198 replies to this topic

[BurningRanger]

Yeach, on 16 November 2011 - 06:51 AM, said:

Now we are talking about accuracy vs precision.
Precision being able to put all your shots at once place.
Accuracy being able to put your shots where you aim.

The question here is not accuracy but precision. ie how much spread between the medium lasers.

Combine both in the way i explained a bit further above and we're fine. The longer you aim on a spot, the more accuracy AND precision you get.
Take it as precision comes from accuracy here. If you're able to put (all) your shots where you aim (accuracy), they will all hit in one place (precision).

[Riptor]

The answer to all this is diminishing returns for lasers.

The more laser of a given category you fire at once the less overall damage they cause.

This is solely a game mechanics solution and has absolutely no bearing on reality or the fluff at all mind you.

But this would mean that 4 lasers would not do asmuch damage as a single AC/20 avoiding having to implement some abstract aiming system.

Just make it so that for every additional fired medium laser the following one does fpr exa,üöe one point or so less damage.

That would be 5+4+2+1 = 12 DMG vs the ACs 20

So having two medium lasers fire at once will not cause significantly less damage but having 4 Mlasers at once could be counter productive for the head they produce

Edited by Riptor, 16 November 2011 - 07:30 AM.

[Tierloc]

BurningRanger, on 16 November 2011 - 07:01 AM, said:

The longer you aim on a spot

I disagree that the amount of time you aim at a target improves the precision of the weapon. One person may need more time than another to improve accuracy, but the weapon is still firing the same whether you aim it correctly or not, or whether it takes me 20s to bead a target and someone with experience shooting the weapon 5s.

The part where I really disagree with this topic (for the umpth time), is that the element of using my joystick to move the recticle is the accuracy part. The precision part is the computer guidance system running the weapons. If I was testing in target practice and shooting - missing, I would adjust the computer (provided I was targeting correctly with my joystick). During gameplay, the individual weapons may all have lead times or heavy gravity effects or effects to worldly phenominon like electro magnetic warping so energy can't be used, but the basic "I placed my recticle here, that's where my guns will fire" should be static. If it changed all the time, or had a random "you still missed" element, all you are compensating for is new players vs old players. Possibly "certain chassis focus quicker" or "certain weapons need less focus". That system doesn't make anyone a better player, and is extremely downplaying any competitive aspect. It encourages specific types of gameplay (camping comes to mind).

In WoT (referenced alot), I believe that cone was based on the human aspect of reloading and targeting the weapons. It allowed for your team to train to aim more precisely, certain tanks had different sized crews etc. The damage calculations were already superiour, without the cone of fire that game would be alot better - but I understand it. I do not understand it for a Mechwarrior.


I think I've seen enough of these to wait another 8 months for the game to come out.

[zudukai]

why all the incessant wining on this forum, every time i stop in to check it, it's always the same thing, "blah blah blah this needs to be changed"
nobody knows what the game will even play like yet for **** sakes, get the game, then ask the Dev's to fix things.

[Kurios]

Meh.... And go back. Look at the bloody diagram. I know its on the first page, and thats a long ways back. But we have two accuracies to deal with here. Mechanical accuracy, and Human accuracy. First off, lets look at the systems, from the bottom up.

1) We have a laser. If we fire said laser, on a stationary mount, yes, it will hit the same spot every time ( with a small variation due to atmospheric lensing... but that's verry verry small... So lets forget about it. )

2) Every laser has a "turrenting" system that aligns it with the "Humans" targeting abilities. this isnt instant, and it needs to be very precise. Moving around many tons of equipment in the process doing so. After all, at 200meters, half a degree off is almost two meters off target. Which, im sure you can agree is a rather big distance.

3) now, on top of the mechanical aiming system, we have the human moving the gun and telling the computer, "Shoot here." Hes not 100% accurate either, and im going to bet in a serious firefight, hes not gonna wait for the lasers to all line up pretty. Hes going to be happy if they are mostly lined up. And all on the target.

Personally though, I do want to see sub-reditcules or something on my HUD. A this is where im telling my guns to be, but this is where they actually are pointed system....

Now start moving... your aim gets worse as your 2 axis of freedom weapons mount now is bouncing around, and trying to maintain a target while gravity and inertia is telling it not to. Or to even moreso. Not getting out my dynamics books for this. But im sure it isnt pretty...

Summery?
1) your not the mech ( unless of course your using EI. Then its debatable. )
2)Da mech is big, and bounces alot. Not what one would consider s stable firing platform. Watch the weapon mounts bounce about on Zudukai's signature.
3)We are dealing with more then one layer of "accuracy." The big beastly machine has its issues too, just like the pilot.

[Glare]

Tierloc, on 16 November 2011 - 06:19 AM, said:

And unless the only weapons the chassis is carrying are 4 IS medium lasers (that's weak for even a Light chassis), it wouldn't be an alpha.

Actually, until the Operation: Revival (a.k.a. the Clan Invasion), four IS Medium Lasers was significantly more than the most common Light chassis mounted, and more than most of the slightly less common chassis as well.

Looking through the lists, only the FLE-15 Flea (1 Medium Laser, 2 Small Lasers, 1 Flamer, 2 Machine Guns), JVN-10F Fire Javelin (4 Medium Lasers), COM-1D/2D/3A Commando (assorted lasers supplemented by a lot of SRMs) HSR-350-D Hussar (1 Large Laser, 2 Medium Lasers), UM-R60L Urbanmech (1 Small Laser, 1 AC/20 have comparable firepower), FRE-2B Firebee (1 Large Laser, 4 SRM2), FS9-H Firestarter (2 Medium Lasers, 4 Flamers, 2 Machine Guns), both brands of Jenner, both varieties of Raven, and the WLF-1 Wolfhound (4 Medium Lasers, 1 Large Laser) approach or surpass the power of 4 Medium Lasers. That's... fourteen. Out of 51 variants of Light 'Mechs found before 3039 or so. Less than a third. Much less. Also note how, of those variants that do match the power or so, seven of them, fully half, are 35 tons, the very top of the Light 'Mech bracket. The rest make horrific sacrifices either in armor or speed to acheive that kind of power. The Flea is an empty tissue box that is only average speed for a Light, all of the Commando variants are criminally underarmored for their armament and still average speed, the Urbanmech might as well be a bunker for how fast it can go, and the Hussar is somewhat less armored than a tissue box.

A Light 'Mech pre-Clan Invasion is lucky to mount the power offered by four Medium Lasers. Even more lucky if it mounts four Medium Lasers and doesn't immediately make itself the most juicy target on the field by being either too slow to escape or thin enough to kill with machine guns.

EDIT: Also worth noting, none of the variants up there are exactly numerically common among Light 'Mechs, the great majority of which are Wasps, Stingers, and Locusts, [i]none[i] of which even begin to match four Medium Lasers in power.

Edited by Glare, 16 November 2011 - 01:48 PM.

[Captain Fabulous]

On the random chance my Jenner F alpha-strike hits the same spot, I'd be totally happy with it being the same as an AC-20. More so, actually, because 4 separate instances = more crit chances on pierced armor.

But no, it should not all go to one spot automatically.

[Damocles]

Caballo, on 15 November 2011 - 11:40 PM, said:

I mean assuming a battlemmech's ability to aim is the same as the red baron's plane is plain sick. we're on the XXI century and the weapon systems are a world away from that.

And assuming that the battletech universe is the direct future of our world is sick.

edit: ffs, didnt realize there were 3 pages lol

Edited by Damocles, 16 November 2011 - 04:46 PM.

[Jack Gallows]

It really depends on how they end up having the AC/20 and the medium lasers act in game.

Since it's a sim, we'll have to see how they have heat affect weapon targeting/etc, or if they'll add a bit of realistic bullet drop/etc to it. I'm not 100% convinced that adding heat to the medium lasers solves the problem, considering that it's something you can add to any type of battlemech, and if you bring it too high up you ***** certain types of mechs (Nova comes to mind first.)

Lot to consider, weapon recycle time, overall heat build up, amount of physical punishment it takes to knock over a mech or cause severe rocking to ***** up enemy aim (the AC/20 has the lead in this category,) and if they'll modify how accurate the specific weapons are at certain ranges.

I find it hard for me to toss out certain ideas (like upping the damage the AC/20 does) without seeing it's clear effect on other weapon systems or making it's damage too high compared to future tech like the Ultra AC, ******** up the curve.

Edited by Jack Gallows, 16 November 2011 - 06:29 PM.

[Kenyon Burguess]

i wouldnt mind the numbers so much if the a/c20 caused light and medium mechs to fall over when hit.

[Undead]

Agree that weapon cycle times should play a pretty big factor. In MW2, AC's had a very fast recycle time. You could easily explode other 'mechs (and run out of ammo) in a couple seconds with a pair of ac20's. MW4 was biased towards lasers because heavy autocannons and gauss rifles had stupidly slow recycle times. IMO, laser weapons should take more time to charge up. An ac20 should churn out shells way faster than non-pulse lasers can cycle.

Physical abuse to the opposing mech should also be heavily in favor of ballistic weapons. A shot from a quartet of medium lasers should certainly cause some damage, but with little effect to your mech's stability. AC shells slamming into your ride however, should seriously hinder your ability to return fire.

[Captain Nice HD]

Most BattleTech veterans will readily admit that autocannons are much too heavy for what they do. Energy weapons are ostensibly 'balanced' by the fact that they have a much higher heat output, but the reality is that enough heat sinks can fit into the weight saved by mounting an energy weapon instead of an autocannon to offset the heat output entirely. Even if the energy weapon is damaged or remains unused, those heat sinks can still cool other things, while the autocannon is essentially dead-weight if it isn't firing. Plus there is the obvious issue of autocannons being limited to a ridiculously small number of shots per ton, while energy weapons can fire indefinitely without the need for such explosive ancillaries to function. Only the AC/2 and AC/20 have niche roles, the former for its sheer range and the latter for its damage concentration, but in a real-time combat simulation like MechWarrior, those theoretical niche roles can rapidly evaporate.

Of course, any suggestion of altering the weight, heat, or ammo capacity of either autocannons or energy weapons is almost immediately met with cries of heresy. Besides which, when that path is taken in spite of the inevitable protests it becomes something of a chore to preserve canon 'Mech variants.

There is hope, though.

Under the Solaris VII Dueling ruleset, the traditional 10-second Ground Combat Turn is subdivided into 4 Solaris Dueling Turns. Weapons are given different rates of fire, often firing multiple times during the span of a single full Ground Combat turn. However, the rate at which heat is dissipated is not affected. The number of heat sinks required to offset the heat generated by constant fire of an energy weapon is increased to the point where it can no longer fit comfortably within the tonnage saved by not using an autocannon instead. The functional result is that autocannons can actually leverage their relatively low heat to their advantage for a change, and thus maintain damage rates no traditional flashbulb could hope to compete with. Even AC/5s and AC/10s become frighteningly competitive. The frustratingly limited and highly explosive ammunition becomes less of an arbitrary hindrance, and more accurately the only thing keeping autocannons from dominating the field entirely.

[MuffinTop]

Caballo, on 15 November 2011 - 11:40 PM, said:

I mean assuming a battlemmech's ability to aim is the same as the red baron's plane is plain sick. we're on the XXI century and the weapon systems are a world away from that.

Isn't that what aimbot is for ? (j/k)

[Tierloc]

Glare, on 16 November 2011 - 01:46 PM, said:

BT stuff

My interpretation of the initial question was referring to previous mw games, not BT, since that's where pin point direct fire comes from. The devs even answered this in Q and A (what a waste of a question) with regards to the groupfire inquery. In reference to the last 5 years of the video game known as MW4:Mercenaries, 4 medium IS lasers A) does not add up to 20 damage and would be an extremely light load (weight, damage, heat, allocated mounts) for any weight class.

[Joker Two]

Have each laser start unfocused, and if they are all fired in a linked group, over the time the beam is firing (1/8, 1/4, 1/2 seconds, however long), have the four aim points tracking closer together.

The AC/20 (if it is represented by a salvo of rounds and not just one big round) should do the opposite, star accurate then become less so due to recoil shaking the weapon or the mech)

[Nik Van Rhijn]

In the tech manuals some fire one round , some many, but it has always been counted as one 20pt damage hit for an AC20. As some others have said I would like to see the physical effect of ballistic weapons on the target being modelled better. Even more effective for a knockdown would be a salvo from a Longbow to a mech thats been tagged with a Narc Beacon.

[UncleKulikov]

Yeach, on 15 November 2011 - 08:48 PM, said:

Compare 4 medium lasers mounted onto an arm in a square/diamond configuration versus one AC20 mounted onto an arm.

Should they produce the same concentrated damage onto one area when fired against another mech/vehicle/building?

Autocannon 20
Damage:20
Heat: 7
Range: 9
Tons: 14
Crits: 10
Ammo: 5

Medium Laser
Damage:5
Heat: 3
Range: 9
Tons: 1
Crits: 1

Totals:
AC 20
Tons 14 + 1 for ammo
Heat 7
Crits: 10

4x Medium Lasers:
4 Tons
12 Heat (3 heat per laser x 4 lasers)
4 Crits

so the difference is that the AC 20 takes up 6 more slots, 11 more tons, 5 less heat, can run out of ammunition, and can suffer an ammunition explosion.

Therefore, 4 medium lasers is more advantageous even with using the additional Tons left over to purchase additional heat sinks.

[Yeach]

I always imagine that the arm toting the 4 medium lasers (spaced say at 2 m apart at muzzle end) would converge onto one spot at 270m.
The whole arm would move as one to aim.
So without any gimbals for adjusting the lasers ie they are fixed to converge, the most spread of the lasers would actually be at close range or at 2m spread at 0m distance to target.

Edited by Yeach, 17 November 2011 - 10:27 PM.

[Mercurial]

Personally I always thought it was fairly weird that Mech sims felt they needed to interpret the amount of ammunition an AC has so literally. Increasing the ammunition would be a start for balance reasons, though I still suspect that won't go all the way towards fixing the issue.

A fairly complex way to address the balance would be to impose a kind of stacking heat-gen penalty for banks of weapons above a certain number, which could be fluff-described as the weapons pushing the fusion generator harder in one 'burst' then they're supposed to do, as energy transfer systems weren't designed to accommodate the weapon above a certain number. This has a couple big disadvantages, in that it is either one of those annoying 'invisible' rules that vets would pick up on but wouldn't be noticed, unless you add some wonky 'Maximum weapons fired' or tooltip. It would also have a net bonus of forcing players who are optimizing to vary their weapon loadouts a little and discourage 'boating'--but I don't know if boating is a problem (the Supernova and Blackhawk after all, are canon examples of straight up laser boats). If they had to throw on a few auto cannons to increase alpha strike damage and keep manageable though, that'd be a win. Just depends on how you feel.

Only other way I can think of is to just straight up increase the AC's damage (or if you want to avoid that, add a more severe knockdown/aim jink effect on tragets. Give ACs a role in disrupting other mechs, maybe?), but that risks turning the AC20 into something that near one-shots light and medium mechs.

It's a rough issue. I hope they fix it though, for the absolutely selfish reason that I like mounting giant freaking cannons on my mech.

[Oppi]

Yeach, on 16 November 2011 - 06:29 AM, said:

So even without any moving gimbals. Your cone of convergence per se is
The maximum spread would be at short range 0 m would be 1 m.
At 270 m the spread the spread would be at 0.1 m or less.
At 135 m spread would be 0.5 m

And given the fact that lasers can only damage the exact location they hit (there is no "explosion" or anything like that, the armor hit would just get super hot and melt eventually), a 0.5m spread would definitely mean that damage wouldn't add up.

Quote

Unless you add more armor locations, it is likely that they would hit in the same "general" area on a mech.
How large/small is an armor location again?

And that's exactly why I would decrease the sum of damage dealt by weapons fired together to model the spread without adding more hit zones. That way, 1 med laser would deal 5 damage. If you fired more than one laser simultaneously, and they'd all hit the same hit zone, they'd only deal n*5*0.8 damage to that zone (or something like that). So there'd be a tradeoff between firing your lasers all at once to increase the chance of hitting the same spot or using chain fire to make every hit count for the full amount of damage the weapon can do.
Maybe the factor (0.8 in my example) could be increasing or decreasing according to the distance to the target and maximum weapon range (so it would be near 1 at optimum range/'focus' range and get worse at everything else).

Actually, that could solve a lot of problems mentioned on the forums if balanced right (like people firing PPCs at knife range, alpha strikes etc).

Edited by Oppi, 18 November 2011 - 08:11 AM.