437 replies to this topic

[Tyrant]

No randomization in shooting mechanics.

MWO is NOT THE TABLE TOP GAME GET OVER IT.

[Oderint dum Metuant]

Ogryn, on 16 November 2011 - 08:38 AM, said:

Alright, I'll bite in a civilized manner. How about a specific example. WoT. Aiming reticle. You're bloody right that player skill and aiming has an effect. But it isn't the be all end all. The RNG affects your play there. Dead gunner, damaged gun, or even shooting on the move at 55kph cross country... you aren't going to hit jack. Or if you do, you're not likely to hit the optimum spot by anything more than blind chance. But slow down, aim, wait for the shot/time to be right. You can't always put your rounds through the drivers hatch at 400m. But you can at least hit the hull as opposed to the invulnerable turret face.

There seems to be a misunderstanding in your post, Mr. McKenna. I don't want the TT faithfully replicated in 3d. I want a new Mechwarrior. But I don't want the miserable excuse for an online arena that was brought about by MW4. And in my opinion the largest reason it turned into a circlestrafe popup game was the pinpoint accuracy of the weapons. There were not enough factors in the game to make it difficult to take a shot. To me, the issues of the old online arena will be further exacerbated by a persistent online setting. Especially with progression, stats and potential progression tied into it.

I don't really care how they go about implementing the difference. A shot cone is simply the first, surface detail easiest method to me. Other methods including weapon accuracy numbers, tarcomp accuracy, or even heavy spread from reticule movement due to mech movement would all more or less accomplish the same feat with different window dressings.

I will not pay, or play, a game that continues to bring forward the pixel perfect accuracy method in the MW/BT universe. If this means that I unfortunately won't be playing MWO, fine. I'll be disappointed, but I'll move on. Until we have a beta and some playtime in it, this is all speculation. Which is fine... we might be able to stop the dev team from making mistakes. Gold rounds, anyone?

Only partially true with WoT, while you kind of hit where you aim, WoT has this abysmal RnG effect, about what you actually hit, and if you even penetrate.
For example a T30 shell should not bounce off a KV, neither if i shoot a tank in the front should rNg rip off its fuel system at the rear of the tank, and this is where an RnG system fails and puts pilot skill out the window..

You shoot you hit, Heat,ammo,Jam's,ammo explosions should be the penalising factors not a RnG system of where you hit.

Edited by DV^McKenna, 16 November 2011 - 10:33 AM.

[Oderint dum Metuant]

Quote

Okay seriously, the topic of pin-point accuracy/concentrated damage is something we are going to have to watch very carefully. There’s no real reason why lasers shouldn’t be pin-point accurate and ballistic shot munitions shouldn’t do area damage. We could go into numerous physics debates discussing how particles (including energy) disseminate over distance but that is not going to be conclusive to balanced gameplay. As for group fire, there’s nothing really wrong with the model and it provides a means of making a MechWarrior® tactically think about what gets fired and when. Needless to say, gameplay tuning will drive how we approach targeting and concentrated/area damage.

Should answer a few things.

[Kurios]

and on weapons all hitting the same place... I drew a diagram. Its on the AC20 vs 4 ML page. You give me a immobile mech, and Ill show you an accurate mech.

[verybad]

Fact of the matter is, in Battletech an Alpha strike is also very effective if the mech is designed to perform them (eg loads of Medium Lasers LRMs, etc.)

It's a simple effect of optimizing your mech for a certain range or type of combat (boating) and using all those weapons at the best time (alpha striking) It's used in Battletech (fluff may say it's not, but if you've ever played the game, you know it is, depending on the design at least)

I've no problem with heat being a mitigating factor, so a large amount of heat built up all at once is dangerous, but I do think saying you can only alpha strike a certain amount of times or per minute etc is ludicrous. An alpha strike isn't a special attack, it's just firing all your weapons at the same time. If your design has one weapon, then a limit on alpha striking would limit that mechs attacks.

Again, an "Alpha strike" is perfectly reasonable in many designs (eg Awesome) that are designed to take that heat. Making heat play a more important factor might be the best way to limit people with 5 PPCs and no extra heatsinks...

As ammo based weapons take Ammo trucks, then a coolant truck is the obvious limiting factor for Energy based mechs. The coolant factor in MW4 was a pretty cool game element, and gave you a factor of control over how you were going to operate. Just take that coolant and say it's not extra, it's already in the heatsinks, and when you use it, it reduces their efficiency. So you can operate pretty well, but not fantastically by not building up lots of heat, but if you do, it might be necessary to use some of the coolant or burn out systems, make ammo go boom, and so on. If there is a coolant truck on the map, (supposing such things are implemented), then it's necessary to keep control of that, as well as advance to conquer the goal.

[Lasercat]

Don't mean to bring up an 'old' topic, but some of the stuff on here about using timers to stop alphas is pretty funny. Anyway I'll try to shed some light on why those strategies were used and a way to encourage different ones which isn't cheesy.

In past mechwarrior games, boating and whatnot was the thing to do because it made other players die much faster and easier. If you had 1 ppc and say it took 6 shots from it to kill something, it would be a great idea to add another one to your mech. It only takes 3 shots now, which is half that, adding another ppc would reduce it to 2. The overall chances of somebody hitting something consecutively drops off pretty quickly, so the difference between needing to make 2 or 3 shots is actually huge. In this game then 1 ppc means almost nothing, you need at least 2 to get anywhere with 3 being optimal. To turn your 2 shot kill into a 1 shot would be too much trouble though, as you'd need another 3 ppc's to do it, which gets pretty hot so no one bothers.

Notice I keep saying 2 shot 3 shot this and that. It's because the only logical way to play is to put all similar weapons in one group and use them as one big gun. Chaining is dumb because it's like you're playing with 1 ppc which just reloads faster. You still have to make 6 individual shots to kill anything, and it should be apparent making those 6 separate hits is a lot harder than just worrying about 2. This is why using alphas is smarter.

The same general thought process happens in the lab when making any kind of mech. You base your design off the strengths of some particular weapon, and then you build it around that weapon to compensate for its weaknesses. You prefer shooting everything at once because getting one hit in is way easier than nailing something multiple times. So it follows that one way of encouraging designs and strategies other than boats and alphas is to make weapons too specialized to compensate for and increasing their strength to the point that multiple hits aren't needed.

Using that advice, the ppc from the earlier game is changed by being able to do greater damage (increasing it's strength), and having much higher heat output and recharge time (specializing it). This time with 1 ppc only 3 hits are needed to blow up a mech, anything beyond 3 ppc's is pointless since that's enough to 1 shot players already. It's also stupid to have because the number of sinks needed to counter the heat buildup is prohibitive, and they take forever to charge so you're going to be helpless for a while. It's smarter to take 1 or even 2 ppc's and use the leftover tonnage for a different weapon like an ac. The ac would have the same idea applied to it. It shoots powerful rounds quickly (the strength boost) but it's heavy and runs out of ammo after a very short time (specialization). Anybody trying to base a mech around many ac's would run into large weight and ammo problems, making it generally worse than a mixed loadout mech as well.

This solution also makes alphas less attractive. If 3 well placed ppc hits is enough to blow up most mechs, there isn't any incentive in throwing a fourth in the mix since it's pointless overkill. Also given how much heat and idle time a player would suffer from shooting those 3 ppc's if they missed or hit the wrong spot, it starts to make the most sense to stagger each shot to ensure a miss won't be so crippling. This means usually chain fire would be the best decision. For ac's and the like, running out of ammo would be the biggest concern; you could chew up 1 mech quickly by boating a bunch of ac's and shooting them at once, but there wouldn't be any weight or space left over for extra ammo beyond that. It's more effective to take control of individual ac's and use them as required to prevent any overkill and thus wasted ammo.

However all this does not somehow make mechs like the warhawk prime or bane suck. In team situations boats would shine if members covered the flaws in their designs through teamwork and/or by building complementary mechs.

So in general, increasing the contrast between different weapons combined with increasing their damage output should reduce the need to make boats and use alphas to kill mechs. Of course making alphas and boats less attractive regardless of the method won't mean that everybody will whip out their tro's, only use board game accurate mechs, and start role playing, it just swaps one dominant tactic for another. If anybody expects anything greater than a style change they're going to be disappointed.

[Kudzu]

Lasercat, on 17 November 2011 - 07:51 PM, said:

Well written explanation about why boating and alpha strikes were common in past MW titles

One thing you left out was that all grouped weapons hit the exact same spot when fired together, which is were the real power problem lies. There are plenty of mechs in the TT that are designed around the boating principle, but they're not nearly as effective as they are in the MW titles.

Take the Firemoth H. It's one of the best backstabbers in the game, extremely fast and packing in 9 heavy small lasers (and a t-comp) with enough heatsinks and speed that alpha striking isn't an issue. It clocks in at around 1k bv with a 3/4 pilot, it's an absolute steal for the amount of firepower it puts out. If used in a Mechwarrior game that would be 56 points of damage all in one location-- more than enough to core an Atlas from behind. Here's where the balances comes in for the TT-- when you move in to strike not all of the lasers will hit and those that do will spread their damage around enough that you don't see a 20 tonner coring an untouched assault mech in one turn without a big helping of luck.

There's a reason you see a lot of us talking about using different aiming systems that would bring that balance into play in the video games. It solves a lot of issues that were prevalent in the past titles and it brings the video games back in line with the fluff.

[Yeach]

My opinion is Alpha strikes should be possible.
However without lining them up based on a 3-point reticle (left arm, torso, right arm), your alpha will hit different places on your target.
For a concentrated alpha (with all weapons) you would have to adjust wait for the reticles to line up.

[Haeso]

I'd say left/right torso as separate as well for that. Can fit a lot of weaponry on just the torso for some mechs.


Group fire is a must, and will almost certainly be in. So, of the ideas to minimize group-fire all hitting the same target...

My favorite is probably spread for each individual weapon, in an FPS I despise spread, I see it as infuriating and evil. But this is Mechwarrior not Call of Duty. Each weapon has it's own amount of spread, some weapons are more accurate, some less. On top of that movement/being hit/jump jets/torso twisting/high heat all increase the amount of spread.

Up to a certain range if you're dead-on center mass of a mech, unless you're being hit or moving exceptionally fast you should hit with all of your weapons, just not the same piece of armor.


My second choice would utilize the TT's rolling for hit dice, but also use the pilot's aiming. Whether or not you hit is the player's aim, if your shot would land say on the center torso using MW4s system, the game would then use RNG to determine placement of shots with an increased chance to land wherever you hit, and the extra places you can hit are determined by where the shot would have hit. So if you would have hit center mass you might hit the head or any three torso locations, maybe legs. If you would have hit the right arm the game would roll to see if the weapons hit the right arm, right torso, maybe right leg, with a greater chance of hitting right arm.

[Kargush]

People actually have a problem with boating and alpha strikes?

Kerensky preserve us, what's next, wanting to ban pepperoni on pizzas?

[Black Sunder]

Here is the beauty of battletech though. That guy that loaded up on all medium lasers. He can be killed by LRMs before he can reach your line. He can be hit in the leg and fall down. He can even be pummeled to death with Arrow IV if someone gets TAG on him.

If heat and shut downs are handled well then alpha striking will not be a viable option because you'll be shut down on the field and be destroyed. More balanced loadouts will be the norm of the battlefield.

[Xhaleon]

Black Sunder, on 18 November 2011 - 06:35 AM, said:

Here is the beauty of battletech though. That guy that loaded up on all medium lasers. He can be killed by LRMs before he can reach your line. He can be hit in the leg and fall down. He can even be pummeled to death with Arrow IV if someone gets TAG on him.

If heat and shut downs are handled well then alpha striking will not be a viable option because you'll be shut down on the field and be destroyed. More balanced loadouts will be the norm of the battlefield.

What beauty?

Said LRMs have a +2 to-hit from range 8 and out, and from 6 and under start building up an equivalent modifier. For all practical situations, the Catapult'd never hit.

inb4clanlrm

[MaddMaxx]

Heat is a good/great start but it can be circumvented if the pin point accuracy issues remains. Anyone who has played any game knows there is no rule applied by the Dev in any game that can't be gotten around by the Playas. (pretty much)

Given the Tech available today, I think it would be cool if after the Mech is completed graphically (as per BT specs) 2 Legs, Head CT, RT, LT 2 Arms (if applicable) then wrap those suckers in a HEX based skin tight hit box layer.

The actual size of the Hex's could be determined by the DEV team, based on required games specs, and then use those as hit location identifiers with only a single Beam and Single shell Ballistic weapons able to occupy any one Hex at a time. All other weapon types have spread.

That way you could divide up the Mech sections, once one large area into many smaller ones that ALL need be destroyed until the whole section is gone. Or have a splash effect to adjacent hex's to speed up area destruction.

Or do we have to actually wait until 3048 to have that complex a design element in a Sim based shooter.

P.S. The term I just described will hereby be know as Hit-Skin ^™ as Hit-Box is just very old school...

Edited by MaddMaxx, 18 November 2011 - 07:23 AM.

[Melissia]

A simple solution is to increase the heat cost of firing multiple weapons at the same time, and make heat dissipate faster if you are conservative with heat generation.

A catapult firing its missile payload in one salvo onto a narc-tagged target shouldn't be penalized though...

Edited by Melissia, 18 November 2011 - 07:43 AM.

[NoMovingParts]

So, I have to ask - with all these polls on how things should be (this is just one of them) how much of this game is actually written & coded?
This forum seems to be discussing some pretty base level stuff for a game due out in a few months - all our opinions aside - how are these issues actually dealt with in MWO? Or are these parts not carved in stone & devs are fishing?
Either way is fine - I'm just curious.

(srysly - take away customization, tell me my gun doesn't hit where I point it because "I just have too many of them", or force me to overheat & explode because I alpha'd my 3xerppc, 2xclangaus daisy, (whereas it used to just get REAL hot), and I'll just stick to MW4 - )

Edited by NoMovingParts, 18 November 2011 - 08:16 AM.

[Wolf Hreda]

Slightly off topic, but a nice anecdote. I once customized a Dire Wolf (Daishi) in MW3 with something like 7 or 8 Clan ER PPCs. I did an AS and nuked my mech straight to Valhalla.

[guardiandashi]

IMO its not the alpha strike per say that is the issue. I mean it has its own issues but its not the worst offender, its the pinpoint targeting that some "shooters" demand as the only option, IE if I choose to I should be able to fire off my entire weapons array within say ~2-2.5 seconds I have no major complaints about that. its the whole I mount 10 medium lasers and when I fire them they all hit 1 location on the enemy target that has issues.

IMO one possibly realistic (to battletech universe realism) solution would be to have the "aimpoint tracker" vs targeting crosshairs control system. IE I control a set of crosshairs as I move them the weapons on my mech (controlled by the basic or enhanced targeting and tracking computer) attempt to bring the weapon aimpoints to the location I am designating, when I fire those weapons fire wherever they are actually aimed at the moment they fire. if it matches my aimpoint then it hits my aimpoint, if it hasn't yet reached my aimpoint it instaid fires wherever it is actually aiming, if weapons have a "on time" std lasers (and possibly ppc's) a "active/burn time" autocannons a "burst fire time" pulse lasers a pulsing "burst" time etc a missile launcher a barrage ripple time, and then flight time of the missiles etc

[TheRulesLawyer]

DV^McKenna, on 16 November 2011 - 10:26 AM, said:

Only partially true with WoT, while you kind of hit where you aim, WoT has this abysmal RnG effect, about what you actually hit, and if you even penetrate.
For example a T30 shell should not bounce off a KV, neither if i shoot a tank in the front should rNg rip off its fuel system at the rear of the tank, and this is where an RnG system fails and puts pilot skill out the window..

You shoot you hit, Heat,ammo,Jam's,ammo explosions should be the penalising factors not a RnG system of where you hit.

Given then level of detail we can reasonably expect to simulate this sort of behavior is accurate. Every tank had variable quality of armor. Armor thickness varied by location in a much more complicated method than modeled. You could get things like extra track, etc that could affect penetration. Shell quality was somewhat variable as well. Shells can deflect off armor if they hit at the wrong angle. Sure you can go and model this, but at least some of it is down to a RNG. Armor and shell quality for example. Even if you perfectly modeled the tank and ballistics of the shell you're still ultimately going to hit element that a RNG models best eventually.

Essentially random stuff happens in real life. The impact point for ballistic weapons, even in a non-moving fixed mount is a random distribution for example. Yes, there are underlying physics of why this happens, but its beyond what you can predict while using the weapon.

[Yeach]

Wolf Hreda, on 18 November 2011 - 08:43 AM, said:

Slightly off topic, but a nice anecdote. I once customized a Dire Wolf (Daishi) in MW3 with something like 7 or 8 Clan ER PPCs. I did an AS and nuked my mech straight to Valhalla.

You could not alpha-fire 4 ERPPCs or 6 ERLL in MW3.
6 ERLL being the stock variant of the Supernova and 4 ERPPCs being the stock variant of the Massakari in PM.
There was a large outcry of not being able to alpha-attack with those two mechs because the heat level restriction.

[Halfinax]

Tyrant, on 16 November 2011 - 09:29 AM, said:

No randomization in shooting mechanics.

MWO is NOT THE TABLE TOP GAME GET OVER IT.

I don't think even amongst TT players that anyone is requesting a direct 1:1 TT to simulation abstraction of the rules. It wouldn't be possible, but having pinpoint accuracy, and tbh some of the very severe abuse that can be made of the customization rules (even in the TT) is the reason many of us (the TT fans that may be fans due to the MechWarrior games) see the imbalance that extreme customization can create. We just want to see a game that is balanced without the abuse of extreme customization. No one wants to get one shotted when piloting a 60 ton piece of machinery it just doesn't make sense, and isn't balanced.

I just want a interpretation of the rules that disallows such abuses, and makes the game fun for people that don't either want to exploit the perfect build, or just are too new to the game to know what the perfect build is.