while the torso starts following more slowly. If you now leave the maximum twist range of your torso the arm on this side would still keep moving for a little while (now breaking the "arm" crosshair into its 2 pieces), giving you a greater firing arc to that side with this arm, same could be done with mechs that have special designed torso weapons (Marauder "turret" for example). Also on some designs the arms could have problems to aim at things on the other side of the torso, never being able to airm their right arm weapon further to the left then their torso weapons (Jenner or Strider for example). That way the torso weapons would always be fixed to the center of the screen and would be rather cumbersome to bring on target, while being well armored and hard to destroy, and arms would be faster to aim with and offer a potentially better firing arc (or limited on some mechs), but are placed on flimsy and rather easy to destroy arms.
Or even, make my pilot in the cockpit turn the head in that direction, and make the arms and torso both follow more slowly, but still follow the general rules of above.
I'd draw examples of what I'm talking about, but I'm at work and can't use paint here.
There should also be several other factors that might add to crosshair behavior.
Your average torso weapons might be especially bumpy when walking, but have no problems being braced against recoil (both from your own fire and enemy hits), while the arms might be thrown off target when hit or when firing something like a Gauss Rifle or AC20.
Imagine your arm getting hit by a PPC, and your "half recticule" from above makes a quck shift some degrees to the side before returning to the position it should have.
Of course different designs should again bring different pros and cons. The Jenners arms, while unable to aim across the torso, should also be "immune" to any recoil effects.
If I move the mouse to the right the "arms" crosshair starts moving in that direction with a fixed speed while the torso starts following more slowly. If you now leave the maximum twist range of your torso the arm on this side would still keep moving for a little while (now breaking the "arm" crosshair into its 2 pieces), giving you a greater firing arc to that side with this arm, same could be done with mechs that have special designed torso weapons (Marauder "turret" for example). Also on some designs the arms could have problems to aim at things on the other side of the torso, never being able to airm their right arm weapon further to the left then their torso weapons (Jenner or Strider for example). That way the torso weapons would always be fixed to the center of the screen and would be rather cumbersome to bring on target, while being well armored and hard to destroy, and arms would be faster to aim with and offer a potentially better firing arc (or limited on some mechs), but are placed on flimsy and rather easy to destroy arms.
Or even, make my pilot in the cockpit turn the head in that direction, and make the arms and torso both follow more slowly, but still follow the general rules of above.
I'd draw examples of what I'm talking about, but I'm at work and can't use paint here.
There should also be several other factors that might add to crosshair behavior.
Your average torso weapons might be especially bumpy when walking, but have no problems being braced against recoil (both from your own fire and enemy hits), while the arms might be thrown off target when hit or when firing something like a Gauss Rifle or AC20.
Imagine your arm getting hit by a PPC, and your "half recticule" from above makes a quck shift some degrees to the side before returning to the position it should have.
Of course different designs should again bring different pros and cons. The Jenners arms, while unable to aim across the torso, should also be "immune" to any recoil effects.
#19
-
-
- Legendary Founder
- 1,127 posts
Member
- LocationIn a leather flying cap and goggles
Posted 14 November 2011 - 06:24 PM
VYCanis, on 14 November 2011 - 04:45 PM, said:
i keep seeing it brought up again how much BT tech sucks so much.
and how we should just settle for directly representing how much it sucks, at least according to the TT rules
why?
This is essentially a reboot after all. So why not make mechs appropriately capable of meching properly? There is nothing to be gained by making a bunch of sci fi robots that can have their metal behinds kicked by a 1000 year old tank. So i'd much rather interpret the fiction in the most technologically favorable manner by whatever means capable.
and how we should just settle for directly representing how much it sucks, at least according to the TT rules
why?
This is essentially a reboot after all. So why not make mechs appropriately capable of meching properly? There is nothing to be gained by making a bunch of sci fi robots that can have their metal behinds kicked by a 1000 year old tank. So i'd much rather interpret the fiction in the most technologically favorable manner by whatever means capable.
Because if they rewrote things so tech was as advanced as it should be, there wouldn't be any 'Mechs meching around with celebrated pilots in the cockpits. War would be decided by hordes of unmanned drones launched from orbit. BT tech sucks because high tech is boring.
#20
-
-
- 597 posts
Member
Posted 14 November 2011 - 06:41 PM
Battletech... tech is only as bad as you interpret it to be.
Hordes of drones can be dealt with fairly easily with sufficient amounts of ECM, ditto for extreme range targeting.
Pure AI robots could conceivably get hacked, and anything short of sentient could likely get fooled by this or that.
Putting a person in the cockpit, considering all the potential high tech countermeasures out there, can easily be interpreted as being a necessity because of all the high technology around rather than as a limitation of their vehicles or computers.
Hordes of drones can be dealt with fairly easily with sufficient amounts of ECM, ditto for extreme range targeting.
Pure AI robots could conceivably get hacked, and anything short of sentient could likely get fooled by this or that.
Putting a person in the cockpit, considering all the potential high tech countermeasures out there, can easily be interpreted as being a necessity because of all the high technology around rather than as a limitation of their vehicles or computers.
1 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users
