339 replies to this topic

[CeeKay Boques]

Kudzu, on 17 November 2011 - 04:27 PM, said:

Except AC/20's do all their damage to one location, it's kinda their whole point. So your burst instead needs to be one larger shell, like that from a tank, and if you do that all your recoil means nothing.

Really? I specifically named the Autocannon type i was using, a 10 shot. Also, there are LBX...wait for it... Autocannons. Don't try to out "canon" me. get it? Cannon... nm. Why bother doing this?

Quote

So your great balancing tool is lag shooting? Seriously? Back in the dark days of dial up modems I was getting head shots on bunnyhoppers with a 500+ ping. Lag shooting is a skill I'd rather not have to use again. Once you get it down you still have all your lasers hitting the same spot.

Its about control. I'm sorry bro, but the throttle is simply not interesting enough for me. I mean, its fun and all, but its just speed. You think that the charge for the amount of power is just sitting there, warmed up non stop ready to go? I'm trying to find a cool way around "firing in your general vicinity and hopin' for the best!"

Quote

You really have no idea how expanding reticule cone of fire works, do you?

Yep, not my first game. When you run in Arma 2, the gun actually moves until you recover your breath. That means, if I time my breath right, I can still, maybe shoot where I WANT. Not where the server tells me. When you run in BF3, the cross hairs are all big. You're just spraying and praying. That's the difference I"m talking about. Why do you want a VIDEO GAME mechanic in our simulator? Can't you think outside the box? The gun can move, in a pivot, or on an actuator, why are we dumbing the game down because we can't think of another solution than "Random scatter"?

[CeeKay Boques]

Quote

but in battletech, mechs and other vehicles have their weapons mounted on individual motorized mounts, which can adjust the aimpoint of the weapon on the fly, based on the location and (calculated) range of the target. so mechs having issues hitting things due to fixed weapon convergence makes no sense given how mechs are designed.

Hmm... I didn't know that. No weapons in the torso are locked in place, all have mechanical pivots? That puts my multiple reticule theory down a notch....

[Nik Van Rhijn]

Can't find anything in the literature that says torso weapons have any form of pivoting system. Would those who keep insisting that this is so please supply a reference?

[Barbaric Soul]

TheRulesLawyer, on 17 November 2011 - 03:14 PM, said:

A lot of us are with you, but there are many out there who can't accept this particular bit of nonsense that is part of battletech.

It's nothing like that. I'll explain why us MW players don't want a cone of fire. To put it as simple as I can, when the game is released, and you and I are in a game, if you win, I want it to be because you played the better game, not because you got lucky with the random hit locations of your shots. Same thing if I win, I want it to be because I played the better game, not because I got lucky.

[Joker Two]

Display a crosshairs, with the crosshair visual denoting the weapon selected. Box or brackets for missile locks, conventional crosshairs for projectile weapons, and a second, more "futuristic" crosshair for energy weapons.

Joggle the crosshairs when the 'Mech walks, more when it runs, a lot when it takes hits.

When ACs or MGs fire, rounds follow a cone pattern similar to most FPS games. Gauss rifles would fire the one shot obviously, and probably be more accurate.

When missiles fire, have their flight paths diverge slightly in random groups. SRMs, especially, should corkscrew in, since they have limited guidance systems. Standard rockets or MRMs (if they are ever included) even more so.

Lasers might start out "unfocused", but the longer you fire or the steadier your crosshairs are, the more accurate they become. Basically the laser beam starts somewhere in a "cone" like with projectiles, but over the course of the burst (1/8th, 1/4th second, etc.) they should focus in towards the center of your aim point.

PPCs should target more like gauss rifles, but have a small "blast effect" of sorts from arcing lightning

Flamers spray a fan or cone of fire.

[mithril coyote]

Technoviking, on 17 November 2011 - 08:37 PM, said:

Hmm... I didn't know that. No weapons in the torso are locked in place, all have mechanical pivots? That puts my multiple reticule theory down a notch....

actually, in the novels most mech cockpits have two MW3 type mobile reticles, controlled by two joysticks. each one controls a seperate set of weapons. in 3025 and 3048, this was usually hardwired, with seperate triggers for each weapon. for example a Warhammer in 3025 had one PPC, one medium, one small laser, and one machinegun trigger on each joystick, and the rightside stick had an extra button for the SRM6.
later novels retroactively added the "hotlinking" approach to weapons, allowing the mechwarriors to group weapons together to be triggered by a single trigger.

however, i doubt we want that level of simulation. a single reticle, fixed or mobile, is about most of what the typical player can handle. especially since with two joysticks you';d have to control throttle and steering with footpedals (like mechwarriors in the setting do), which not everyone has the hardware for nor the innate ability to multitask in such a way.

[CeeKay Boques]

yes yes, but are all weapons on pivots? I have a theory about fixed weapons reticule and then free reticules off that, but if they ALL move, then I'll rethink it.


To the other: I have all that sim stuff, (pedals, TiR, FFB sticks etc) aren't we supposed to be the smart gaming crew? Why pander! Look at these well thought out threads here. I'm sure we can handle some difficulty.

[Kudzu]

Technoviking, on 17 November 2011 - 08:35 PM, said:

Really? I specifically named the Autocannon type i was using, a 10 shot. Also, there are LBX...wait for it... Autocannons. Don't try to out "canon" me. get it? Cannon... nm. Why bother doing this?

Oddly, it still works the same way for all the AC's no matter what the class. Imagine that. LBX series has an OPTION for cluster rounds but can still fire solid slugs, and if you take more than 1 ton of ammo you can mix and match to use as desired (solid slugs to open up armor, cluster to maximize your chance to get crits). The ability to chose between the two is one of the major advantages over regular AC's.

Quote

Its about control. I'm sorry bro, but the throttle is simply not interesting enough for me. I mean, its fun and all, but its just speed.

Speed, distance, heat, damage taken... there's a lot more to it than you like to admit. It's too bad a system that allows you control over how well you shoot isn't involved enough for you. The option to still have everything you fire hit the same spot is still there, you just have work for it. But that would require skill, wouldn't it?

Quote

You think that the charge for the amount of power is just sitting there, warmed up non stop ready to go?

Gee, I wonder what that recharge timer between shots means...

Quote

I'm trying to find a cool way around "firing in your general vicinity and hopin' for the best!"

One day I hope that I, too, can make up things about a subject I clearly don't understand and post it on the internet.

Quote

Yep, not my first game. When you run in Arma 2, the gun actually moves until you recover your breath. That means, if I time my breath right, I can still, maybe shoot where I WANT. Not where the server tells me. When you run in BF3, the cross hairs are all big. You're just spraying and praying. That's the difference I"m talking about.

You realize that if you don't go full throttle, aren't redlining the heat scale, and are in a good range for your weapons you hit what you're aiming at consistently under expanding reticule cone of fire too, right? You have full control over how big the circle gets-- and it becomes a much more involved system than "point-click-kill". You have to decide if you want to trade speed for accuracy, survivability for firepower.

Quote

Why do you want a VIDEO GAME mechanic in our simulator? Can't you think outside the box? The gun can move, in a pivot, or on an actuator, why are we dumbing the game down because we can't think of another solution than "Random scatter"?

I want the game to reflect the game it was designed after-- to simulate Battletech. Why do you want to make it into call of duty- the mecha edition?

[mithril coyote]

Nik Van Rhijn, on 17 November 2011 - 08:46 PM, said:

Can't find anything in the literature that says torso weapons have any form of pivoting system. Would those who keep insisting that this is so please supply a reference?

techmanual, pg40. under "controls". discusses how aiming is 'point and click for both both arm mounted and adjustable weapons mounts'

pg 238 also discusses how the targeting computer is more than just a computer, but also includes upgrades to the weapons mounts to improve their ability to aim.

it's not "pivoting" per se, though some mechs do have partially turreted torso weapons (like the unseen marauder). it's more like the targeting system intergrated active stablization systems seen on modern tanks.

Edited by mithril coyote, 17 November 2011 - 09:12 PM.

[Nik Van Rhijn]

Many thanks

[VYCanis]

here is a handy dandy diagram illustrating exactly why i do not like cone of fire, or taking the old rules verbatim without thought to context and gameplay

compare each one. CoF may seem like its "truer to the tabletop" but a system of stacking modifiers just to shrink or expand a random cone is bland as hell, and arcadey to boot. I'd much rather have what used to count as modifiers actually factor in as actual characteristics of the machines and the weapons and whats going on. I want to spend my game time struggling to get a shot through all the interference my enemy is sending my way, not spend the game where both sides are "GI Joe shooting" at hilariously short ranges because no one can reliably score a hit otherwise.

Edited by VYCanis, 17 November 2011 - 10:21 PM.

[mithril coyote]

actually, the left side is pretty much how mechbattles occur in setting. though i don't think that anyone actually wants the crosshairs to actually expand or contract, rather there is just an 'invisible' circle around the normal crosshair.

[VYCanis]

they may occur that way in the setting, and in the TT, but that doesn't necessarily make it good for gameplay once you you leave the pages of a novel and the dice behind for a computer screen

Edited by VYCanis, 17 November 2011 - 10:35 PM.

[Kudzu]

VY, you realize the the entire circle doesn't have to have equal weight on the randomization table, right? It could easily be more weighted (meaning more likely to hit) towards the center, instead of having an equal chance to land anywhere within the circle. Here's a really bad picture to show you what I mean



The yellow dot in the center could be weighted for a 45% chance of a shot to hit there, from the yellow out to the green could be 25%, green to blue 20%, and from blue to red 10%. (Percentages are off the top of my head). What this means is that you are still likely to hit what you're aiming at, but you'll still see scatter enough to make a difference.

[Yeach]

Not particular fond of this method because it uses RNG. Too much luck involved to get a lucky shot off; AC20s will only be used at point-blank range.

[VYCanis]

you could do that, but up to what range is that going to be good for.

45% in the yellow might be fine and dandy at 200m, but what about 800?

is each different weapon going to get its own unique weighted probability circle?

because if so, that still has the potential of turning silly looking real fast... exhibit B

[Kudzu]

Yeach, on 17 November 2011 - 10:55 PM, said:

Not particular fond of this method because it uses RNG. Too much luck involved to get a lucky shot off; AC20s will only be used at point-blank range.

The smaller you make that outer circle, the more likely you are to hit exactly where you want. That's skill and good tactics more than luck. Under this system boating goes back down and the AC20 again becomes the scariest thing you come up against-- because it's damage will be guaranteed to be concentrated.

VYCanis, on 17 November 2011 - 10:56 PM, said:

you could do that, but up to what range is that going to be good for.
45% in the yellow might be fine and dandy at 200m, but what about 800?

Depends on the weapons ranged bracket along with what you're doing (running jumping etc)-- for long range stuff like PPC's, light AC's, and large lasers that can be their 800 meter bracket if you're standing still (we'll say you're zoomed in to see the Urbie at that size).

Quote

is each different weapon going to get its own unique weighted probability circle?

You could do it that way to help balance the different weapons between each other if needed.

Quote

because if so, that still has the potential of turning silly looking real fast... exhibit B

If the top represents standing still and the bottom picture represents going at a full run it would actually look about right, the right hand pic would need the reticule a lot bigger though.

Edited by Kudzu, 17 November 2011 - 11:08 PM.

[VYCanis]

except MGs don't work that way.

Machineguns are not attached via slinkies. If a mech with twin mgs in its torso is is running, it doesn't make sense for machineguns to spray everywhere, it makes sense for them to continue the same overall stream of fire but having it sway with the torso.

if you have different range brackets for short/medium/long then you have lots of situations where a large laser hits where you are aiming, but the medium laser mounted right underneath could veer off for no real reason other that "its short range"

From a rules standpoint on the TT, it works, but in real time, seeing it in action, the TT system breaks down and ceases to make sense.

Edited by VYCanis, 17 November 2011 - 11:25 PM.

[Webclaw]

VYCan

VYCanis, on 17 November 2011 - 10:21 PM, said:

here is a handy dandy diagram illustrating exactly why i do not like cone of fire, or taking the old rules verbatim without thought to context and gameplay

compare each one. CoF may seem like its "truer to the tabletop" but a system of stacking modifiers just to shrink or expand a random cone is bland as hell, and arcadey to boot. I'd much rather have what used to count as modifiers actually factor in as actual characteristics of the machines and the weapons and whats going on. I want to spend my game time struggling to get a shot through all the interference my enemy is sending my way, not spend the game where both sides are "GI Joe shooting" at hilariously short ranges because no one can reliably score a hit otherwise.

I have to agree with VYCanis... His little picture comp highlights the "randomness" of simulation fire without involving a random number generator too often used on most games, COD etc.

[Kudzu]

VYCanis, on 17 November 2011 - 11:21 PM, said:

except MGs don't work that way.

Machineguns are not attached via slinkies. If a mech with twin mgs in its torso is is running, it doesn't make sense for machineguns to spray everywhere, it makes sense for them to continue the same overall stream of fire but having it sway with the torso.

Bouncing from running + recoil from sustained fire + targeting computer trying to adjust the weapon = shakey.

Quote

if you have different range brackets for short/medium/long then you have lots of situations where a large laser hits where you are aiming, but the medium laser mounted right underneath could veer off for no real reason other that "its short range"

That's due to balance purposes in general, beyond that, you'll be seeing spread more often (as you should to properly recreate the BTU). It wouldn't take long for you to either get used to it happening or to regroup your weapons into similar range brackets for firing purposes, which is the smarter move anyway: "While closing I fire my PPC's at 400m, let the heat drop a bit, still closing, fire medium lasers at 250m, etc." instead of "Group everything together and fire it at the same time".

Quote

From a rules standpoint on the TT, it works, but in real time, seeing it in action, the TT system breaks down and ceases to make sense.

I'm betting you would get used to it quickly, and you would see overall gameplay improve tremendously as fights would last longer than "who can alphastrike their laser boat first".

Edited by Kudzu, 17 November 2011 - 11:44 PM.