339 replies to this topic

[CeeKay Boques]

Creel, on 18 November 2011 - 10:17 AM, said:

I'm rapidly coming to the conclusion that anyone advocating 6 different weapons mounted in 6 different places with 6 different control systems calibrated by 6 different techs all hitting the same place every time as being "more realistic", has a pretty flaky grasp on reality.

Shots deviate. it is canon, it is life, it is physics.

Personally, I want a center-weighted cone of fire, not in order to balance the gameplay (though it would help with that), but because it better reflects the world of battletech, and it better reflects a technically accurate physics model.

I still don't understand why we need to "reflect:" a technically accurate physical model, instead of having a technically accurate physics model. What is the plus in that scenario?

[Melissia]

Personally, my argument is "ultrarealism is boring, to frakking hell with it-- make a fun game first and foremost with physics as a secondary (still important insofar as it helps the game be fun) component." But perhaps I'm the odd woman out.

Edited by Melissia, 18 November 2011 - 11:13 AM.

[DFDelta]

I've said this before, and I'll repeat myself.
Please no cone of fire.

Make me fight my machine and physics just as hard as I'm fighting an the enemy to get my shots in, but please, no random element that ruins a perfectly fine shot just because it feels like ruining it.

Some means to archive that:
- Make weapon convergence recalibration take some time. That can even be a means to balance designs and make mechs feel different. As an example I'll take the Penetrator again (I know it wil not be in MWO, but its a good example). The mech has 6 medium pulse lasers in a line across the whole torso (3 in each). At first I aim at the background, scanning for enemies, so my weapons are aiming and crossing their beams at a point at maximum range (lets say 1500m). Now an enemy mech stumbles into view, but its only 400m away. I quickly drag my crosshairs over its center torso and now my weapons start recalibrating for a target that close (as Coyote said BT weapons are motorized and can do that). If I fire too soon my weapons are not fully calibrated and fire at a point behind the mech. Maybe after 0.5 seconds they only have calibrated for a target 700m away, so my outer lasers fly past the target, my middle ones hit the left/right toso and only the ones mounted close to the center hit the enemy center torso. If I had fired even faster all might have missed, and if I had waited 0.3 seconds longer all might have hit tough not all would have hit the same spot. Arm weapons should be faster here, as well as torso weapons in "special" mounts (Marauder "turret")

- Multiple crosshairs. Seperate aiming into at least 3 crosshairs. One should be the torso weapons, and one for each arm. Both arm ones are only halves that are combined into a single full one. If you move your mouse your pilot turns his head, the arms will start moving into that direction, and your torso will follow. The head turning should be instantly, the arms would be rather fast to aim, and the torso would be the slowest part. If I move my crosshairs too far into a direction the far arm can't follow any more, and the near arm will aim seperately, thats when the arm crosshair breaks into 2 pieces. Arms can also run into aiming troubles depending on mech design, a Jenner or a Strider for example should not be able to move its left arm much further to the right then the position of torso crosshair.

- Recoil and impacting fire. Both should have an effect on your targeting. On arm weapons more then on torso weapons.

- Torso weapons should move around a little when walking, depending on how much the torso moves, and much more while running.


Those are just examples of what I am talking about.
Make aiming hard, not random.

[Kudzu]

Melissia, on 18 November 2011 - 11:01 AM, said:

Yes, actually. It means that while the laser weapons are more accurate, the ballistics weapons in this gameplay model do more damage because they produce less heat, have less time between shots, and therefor can be used more often even if they have equal damage to the energy weapons.

Meanwhile the energy weapons are excellent for pinpoint accuracy and longer battles, as you do not have to worry about ammunition reserves-- instead only worrying about the more immediate heat buildup concern.

This is called balance. Each one has its pros and its cons.

You may have heard of this balance thing, seeing as you probably believe (amusingly, really) that TT has it.

Laser boats are not really a problem-- I can think of plenty of 'mechs that are basically "laser boats" to some extent or other in the setting anyway (the Nova has 12 medium ER lasers for example; even the basic Raven has two medium lasers, its only other weapon an SRM-6). The devs just need to balance the stats out, and people will naturally begin choosing other setups that fit their playstyle best because they find their laser boat isn't working very well due to heat buildup, and they simply can't fit enough heat sinks on their chassis to meet the heat requirements of their 'mech with the number of lasers they want to put on it.but still not as high as when actually aiming, as you can take however damn much time you want figuring those numbers out in a turn-based tabletop game, while in a real-time game, you have to think quickly.

The issue with laser boating/alphastrikes in MW is that all that damage is going to the same place at the same time, that's the inherit imbalance we're talking about.

You can take a Hunchback-5M (and optimize it it give it more ammo by dropping the 3 extra DHS) and it puts out 33 points of damage. You can take the same Hunchback and trade out the AC+ammo to give it 12 medium lasers (60 points of damage) and enough heat sinks to run cool (This is an optimized version of the canon variant called the Swayback). Face those two off against each other in MW with no system for shot spread and the medium laser boat will win hands down-- all it has to do is shoot once to core the AC hunchback so it doesn't matter how long the recharge time is.

[Melissia]

Kudzu, on 18 November 2011 - 11:14 AM, said:

The issue with laser boating/alphastrikes in MW is that all that damage is going to the same place at the same time

Using my idea, you can do the same thing with an autocannon if you control its recoil well enough, and it'll do more damage overall even if you don't due to its superior rate of fire over-- sure the laser weapons will have a strong alpha strike, but they'll produce so much heat that, though they hurt the ballistics user, they won't be able to do much as the ballistics user pounds them to dust with its low-heat powerhouse ballistics weapons. A more intelligent laser user would instead categorize their energy weapons into banks, firing them in a cascading system to prevent a heat overload, while the alpha-striker has to count on trying to disable its enemy in one go-- something that really should only work when there's a severe weight advantage, and even then it'll cause a massive heat spike that even a Zeus would hesitate at facing.

Edited by Melissia, 18 November 2011 - 11:25 AM.

[Melissia]

Meh, for a real-time game, the tabletop's stats are not very useful except as vague references, so talking in terms of tabletop really isn't that helpful-- yeah, I get that you think in those terms (and so do I when gearing up for / winding down from a game), but again, tabletop is turn-based, and while the stats work for a turn based game, they won't work for real-time. This same kind of argument goes on in Warhammer 40,000 forums, except the 40k fans at least accept that tabletop stats are a n abstracted representation of the lore, not a perfect one... BT fans don't seem to have come across that idea yet.

Edit: whoops, wrong thread...

Edited by Melissia, 18 November 2011 - 11:32 AM.

[TheRulesLawyer]

Melissia, on 18 November 2011 - 11:30 AM, said:

Meh, for a real-time game, the tabletop's stats are not very useful except as vague references, so talking in terms of tabletop really isn't that helpful-- yeah, I get that you think in those terms (and so do I when gearing up for / winding down from a game), but again, tabletop is turn-based, and while the stats work for a turn based game, they won't work for real-time. This same kind of argument goes on in Warhammer 40,000 forums, except the 40k fans at least accept that tabletop stats are a n abstracted representation of the lore, not a perfect one... BT fans don't seem to have come across that idea yet.

Edit: whoops, wrong thread...

Seriously? I don't think that anyone expects a literal translation of the TT to a sim. However we do expect the general lore and performance envelope to be respected. How would you feel a Terminator suddenly was able to one shot a titan? Probably not cool, eh?

[Melissia]

TheRulesLawyer, on 18 November 2011 - 12:06 PM, said:

Seriously? I don't think that anyone expects a literal translation of the TT to a sim. However we do expect the general lore and performance envelope to be respected. How would you feel a Terminator suddenly was able to one shot a titan? Probably not cool, eh?

Actually... something very similar to that actually happened in the lore; namely, a warboss took down a titan in a single attack-- by driving his bike up a ramp, launching itself through the titan's void shield, and crashing in to the titan's cockpit.

So it's not a good example.

But in this forum, people aren't really proposing such a contradiction in the lore.

Edited by Melissia, 18 November 2011 - 12:15 PM.

[Creel]

Technoviking, on 18 November 2011 - 11:08 AM, said:

I still don't understand why we need to "reflect:" a technically accurate physical model, instead of having a technically accurate physics model. What is the plus in that scenario?

The two are synonymous in this case. A technically accurate physics model in game, is a reflection of the physics IRL.

[VYCanis]

Kudzu, on 18 November 2011 - 09:39 AM, said:

Got outside and take a run really quick. As you're running, notice that when all your weight comes down on one leg your torso bobs a bit as your body absorbs the impact. Now, imagine that you weighed 20-100 tons and were moving at 50kph+. Still think it's going to be a smooth ride?

Smooth enough. These are half ton weapons hardmounted on something large and relatively stable (remember gyros?). If a mech's stride is going to affect its aim, its going to apply as a bobbing or swaying motion, where the weapon's accuracy would be the same, it would just be pointing in different direction. If you are running with a watergun, and shooting it. does the thin stream suddenly turn to a wide spray? no, the stream just bobs around in various directions tracing out the perturbations of your motion, but without changing the characteristics of its stream. i.e. guns kicking upwards instead of just CoFing everywhere.

Kudzu, on 18 November 2011 - 09:39 AM, said:

It makes perfect sense within the setting. Do you watch Star Wars and complain about there being sound in space and that close range dogfights happen with laser weapons?

I don't watch star wars because i don't like star wars, sound in space, air combat in vacuum, and slow lasers are the least of what's wrong with star wars. And frankly even if the canonicity of magical weapon mountings that seem to actively be trying to miss, and cannot be calibrated for love or money, were carved into stone and carried down from a mountain I still would rather not see it translated into a MW, because it goes beyond the simple suspension of disbelief required to justify big *** robots and goes crashing into looking really stupid territory.

Kudzu, on 18 November 2011 - 09:39 AM, said:

And you lose a lot of the flavor that separates BT from the rest of the mecha genre.

Making lousy weapons that cannot hit properly was NEVER what seperated BT from other mecha. I have never heard that once. Battletech to me was about simulating damaged equipment, about mechs that actually had weight and momentum, about relatively believable hard-ish science fiction weapons, about space opera stuff, political intrigue, about logistics, different cultures clashing, screaming DFA at tables, having units that didn't necessarily need to look cool to be cool,and trying to maintain a sort of internal consistency.

Kudzu, on 18 November 2011 - 09:39 AM, said:

If you were firing an AC/2 at it's max range while moving you'd see a similar effect. You're also leaving out the weight differences-- the AC/2's weight cost, reflecting better stabilizers, gives it much greater accuracy than the very light machine gun.

That still doesn't make sense, unless the weapon is literally only held in place by zip ties and bubblegum. Take a bradley IFV, it has a machinegun coax next to its 25mm autocannon. They can both fire in the same direction pretty damn accurately, the coax doesn't just magically spaz out. And even if that bradley were on legs, and bobbing around, guess what, whatever the 25mm is going to be pointing at, the mg will be too and vice versa. They might not hit exactly the same point, but thats only because of a slight space between the barrels and the difference in ballistic qualities of the calibers.

[VYCanis]

TheRulesLawyer, on 18 November 2011 - 09:19 AM, said:

You clearly don't understand what a cone is, do you?

do you?

that MG picture illustrates what translating the TT rules verbatim without factoring in for common sense would look like. Considering that according to the TT 90m is "long range" for the MG, and that its 2x harder to hit with MGs at 90 than it is to hit at 60 which is itself more difficult than 30. That describes a fairly wide spray i think. maybe not as wide as the pic implies, but it would still describe a rather wide cone to go from easy peasy to hit, to hard as hell, all within the paltry range of 90m

but oh wait, i forgot. BT MGs only hit one location at a time!!!

so instead of a dumb looking spray you'll actually have have a dumb looking tight burp firing within a wide random cone, every 10 seconds, for a half hour, because thats accurate to TT. right?


Seriously, BT weapon values are only abstractions, not absolutes. Trying to shoehorn all those abstractions is going to result in a dumb looking mess. Why do that when we can actually model how weapons can ACTUALLY behave and balance around that. i mean hell, the only thing we don't have real life versions of are ppcs. everything else is pretty much just extrapolations of existing technology. We aren't dealing with phasers, blasters, or proton/photon torpedos, here people.

Edited by VYCanis, 18 November 2011 - 01:03 PM.

[verybad]

Mechwarrior isn't a simulation of Battletech the boardgame. It's a simulation of battles between mechs in the 31st century.

I can guarantee you that a cone of accuracy, combined with lag, combined with actual player innacuracy for whatever reason, would be a fatally damaging flaw for the game, and for the majority of players. You'll get loads of people complaining about it and quitting over it.

If you want damage all about the mech like in the BOARDGAME, then play the BOARDGAME. Even in the games fiction damage is less spread apart, characters have quite a bit of choice and aptitude at where they cause that damage.

You know what? It's NOT as easy to hit just a leg (for example) as it is to hit any part of the mech. The leg may be behind a building, the target may be running and you hit the wrong leg. Etc. In most cases in current games hitting a specific part of a target mech requires the player to wait for that target to be available. They're causing less damage per second (DPS) overall, they're just doing it in more useful areas.

If you want spread apart damage, then multi bullet ACs, Spread apart missiles, lasers that fire over a period of time, heat and damage affecting targeting, and recoi affecting the accuracy are going to be your best bet. A cone of accuracy will kill the game commercially.

There is no good reason for a "cone of accuracy" Accuracy can be much more satisfyingly simulated and affected with real world things.

Cone of accuracy is about the absolute worst thing you can put into the game when so many better solutions for pinpoint accuracy are available.

Edited by verybad, 18 November 2011 - 01:19 PM.

[TheRulesLawyer]

verybad, on 18 November 2011 - 01:18 PM, said:

Cone of accuracy is about the absolute worst thing you can put into the game when so many better solutions for pinpoint accuracy are available.

Not really. Pinpoint pretty much amounts to "If I time it right I can one shot kill" under most suggestions.
The one that might actually work is giving *every* weapon its own cross hairs. You would end up with a requested aim position for all weapons (The normal reticule) and actual aim cross hairs for each weapon. Every weapon would bob and weave according to its mount location. These would not all be on the same rhythm. Grouped weapons in the same body section would normal fire parallel. Yes, I've seen this suggestion before. It would be extremely rare for all those to line up unless you are standing still and aiming at a static target. It would probably splatter the damage around convincingly, but the the display would be a horrendous mess. And yes, each weapon would need to have its own cone of fine strictly dependent on its inherent accuracy. Its how ballistics really work. Upside is those would be relatively small and not subject to modification except by maybe player character skill, etc.

So maybe that would work and it would spread it around enough, but one crosshair bobbing up and down where everything hits it automagically is not enough.

[Eegxeta]

Know what? I think we shouldn't base the physics engine off another game. Everyone here is say oh lets do it like (insert game here). How about we mimic reality and base everything of real physics, not video game physics. I've always seen MW as a simulation game not a shooter. Why is it not a shooter? Because shooters don't use real physics they make their own rules to balance the game. Cone fire doesn't make sense on any level except for shooters. Bullet leaves the barrel where the barrel is pointed unless you change the laws of physics cone fire is impossible. I want MW to follow the laws of physics not the laws of shooters.

[Creel]

Eegxeta, on 18 November 2011 - 02:21 PM, said:

Bullet leaves the barrel where the barrel is pointed unless you change the laws of physics cone fire is impossible.

This is an absurdly drastic oversimplification, but is useful in that it asks a useful question. Where, exactly, is the barrel pointing? is it flawlessly tracking exactly where your crosshairs point at all times with 0ms response? Seems a bit much to ask.

[Dsi1]

This must be the only community in the world where people are seriously advocating luck to be a main factor of the game.

**** that ****, give me physics, make every step shake my mech, every impact shake my mech, my gigantic cannon should have gigantic cannon-like recoil. Make every shell come right out of its own cannon. ***** luck, skill should rise to the top, not be beaten down by an RNG deciding that you missed when every other factor is perfect for an on-target shot.

[Creel]

Dsi1, on 18 November 2011 - 02:32 PM, said:

This must be the only community in the world where people are seriously advocating luck to be a main factor of the game.

**** that ****, give me physics, make every step shake my mech, every impact shake my mech, my gigantic cannon should have gigantic cannon-like recoil. Make every shell come right out of its own cannon. ***** luck, skill should rise to the top, not be beaten down by an RNG deciding that you missed when every other factor is perfect for an on-target shot.

If they had a chair that would flash-heat to 150 degrees, and rock enough to give me a concussion, I'd sit in it... but they don't. does that mean we leave those factors out of the equations?

[Dsi1]

Creel, on 18 November 2011 - 02:44 PM, said:

If they had a chair that would flash-heat to 150 degrees, and rock enough to give me a concussion, I'd sit in it... but they don't. does that mean we leave those factors out of the equations?

No, it means you put them in the game.

[Amechwarrior]

Alright, "cone of fire", "RNG" and "Random" have become red-scare words around here and I want to clear some stuff up about the examples people are using. Personally, I want the heavy sim elements on the right side in a MW game. RNG is not even how the table top works. 2d6 works on a curve(slant-whatever). It is not totally random, it actually works more like Kudzu's post where the possible results in the middle of the chart are most likely to appear then results at the ends. This is also what we see in games that implement CoF, please stop just misrepresenting how the table top rules for hit location chances work and how CoF works in video games.

That left side column is not what anyone advocating CoF actually wants. Does anyone want the left column(100% cone effects, no reticle swinging, no recoil jostle just-coneBIG/conesmall), please speak up? We all see the problem with hyper accurate fire and we got 2 strong sides advocating only their own solution. But why not have "just a little" cone of fire?

-- I forgot to change the text on top of the 3rd panel, ignore that. --

-- I forgot to change the text on top of the 3rd panel, ignore that. --

Let it be hard to get a bead on the target, let there be travel times, recoil compensations, laser time on target, but toss in just a little bit of cone to prevent total domination of the potential cases that allow hyper accurate fire. Even if you add in problems like VYCanis's model they can be learned, mitigated and neutralized by skilled players. These examples use smaller, faster targets and more chaotic movement then anything you will see in MW. They show that as long as you have inherently accurate aim, factors like slow time to target, rapid visual adjustments and small windows of opportunity are defeatable.

I do not want to negate a highly skilled players advantage. Adding a small amount of weighted cone of fire combined with the heavy sim elements would still allow better pilots to be better at mitigating the reticle movement factors, but not let put an Awesomes 3 PPCs in the same location reliably.

Everyone is taking sides like you cannot combine these game mechanics for greater overall balance.

[Yeach]

Kudzu, on 18 November 2011 - 09:39 AM, said:

Got outside and take a run really quick. As you're running, notice that when all your weight comes down on one leg your torso bobs a bit as your body absorbs the impact. Now, imagine that you weighed 20-100 tons and were moving at 50kph+. Still think it's going to be a smooth ride?

As VYCanis explained there are these things called gyros on a mech. In my mind these gyros and the (suspension/legs) make the upper portion of the torso stable with minimal bobbing motion.

FYI The M1 Abrahms has gyro-stabilized gun so it can fire while moving on uneven terrain.

If the mech is suppose to imitate human movement, a good runner minimizes the up and down movement of the torso. Going faster the torso will lean forward but alway upright. Oh this would be done with neurohemet.

Kudzu, on 18 November 2011 - 09:39 AM, said:

It makes perfect sense within the setting. Do you watch Star Wars and complain about there being sound in space and that close range dogfights happen with laser weapons?

Hey that sounds like almost like BattleTech in terms of ranges. I don't believe they have randomized spread damage in those X-Wing vs Tie-Fighters fights.

Kudzu, on 18 November 2011 - 09:39 AM, said:

I'm glad you like simulations that are realistic, I want to see that too, but realistic to the Battletech universe. But hey, when you come back to the board whining about how medium laser boats are instantly coring you, that lights and most mediums are completely useless, and that everyone is running around in the same three mech chassis's using the same load outs, remember this thread.

So what is it? mediums completely useless or too powerful in instantly coring you?

Kudzu, on 18 November 2011 - 09:39 AM, said:

Yes, it's totally cheating to apply a concept that is core to both the original, and well balanced, game and 25+ years of lore. I'm glad you're completely involved with "point here and never miss".

You are too focused about the "never miss" part and less of the "point here". Its about getting to the "point here" that we have up for discussion.

Kudzu, on 18 November 2011 - 09:39 AM, said:

I've seen what happens when you pull BT out-- you get games like MW4, Mech Assault, etc. I'd rather not see that failure recreated with prettier graphics.

MW4 is still BattleTech; if you look at damage per sec and multiply 10 secs, its close to the BT equivalent.
A Mad Cat still is "death-trap" with its large torso that says shoot me here.
Oh wait BT TT rules never state that... (but the novels do)

Kudzu, on 18 November 2011 - 09:39 AM, said:

Except for the part where the dice roll does have skill involved-- your actions change the target number you need to make with the roll. The skill is in making your target numbers low while your enemies target numbers are high.

Where can you learn this dice roll skills?
It sure would be handy to have in Vegas.

Edited by Yeach, 18 November 2011 - 06:10 PM.