339 replies to this topic

[Xhaleon]

mithril coyote, on 20 November 2011 - 01:23 PM, said:

snippy snippy

Uh, Coyote? Those cones are kinda big, they're about the same size as those who exaggerate. The ideal for me would be about half of what you have shown, and using that base would invalidate most of their arguments because they would be more than accurate enough to hit the target every time at a reasonable distance, just not always on the Center Torso, and with no way for the player to increase this accuracy other than moving closer.

You people really just want a repeat of the maximum range battles past games had, don't ya? Where the maximum weapon ranges define the distance everyone will try to stay at when fighting, instead of being the maximum range where it can hit at all. Why don't you want to get closer and hit them with your Hatchet, in the spirit of Battletech? Before the silly Clans came wrololololor

[Pht]

J Echo, on 20 November 2011 - 02:41 PM, said:

Absolutely pointless. Humans gain accuracy increases from bench-firing because we shake. We have pulses and stuff, but battlemechs don't shake if they're standing still. There would never be a reason to bench-fire with a battlemech.

Mechs use myomers and those myomers are not 100% predictable. This has support in the bracing rules; in that there is the AES (http://www.sarna.net/wiki/AES) component, which would not work if there was not "headroom" for more precision in controlling myomers. There's also the fact that bracing the arm up allows the targeting computers to remove a variable from the firing fix.

Edited by Pht, 20 November 2011 - 02:52 PM.

[Riptor]

Quote

Why don't you want to get closer and hit them with your Hatchet, in the spirit of Battletech?

Because they want a cookie cutter FPS and not Battletech... thats why.

Mouse and keyboard are way way WAY more accurate then any real combat vehicle will ever be.. if this is suposed to be a simulation it actually also has to simulate how inaccurate battlemechs where. And they are inaccurate. Their weaponspread is crazy.

Even the MW5 trailer had weaponspread... at point blank... the pilot of the warhammer had his crosshair on the atlas head the entire time and still hit everywhere but the head.

On the same part the autocannon of the atlas didnt hit smack square the middletorso of the warhammer but scattered from his hips to his lower torso.

Now if you would have the click/(fire system this epic trailer would have been over after 20 seconds because the atlas would just alpha all his weapons onto the warhammers middle torso and blow him to bits. Or the warhammer would have just shot the atlas head off with his PPCs.. that would have been an incredible boring trailer and would also make for an incredible boring game.

Also people allways tend to forget that this game will have player character/pilot progression.

Not everyone will be able to do everything equally.. players will have different skills and stats tailored to the way they choose to play the game (The much touted battlefield roles piranha keeps mentioning)

So its not far fetched to say that char progression will have an effect on how good your char can aim.. how fast/slow the cone spreads or closes.

If you want pinpoint accuracy for your weapons then choose the apropiate skills but dont expect you will be any good with electronics for example of make a good commander since your lacking the skills necesary for one.

Edited by Riptor, 20 November 2011 - 02:53 PM.

[Dsi1]

mithril coyote, on 20 November 2011 - 01:23 PM, said:

since the wildly misleading 'comparison images have made a reappeance, i threw together some example images of what us cone of fire proponents actually mean.

the first thing to understand is that aiming will still occur as in previous MW games. you'll still have the reticle, you'll still have the reticle swaying around as you move, etc. those elements exist in the setting as defined by the novels.

what we're proposing is this: instead of hiting inside that central dot, the shots have a chance of hitting anywhere within the orange circle..which is not actually visable in play.

this is close range, the effective range of Small lasers and machineguns.

**gigantic images**


you'll note that at very long distance there is a small chance to miss entirely..this is consistant with the setting as described in the novels, where very long distance shots are lower accuracy than closer distance shots due to the lower precision.

you'll notice that this makes for a fairly minor change to the existing MW game aiming methods, the only effect being to spread damage out over the target slightly more.

this approach also makes the addition of later advanced technology systems like pulse lasers (which are supposed to be more accurate) and targeting computers (ditto) easier. neither of these have been well implimented in previous games, and under this system, they would shrink the scatter area by a few % each, making your shots more precise.

I love this post, perfectly illustrates why CoF would ruin this game and make it "run head first into enemy so you can actually hit them".

Make this game skill based please devs, not luck based.

Also, what I want for combat:

• Your mech always always has base weapon movement (noticeable at long ranges) because it's shaking, it's shaking due to a ******* nuclear engine inside it. These things are only going to be completely still if the engine is off. (Might be completely wrong about this point)
  
• Each step causes your arms to swing, predictably but still something you have to deal with. Torso mounted weapons also experience movement. (There is already a post about this somewhere)
  
• Jump jets cause your arms to go wild (comparatively speaking), torso mounted weapons experience tons of shake still.
  
• Your weapons have to re-orient so they can converge at the distance the crosshairs are at, bigger change in distance = longer re-orient time. (Going from 1km to 100m would only take about a second[maybe], but seconds count, effect on lasers would be most noticeable)
  
• Firing originates from position on the mech, if half of your mech is behind a building, guess what half of your weapons are going to hit instead of the target?
  
• Firing cannons causes recoil, larger caliber=larger recoil, recoil swings your torso to the side the cannon is on. (Cannons in the torso = less rotational recoil, but more flat out shake)
  
• Firing lasers is not instantaneous, charge up time, larger laser = larger charge time. Also, due to the stepping mechanics, lasers would hardly be able to do tons of damage to the same location (unless the pilot is very good). Of course, tons of heat as well. (Maybe add heat on the charge time too? Could be interesting...)
  
• Firing missiles also adds a bit of shake, not to mention smoke from the rocket exhaust, and heat.
  
• Impacting cannons cause shake based off of the caliber, larger = more shake (duh)
  
• Impacting lasers do not cause much effect besides the damage and effects from that
  
• Impacting missiles cause a good bit of shake, and of course the smoke as well.
  
• Shells do not disappear after their rated distance, they only become (much?) less effective, and the ballistic arc starts to become very noticeable.
  
• Lasers also do not disappear after their rated distance (how does a light beam stop?), but they become less effective very fast, and become expensive laser pointers quickly.
  
• Missiles run out of fuel after their rated distance, fall to the ground (they are aerodynamic though!), maybe you get lucky and hit something.

What does all this do? It makes the player think about movement and their position in the world, it makes them think about what weapons they should put on and where (AC20 in the arm? Maybe not such a good idea for alpha striking combined with lasers...), it raises the skill ceiling by giving the player more to deal with at the same time, and also increases immersion by physically basing the game in (an altered) reality.

Edited by Dsi1, 20 November 2011 - 03:19 PM.

[Xhaleon]

J Echo, on 20 November 2011 - 03:01 PM, said:

Hurrah for minimizing real skill, right?

Maneuvering into position to easily hit the enemy and yet give him a hard time is a harder skill to master than shooting accurately.

And you can't have both, because any form of pinpoint shooting can be accounted for by "player skill", superseding any maneuvers and making it irrelevant. The game thus devolves into a sniper match, because the only way to improve beyond accurately accounting for the "skill based" factors is to do the same from further away.

[Pht]

J Echo, on 20 November 2011 - 03:01 PM, said:

... According to the outdated, irrelevant tabletop game rules.

The same pen and paper game from which the novels originated and all of the standards for what is called "Mechwarrior" - unless, of course, we just want an arbitrary hodge-podge.

You don't get to pick and choose what to ignore and what to take from the lore and the parent game and expect to be able to validly call the result "Mechwarrior."

You might as well take a gundam game, change the visuals and the names, and call that a "Mechwarrior" game.


Slavish adherence to the tabletop and rpg rules? NO. Slavishly trashing said systems and rules? NO.

Trying to establish a non-arbitrary standard for what a BattleMech is and what it's like to pilot one in a way that fits the compromises inherent to a video game format that can validly be called "Mechwarrior?" ... Yes!

[Dsi1]

Xhaleon, on 20 November 2011 - 03:28 PM, said:

Maneuvering into position to easily hit the enemy and yet give him a hard time is a harder skill to master than shooting accurately.

And you can't have both, because any form of pinpoint shooting can be accounted for by "player skill", superseding any maneuvers and making it irrelevant. The game thus devolves into a sniper match, because the only way to improve beyond accurately accounting for the "skill based" factors is to do the same from further away.

Is maneuvering into a good sniper position not as skillful as running into the enemy so your crazy weapons have a chance of hitting them?

Not to mention that saying it'd turn into a sniper game is just lying, look at FPS games with systems similar (but not nearly as detailed and as effecting as suggested here) to what skill proponents are suggesting. ArmA2:PR is a great example, ranges are realistic for the basis of the game (simulation based modern combat between two near equal forces), the ranges go from kilometers away to meters away. The average range in my experience with the game is about half a kilometer, and shooting on-target at that range is hard (due to gravity, suppression effects, and breathing) and there is no random CoF BS either.

[Dsi1]

Pht, on 20 November 2011 - 03:36 PM, said:

The same pen and paper game from which the novels originated and all of the standards for what is called "Mechwarrior" - unless, of course, we just want an arbitrary hodge-podge.

You don't get to pick and choose what to ignore and what to take from the lore and the parent game and expect to be able to validly call the result "Mechwarrior."

You might as well take a gundam game, change the visuals and the names, and call that a "Mechwarrior" game.


Slavish adherence to the tabletop and rpg rules? NO. Slavishly trashing said systems and rules? NO.

Trying to establish a non-arbitrary standard for what a BattleMech is and what it's like to pilot one in a way that fits the compromises inherent to a video game format that can validly be called "Mechwarrior?" ... Yes!

I'm sorry but it is impossible to take rules for emulating combat from an omniscient, overhead, perspective, and make them work for an FPS, direct control, perspective. It just doesn't work. It works for that overhead perspective because you aren't in direct control, you aren't moving the joystick, you aren't able to pull the trigger at just the right moment, you just say "I want to hit here" and see how close you get. Don't get me wrong, that can make for great stories and amazing experiences, but so can physically simulating your mech when you're playing in the same universe from a first person perspective!

We don't roll to-hit chances in any FPS games, there isn't even some incredibly obscure game sitting in some dark corner of the web that rolls to-hit from an FPS, real time, perspective. The main reason is just that it's annoying, just does not feel right. ("You mean, I aimed at this dude's left arm and it missed off to the right?!" or "You mean I aimed at his torso and I hit him in the head?!" or maybe even, for those legger hating folks, "You mean I aimed at his torso and legged him?! I didn't mean to do that!" [I can see some bans happening from that...])

[Pht]

Dsi1, on 20 November 2011 - 03:48 PM, said:

I'm sorry but it is impossible to take rules for emulating combat from an omniscient, overhead, perspective, and make them work for an FPS, direct control, perspective.

Well I guess than it's a good thing that the tabletop isn't an omniscient system and Mechwarrior isn't an fps!

Quote

It just doesn't work. It works for that overhead perspective because you aren't in direct control, you aren't moving the joystick, you aren't able to pull the trigger at just the right moment, you just say "I want to hit here" and see how close you get. Don't get me wrong, that can make for great stories and amazing experiences, but so can physically simulating your mech when you're playing in the same universe from a first person perspective!

Ok, *why* doesn't it work? What does being in a First Person Armored Combat Sim change that makes "it" not work?

Second, can you please tell me what you are referring to by "it?" ...

I don't mean "take all the rules exactly as they're implemented and convert them into a video game form."

The Pen and Paper rules should be used to establish a baseline - how a weapon or a mech behaves, in concept and in some "raw" hard numbers, that can be dropped into a video game back-end.

Quote

We don't roll to-hit chances in any FPS games,

Again, MW is not an fps. FPACS, yes.

[Ansel]

A static cone of fire for any game is..well...I don't know how to say it other than Idiotic.

If the game is going to use any form of cone of fire it needs to be on an expontional time scale so that when you put the crosshairs on a mech it will contract the retical very quickly into a usable cone of fire in the first few seconds then slowly continues to get smaller and smaller allowing moar presice aim when kept on a target.

In about 1 second the circle in the pictures used by Mythril Coyote should shrink by half. then half again in about 2 sec then again in about 4 sec and so on unti it touches the crosshairs or even further. So long as it decreases slower the smaller it gets but contracts really fast when put onto a new target.

This can also work in reverse, so long as you do not hold the crosshair off the target for moar than around 1 sec the expansion will be minimal.

It's really the only acceptible way to do a cone of fire in a game like this. Pinpoint aiming right off will hurt the game and a static Cof will hurt the game IMO

TL;DR: The cone should Contract fully in about 6-7 seconds going really fast at first then getting slower till it covers the center crosshairs it would work a h e l l of a lot better then just pinpoint or a static CoF.

[Pht]

J Echo, on 20 November 2011 - 01:52 PM, said:

That's ironic, considering that this is exactly what the BTTT rules are.

They're a fairly coherent system of rules; they are not arbitrary in that right; and of course they originated in somebody's mind; so they're not arbitrary in that right either.

In what way that matters to this discussion are they arbitrary?

Quote

See here: http://mwomercs.com/...dpost__p__39306

Read it, didn't see any good reasons to allow anything arbitrary to be called "Mechwarrior."

Quote

How about based on logic? "Based on nonsense" is a description of BTTTR, not of Mechwarrior's improving deviations.

"Based on logic" is exactly what I was implying should be used.

You say MW's deviations have been improving ... by what non-subjective manner that doesn't flatly ignore the lore?

Edited by Pht, 20 November 2011 - 04:30 PM.

[Riptor]

Quote

No, actually, real fighter aircraft controls are much more precise than a mouse (and almost infinitely more precise than a keyboard). It's a safe bet that any real battlemech would have more accurate controls than a mouse and keyboard.

You compare fighter jets that most often are double seaters using fire and forget weapons to a 20 to 100 ton ground combat vehicle on legs that is only piloted by one person who ontop has to deal with all those direct fire weapons all spread around on the humanoid or insectoid form of his mech?

If you have to compare mechs to another vehicle take tanks.. wich are piloted by an entire crew and are a much more stable weapons plattform and yet need atleast two people to find targets and shoot at them.

Yeah no... apples and oranges.

Quote

... According to the outdated, irrelevant tabletop game rules.

***** the TT rules (i have green hair!)... im talking basic battletech history.,. you know.. the reason people are fans of battletech? The thing that makes battletech battletech and not gundam or armored core?

Quote

You must have missed the part where this was happening because the Warhammer's torso was being jerked around by the Atlas's cannon.

You must have missed the lasers of the jenner and atlas hitting completly different spots (and in case of the atlas they where all mounted next to each other right in the center torso.. and they where firing left and right) and that the warhammer only missed two shots due to the impact of the Atlas AC/20. When he took that atlas arm off he was not rocked by the AC shells. Also he was firing his machineguns the entire time and they where not hitting the head of the atlas... an indicator thatthe computer of the mech was not aiming at the head but at the atlas in general.

(And for the note.. that warhammer pilot was a n00b stepping infront of that atlas over and over again at that range)

Quote

Hurrah for minimizing real skill, right?

Hey not my decision... the Devs said pilot progression/leveling will be in... and since they openly anounced that you can bet its pretty much in the game.

Quote

Not to mention that saying it'd turn into a sniper game is just lying, look at FPS games with systems similar (but not nearly as detailed and as effecting as suggested here) to what skill proponents are suggesting. ArmA2:PR is a great example, ranges are realistic for the basis of the game (simulation based modern combat between two near equal forces), the ranges go from kilometers away to meters away. The average range in my experience with the game is about half a kilometer, and shooting on-target at that range is hard (due to gravity, suppression effects, and breathing) and there is no random CoF BS either.

Ah yes... Arma 2.. all those tanks and soldiers with their lasers and PPCs...

Look im not saying that we should have gigantic crosshair spread that makes you fire at your target and then shoot above or beside it when you stand still. Alli want is that the spread is big enough when you move/jump/dance whatever that you cannot one or two shot an medium heavy mech while you run past him. That is not battletech.

I want the battles to last some and give damaged mechs a chance to get away into cover.. something that was nearly impossible in MW4s insta death style system that a certain number of people want back. That game was more like some cheap cowboy movie.. the one who drew his gun first and shot was the winner... boooooring.

In the end i dont really care what system is implemented aslong as it makes sure that it doesnt become a point/click/death/next one scheme. It was that reason that mediums and heavys where obsolete in mw4 multyplayer and lights only for speedfreaks.

Also in MW4 it had nothing to do with skill.. everyone and their mother where jump snipers from n00bs that only had seen it once to people who are still playing now. All due to pinpoint accuracy, so no.. you cant say theres much skill involved with that system.

Edited by Riptor, 20 November 2011 - 09:28 PM.

[Dsi1]

Pht, on 20 November 2011 - 04:11 PM, said:

Ok, *why* doesn't it work? What does being in a First Person Armored Combat Sim change that makes "it" not work?

Second, can you please tell me what you are referring to by "it?" ...

I don't mean "take all the rules exactly as they're implemented and convert them into a video game form."

The Pen and Paper rules should be used to establish a baseline - how a weapon or a mech behaves, in concept and in some "raw" hard numbers, that can be dropped into a video game back-end.

"It" is TT in real-time first person perspective.

Guess what, these games all use TT as a baseline. AC20s do more damage than AC2s, LBLs do more damage than SBLs, heavy mechs are slower than light mechs, clan weapons are better than IS weapons. The only non-baseline is inherent from the change from TT to FPS, and that is how combat works. Now, there was much less of a skill ceiling for 1v1 combat in the older games, and that can be fixed with MWO. Or you can lower the skill ceiling by raising the amount of luck required to win.

Pht, on 20 November 2011 - 04:11 PM, said:

Well I guess than it's a good thing that the tabletop isn't an omniscient system and Mechwarrior isn't an fps!

Again, MW is not an fps. FPACS, yes.

Tabletop is at least overhead, and the only thing you aren't aware of at all times is what your opponent is planning. (Maybe not totally omniscient)

FPACS? What perspective are you playing the game from? Are you shooting weapons? Guess what this genre this game falls under then. It's a sim still, but that's secondary to the base genre, like how ArmA2 is an FPS milsim, this would, hopefully, be an FPS mechsim(but it won't be a sim if we introduce CoF)

[Yeach]

mithril coyote, on 20 November 2011 - 01:23 PM, said:

since the wildly misleading 'comparison images have made a reappeance, i threw together some example images of what us cone of fire proponents actually mean.

the first thing to understand is that aiming will still occur as in previous MW games. you'll still have the reticle, you'll still have the reticle swaying around as you move, etc. those elements exist in the setting as defined by the novels.

what we're proposing is this: instead of hiting inside that central dot, the shots have a chance of hitting anywhere within the orange circle..which is not actually visable in play.

this is close range, the effective range of Small lasers and machineguns.

and this is the same distance, but the firing mech is moving. (only a 10% increase here)


medium distance, medium lasers, SRm's, AC20..

and moving (again 10% bigger)

Long distance - large lasers, AC10, AC5

and moving

very long distance - PPC's, LRM's, AC2

and moving

you'll note that at very long distance there is a small chance to miss entirely..this is consistant with the setting as described in the novels, where very long distance shots are lower accuracy than closer distance shots due to the lower precision.

you'll notice that this makes for a fairly minor change to the existing MW game aiming methods, the only effect being to spread damage out over the target slightly more.

this approach also makes the addition of later advanced technology systems like pulse lasers (which are supposed to be more accurate) and targeting computers (ditto) easier. neither of these have been well implimented in previous games, and under this system, they would shrink the scatter area by a few % each, making your shots more precise.

Thanks mithril coyote

Zooming is what makes long range into short range
http://mwomercs.com/...-magnification/

You have this at long range


and it become this with zoom


and that makes it so much easier to hit the mech.

[Chembot]

For those of you who are interested (and can reference/download), on pg. 60 to 68 of Battletechnology, The Lost Issues from the 90's, there's an excellent essay titled Targeting and Tracking Systems: Strengths and Weaknesses. In it is a complete list of the Targeting and Tracking systems used as of March 14, 3049 (its a NAIS lecture).. so, perfect timing for this game!
In the list, there are 6 systems that confer a bonus to hit (in TT terms), so logically, they must have a more accurate way of targeting your enemy. They are;
- DLK TYPE PHASED ARRAY SENSOR
- GARRET GRNDTRAK 9, found on the Scorpion
- RANGER LAF-2A
- SPAR 3C TIGHTBAND, found on the Stalker
These 4 suites each give a -1 bonus on to-hit rolls, (not sure on what the DLK and RANGER are on.. anyone know?), so one might presume the reticle reacts more smoothly, weapons fire more accurately strikes the center or something of the sort.

The other 2;
- TEK TRU TRAK, found on the Phoenix Hawk
and, the king of Inner Sphere targeting suites, the
- SLOANE 220 LOCKOVER, found on the Clint
both give a -2 bunus to hit! The same bonus as a clan Targeting Computer! (although, the clan TC would have way more functions like targeting specific locations etc)
Now granted, these tables found in the article would be considered advanced rules for the TT game, and each system has plenty of other features and upgradable sub systems that is best left to the interested reader. But, what they do offer, is specificity!

Now, lets assume the Devs work this kind of data into the game code, it would mean that your best choices for sniping mechs would be your Phoenix Hawk and Clint.. 2 machines not exactly known for their Alpha Striking effectiveness, but who would both be more capable of hitting those desired locations with greater accuracy than what most other mechs systems can achieve.

Mind you, the FAUST/SHINJI AT/TS (not sure what its on) confides a +2 penalty on energy weapons only, and the STANDUS 20 has a "Non correctable problem of projecting non-existent targets, ID and Incoming Missile warnings at random" That suite would suck! But hey, not all computer systems are created equal..

So perhaps the game could involve a marriage of the 2 types of targeting? Who knows..

[Kudzu]

J Echo, on 20 November 2011 - 11:24 AM, said:

Lies. It's extremely difficult to point the crosshairs at a moving and twisting target while your own torso is moving and twisting (and often being knocked around by bullets and missiles). There's more skill in that than you'll ever find in your dice-rolling games and cone-of-fire shooters.

I seriously just laughed for 5 straight minutes after reading this. If you actually consider this to be hard, you really need to look for a game that's more on your level. No wonder you're dead set against something that would require the introduction of teamwork and tactics-- you can barely handle the extreme basics.

[Kudzu]

mithril coyote, on 20 November 2011 - 01:23 PM, said:

I would actually make this the close range cone while moving at 30-40% speed.

Basically, if you're up close and have been still for a few seconds the miss zone should be small enough to allow you to pick out individual sections-- but that scenario should be fairly rare (such as targeting a shut down mech or if you're willing to allow your target to return the favor).

As you increase speed (10-69% scales well, 70% you see a bigger leap in expansion as you move out of combat speeds and into full runs. This also gives an accuracy advantage to faster mechs who give up firepower and armor-- the max speed of an Atlas is mid range combat speed for a Jenner, this will help balance lights and assaults a bit.) , range, heat, etc the cone should expand quite a bit-- and it should scale easily enough that even the rawest pilot gets the hang of it quickly.

Edited by Kudzu, 21 November 2011 - 09:16 AM.

[Outlaw]

My biggest issue with 100% precise aim is with those that will inevitably design the Alpha Boat that cores out an opponent in one strike, we saw this quite a bit in Mechwarrior 3 and to some extent in Mechwarrior 4. I know that we have no information on what method they will use for customization, but the threat still remains.

I am for a bit of a compromise, one that says you have a really good chance to hit, but where your shot lands is what is variable, based on range and speed more than anything else. Im not saying that if you are at close range at a full run and you fire at someone that it is going to go crazy and hit an arm or leg, but more along the lines of your shots may be aimed at the CT but will have a fair chance at hitting the LT or RT, While at longer ranges this variance becomes more of a problem.

I agree that in some cases Skill should trump luck, and if there was no chance at the ability to customizing your load outs i would be fine with the precise aiming system that we saw in MW3 and MW4, but the threat that most people will inevitably just go for the high damage one off configuration that devastates a target in the first volley means that variation on where the shots hit is probably the best way to go.

[CeeKay Boques]

I don't know why I look at these. I hope for a reticule for each weapon and ye be damned if that's too hard for ya, you can have your CoF, unto which your weapons be locked unto, as far as you know for it will fire in a ghastly pattern directed by der physics of the rumbling and tumbling of yer engine, and the bounceocity of the them arms. If you dont' believe that the Crytek Engine has a great physics model, then you'll see yer precious randomizin' of the firin'. If they do have good physics, then when my gun is pointed at 276 degrees, the shell shall fly from that barrel, and gravity and wind shall take hold it, and the weight of that round will help it land in a correct way, most likely lower than from whence I targeted it. Maybe to the left too, if wind be pushin'.

[Cyttorak]

The devs have already stated that legging/laserboating is a problem from previous games that they would like to get rid of. Since everyone knows this was caused by pinpoint accuracy, I assume that means the devs will be getting rid of pinpoint accuracy.
What it's replaced with is open to speculation...