Jump to content

Why a 'cone of fire' aiming system is best suited to making MWO match the setting


339 replies to this topic

#101 Creel

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 189 posts
  • Google+: Link
  • LocationFort Worth, TX

Posted 18 November 2011 - 09:32 PM

View PostMelissia, on 18 November 2011 - 09:04 PM, said:

No, I said it sucks because it reduces the level of skill required and is utterly unnecessary, while adding nothing to the game. That, and pretty all of its stated goals can be done in better ways.

But keep getting mad at me for disliking your idea... that'll really convince me.




On the contrary. It doesn't reduce the level skill required. If anything it increases it, or at least shifts the focus to a different kind of skill.

There should be more to successful mech skills than timing your shots to synch up your sight-picture.

#102 Melissia

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 425 posts
  • LocationUSA

Posted 18 November 2011 - 09:34 PM

View PostKudzu, on 18 November 2011 - 09:19 PM, said:

Considering the sheer number of posts in this thread featuring me already explaining that exact topic just goes to show you really don't understand. Your turn.
... all of which have been long since been refuted in this and other threads.


In the end, a far more elegant solution to the "problem" you propose (if one even agrees there is one, which a sizable portion of people apparently don't agree on given the results of the poll in the general discussion thread) is adjusting heat costs-- making multiple weapons fired at once build up heat faster; making heat dissipate slower after an alpha strike; or even a simple adjustment of how much heat a laser produces-- which has the added bonus of being closer to the lore anyway, as heat management skills are important for a mechwarrior.. Of course, one could also adjust rate of fire as well, making the lasers slower firing but more accurate while the ballistic weapons do more damage overall due to their faster rate of fire, with the notable exception of gauss weaponry. Then again, another solution which would be better is a simple damage adjustment to encourage people to diversify.

One could use all three of these in unison for a more balanced approach. And most if not all of this done without adding in new game mechanics.

View PostCreel, on 18 November 2011 - 09:32 PM, said:

On the contrary. It doesn't reduce the level skill required. If anything it increases it,
Any skill that this requires, the other systems require equally or more. Use of terrain? Yep, a direct aim requires that. Teamwork, heat management, mobility, etc? Yep, those too.

Edited by Melissia, 18 November 2011 - 09:39 PM.


#103 Frantic Pryde

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Nova Commander
  • 714 posts
  • LocationMiami, FL

Posted 18 November 2011 - 09:36 PM

I think I finally understand cone of fire and I'm really not crazy about it.

I'm not crazy about 6 medium lasers all hitting the same spot either though. If this game turns into the madness that was Mechwarrior3 custom games your going to lose as many people as you would with some crazy rng thing.

I like amechwarrior's idea. I think a very small cone of fire makes sense...things simply don't always work the way they are supposed to. A little deviation here and there is realistic. I don't think there should be any cof when you use chain fire though.

Edit:typo

Edited by Frantic Pryde, 18 November 2011 - 09:37 PM.


#104 Creel

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 189 posts
  • Google+: Link
  • LocationFort Worth, TX

Posted 18 November 2011 - 09:42 PM

View Postphalanx, on 18 November 2011 - 09:18 PM, said:

Why are we debating this, the Devs have already said that the game will NOT have an RNG.


and we're cherry picking Q&A quotes for a biased reading again.

They also said they're aware of the issues that have plagued the other games and that gameplay tuning will drive how they approach concentrated damage.

I don't read that as conclusive. As a matter of fact, all of the devs have been very careful to say nothing conclusive in any way regarding finalized gameplay.

#105 Kudzu

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 769 posts
  • LocationSomewhere in the SEC

Posted 18 November 2011 - 09:42 PM

View PostMelissia, on 18 November 2011 - 09:34 PM, said:

In the end, a far more elegant solution to the "problem" you propose (if one even agrees there is one, which a sizable portion of people apparently don't agree on given the results of the poll in the general discussion thread) is adjusting heat costs-- making multiple weapons fired at once build up heat faster; making heat dissipate slower after an alpha strike; or even a simple adjustment of how much heat a laser produces-- which has the added bonus of being closer to the lore anyway, as heat management skills are important for a mechwarrior.. Of course, one could also adjust rate of fire as well, making the lasers slower firing but more accurate while the ballistic weapons do more damage overall due to their faster rate of fire, with the notable exception of gauss weaponry. Then again, another solution which would be better is a simple damage adjustment to encourage people to diversify.

One could use all three of these in unison for a more balanced approach. And most if not all of this done without adding in new game mechanics.

Any skill that this requires, the other systems require equally or more. Use of terrain? Yep, a direct aim requires that. Teamwork, heat management, mobility, etc? Yep, those too.

And yet none of that solves the "every weapon hitting the exact same spot to one shot people" issue. So no, it doesn't "fix everything".

You still haven't explained your understanding of CWERCoF yet.

#106 Melissia

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 425 posts
  • LocationUSA

Posted 18 November 2011 - 09:51 PM

View PostKudzu, on 18 November 2011 - 09:42 PM, said:

And yet none of that solves the "every weapon hitting the exact same spot to one shot people" issue. So no, it doesn't "fix everything"
Yes... it does.

By punishing alpha strikes, people need to chain fire their weapons, which means that any movement by either 'mech will require the attacking mechwarrior to have far more skill to maintain their reticle over the same spot, thus encouraging evasive maneuvers. Alpha strikes that occur anyway shut the firer down, so that any 'mech, including the damaged target, can easily focus fire on the now-still (and thus easy to hit) 'mech and utterly destroy it with impunity.

Edited by Melissia, 18 November 2011 - 09:53 PM.


#107 Kudzu

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 769 posts
  • LocationSomewhere in the SEC

Posted 18 November 2011 - 10:04 PM

View PostMelissia, on 18 November 2011 - 09:51 PM, said:

Yes... it does.

By punishing alpha strikes, people need to chain fire their weapons, which means that any movement by either 'mech will require the attacking mechwarrior to have far more skill to maintain their reticle over the same spot, thus encouraging evasive maneuvers. Alpha strikes that occur anyway shut the firer down, so that any 'mech, including the damaged target, can easily focus fire on the now-still (and thus easy to hit) 'mech and utterly destroy it with impunity.

If the alphastrike outright kills the target (or mangles it so bad that it can't effectively fight back) then no, it doesn't fix anything.

#108 Amechwarrior

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • 729 posts
  • LocationHawaii

Posted 18 November 2011 - 10:05 PM

View PostMelissia, on 18 November 2011 - 09:34 PM, said:

...adjusting heat costs...


Separate from all the back-and-forth shouting. I want to know how that type of system effects traditionally heat neutral, yet damage heavy designs like the Awesome. It can continually fire as long as it lets go one of the PPCs every so often and not care about excessive heat. How would such systems effect designs like that?

#109 Melissia

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 425 posts
  • LocationUSA

Posted 18 November 2011 - 10:16 PM

View PostKudzu, on 18 November 2011 - 10:04 PM, said:

If the alphastrike outright kills the target (or mangles it so bad that it can't effectively fight back) then no, it doesn't fix anything.
... which is something that can be solved through damage adjustments. Of course, an assault 'mech with ballistics weapons can do just as much damage just as quickly to a light or medium 'mech anyway, and won't be as troubled with heat to boot-- so I still don't really see much of an issue here. A gauss rifle alone can remove or at least cripple a light mech's leg in one shot in the lore-- and its torso armor won't fare that much better, all while generating only a fraction of the heat generated by medium lasers. The heavy autocannon can do what four medium lasers do at half the heat cost, allowing it to keep firing while the lasers have overloaded the heat sinks... or to even remove heat sinks to make room for more weapons and/or armor, allowing the mech to be more likely to survive the alpha strike of its opponent to begin with, so it can keep pounding away at its now shut down adversary, its pilot content with the fact that their choice of weapons and tactics did not leave them so vulnerable.

#110 Kudzu

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 769 posts
  • LocationSomewhere in the SEC

Posted 18 November 2011 - 10:19 PM

View PostMelissia, on 18 November 2011 - 10:16 PM, said:

... which is something that can be solved through damage adjustments. Of course, an assault 'mech with ballistics weapons can do just as much damage just as quickly to a light or medium 'mech anyway, and won't be as troubled with heat to boot-- so I still don't really see much of an issue here. A gauss rifle alone can remove or at least cripple a light mech's leg in one shot in the lore-- and its torso armor won't fare that much better, all while generating only a fraction of the heat generated by medium lasers. The heavy autocannon can do what four medium lasers do at half the heat cost, allowing it to keep firing while the lasers have overloaded the heat sinks... or to even remove heat sinks to make room for more weapons and/or armor, allowing the mech to be more likely to survive the alpha strike of its opponent to begin with, so it can keep pounding away at its now shut down adversary, its pilot content with the fact that their choice of weapons and tactics did not leave them so vulnerable.

So what you're saying is go assault or go home-- a halfway decent pilot will not miss often and won't build up heat so it's pointless to bring anything else.

#111 Melissia

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 425 posts
  • LocationUSA

Posted 18 November 2011 - 10:25 PM

View PostAmechwarrior, on 18 November 2011 - 10:05 PM, said:

Separate from all the back-and-forth shouting. I want to know how that type of system effects traditionally heat neutral, yet damage heavy designs like the Awesome. It can continually fire as long as it lets go one of the PPCs every so often and not care about excessive heat. How would such systems effect designs like that?
If the Awesome chain-fired, it wouldn't have any effect at all really. But firing all three PPCs at once is bound to produce a heat spike even in the Awesome. Three ppcs at once generates roughly 150% as much heat as three autocannon/20s, for example. But given the Awesome's massive use of heat sinks, this isn't as much of a problem for it as it would be for other 'mechs. In order to gain more firepower, however, one would need to take away either heat sinks or armor to make up the seven tons necessary for the PPC, so trying to min-max its alpha strike would have really bad results either way for the Awesome's pilot (even with a balanced armor/heat sink removal).

#112 Melissia

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 425 posts
  • LocationUSA

Posted 18 November 2011 - 10:27 PM

View PostKudzu, on 18 November 2011 - 10:19 PM, said:

So what you're saying is go assault or go home-- a halfway decent pilot will not miss often and won't build up heat so it's pointless to bring anything else.
And if they aren't building up heat, that means they aren't alpha-striking with laser weapons. Quoth the Orks, job's a good'un, boss.

The weakness of light 'mechs needs to be adjusted elsewhere, as your idea certainly won't fix that either.

Edited by Melissia, 18 November 2011 - 10:30 PM.


#113 Creel

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 189 posts
  • Google+: Link
  • LocationFort Worth, TX

Posted 18 November 2011 - 10:36 PM

View PostMelissia, on 18 November 2011 - 10:27 PM, said:

And if they aren't building up heat, that means they aren't alpha-striking with laser weapons. Quoth the Orks, job's a good'un, boss.

The weakness of light 'mechs needs to be adjusted elsewhere, as your idea certainly won't fix that either.


This isn't about lights being too squishy, it's about everything being too squishy. autoconvergent fire is so broken that MW:4 had to create a completely arbitrary mechanic that required 2 hits to any location before the location was destroyed.

The entire system and all of the mechanics underlaying it are predicated on the idea that it's hard to put 2 bullets in one hole. Not only because it's difficult to align the reticule, but because the tech can't do it. previous MW games have ignored this to their detriment.

#114 Melissia

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 425 posts
  • LocationUSA

Posted 18 November 2011 - 10:40 PM

View PostCreel, on 18 November 2011 - 10:36 PM, said:

The entire system and all of the mechanics underlaying it are predicated on the idea that it's hard to put 2 bullets in one hole.
It's much less difficult to put two lasers in the same hole than two bullets, however.

Man this conversation is starting to sound dirty.

#115 Halfinax

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 637 posts

Posted 18 November 2011 - 10:48 PM

View PostMelissia, on 18 November 2011 - 10:25 PM, said:

If the Awesome chain-fired, it wouldn't have any effect at all really. But firing all three PPCs at once is bound to produce a heat spike even in the Awesome. Three ppcs at once generates roughly 150% as much heat as three autocannon/20s, for example. But given the Awesome's massive use of heat sinks, this isn't as much of a problem for it as it would be for other 'mechs. In order to gain more firepower, however, one would need to take away either heat sinks or armor to make up the seven tons necessary for the PPC, so trying to min-max its alpha strike would have really bad results either way for the Awesome's pilot (even with a balanced armor/heat sink removal).


Again, as I've pointed out elsewhere, you are advocating a middle ground that seems to favor a Battle Value system for balance, but seem to simultaneously arguing against such a system. I am not confident that you fully understand your own argument. You seem to be arguing for a pin point accuracy system while at the same time arguing for a balanced game play approach that favors the battle value and cone of fire system many are suggesting.

#116 Phades

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 334 posts

Posted 18 November 2011 - 10:49 PM

Fair warning, this is going to be a long series of posts. I was going to make a thread on its own, but just bear with me here. The formatting isn't perfect either, but it should be relatively easy to follow in a script/outline format.

*deep breath*

Okay here goes....


I think what the best implementation would be taking the intent of the core rules and applying it to the current game model. Look at it from a measure, countermeasure and comparable alternative stance. Then look at the overall potential damage output and make the determination of how lethal they want the game to be.

Original game intent: Avoid clustered damage groupings and present randomization in order to preserve some sense of tactics versus initiative winning the conflict.

Application within a video game with a FPS input: Initiative, aim, and piloting methods are solely based on player judgment and perception and partially personal computer equipment quality. Therefore implementation must follow a difficulty curve of the player's input. The translation would have to follow some core elements implied within the original game and how the player is familiar with how the real world works as it is why we develop physics engines.

Please note that many of these concepts are a collaboration of ideas I have read within different threads while adding some of my thoughts. If credit or citation is desired, please comment and I’ll update where appropriate.

#117 Phades

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 334 posts

Posted 18 November 2011 - 10:50 PM

Solutions:
1) Shrink the hit areas on the machines and create more of them. Scale those hit areas based upon the size of the machine and varied quantity in order to preserve cross chassis balance. This can be touchy and will require a lot of testing. Logic behind the move would be 2 weapons mounted on an arm fired in tandem are likely to strike the same general area, but not strike the exact same point at the same time. Due to the fact that mechs are big, having an "armor plate" system protecting the general damage inner structure makes a degree of sense. Therefore, have plates on the external armor each having a specific value, but retain the total damage capacity of the internal structure true to the original in that it would allow for multiple holes to be created on the external, but the internal damage is at a set maximum.

1A) In implementing the armor plate location it preserves the concept of a lucky hit, through skill based shots that manage to strike the same plate twice allowing for faster than “normal” penetration to the internal structure rather than eliminating all armor within the regular hit location sections.

2B) It will help preserve the survivability balance between tiers of mechs through total armor allocation and total damage received. IE a larger mech has more armor per location area, but those location areas are larger allowing for easier grouping.

3C) It will retain the concept of complete armor outer depletion before inner structure is breached for those who do not hit the same hole.

3D) In order to retain cross balance of damage spread by allowing "splash" damage across smaller armor plate areas from larger calibur weapons or explosives. IE If a larger calibur weapon (AC 10/20, gauss, ppc, missile explosions, larger lasers) strike a point on the mech that adjoins multiple plate areas. For visual simplicity think of a hex map and how they meet at the edges and divide the damage as appropriate across all areas affected.

1D1) This assumes true ballistic weapons are burst fire, or single shot as required with actual trajectories and flight times.

1D2) This assumes beam weapons are actual beams that fire over time and does a damage over time model, which will require precision on the player's part to maintain accuracy at a specific spot for penetration purposes.

1D3) This assumes missiles will splash damage and spread over the mech like a moderate inline or X firing patterns would dictate.
1D4) This assumes that LBX auto cannons will retain spread rules and each pellet will inflict damage individually.

1E) External armor plates should be angular to a degree and can be harder to strike directly perpendicular depending on the angle of the shot.

1E1) Factor in general angles of attack and give a slight modifier due to deflection of the attack. For example reduce the incoming damage from 90% to 80% of the maximum damage rounding down if greater than 4 points of damage is inflicted. Damage reduction should occur only once per shot if striking a seam between armor plates

1E2) This also assumes any head or cockpit region is recessed and harder to land a shot on as a result of the angular plates.

1F) External armor plates have visual effects associated with damage allowing for players to identify by sight weakened areas or areas absent of external armor plating.
1F1) Employ effects such as smoke, outward/inward buckling, or metallic heating to represent damage.

2) Allow for movement to impact direct fire weapons in a predictable manner. A skilled player will then time the shots at either the apex of either foot step in order to avoid the natural side to side and up down jitter expected with a moving bipedal machine. Allow for impact shake and force applied to the machine when receiving damage bursts in a specific region, not an individual armor plate, to impact mech movement.

2A) This assumes not an overly exaggerated movement or shake as there should be stabilizers within the arms and torso hard points to compensate for "minor" movements.

2B) This assumes not an overly exaggerated sway when coming to a stop.

2C) This assumes shake only when major change of direction occurs, not when a continued velocity is present (jump jets).

2D) This assumes that the weapon turrets have an actual turn speed that varies by weapon category.

2E) This assumes that the area of the weapon mount has different firing arc potentials.

2F) This assumes that each weapon mounted has a different firing point of origin.

2F1) Allow for specific shot convergence at different zoom panes. Suggested zoom convergence points occur at x2 (400m), x4 (800m), x6 (1200m), x8 (1600m) and assumes for adjusted damage values and flight paths beyond optimal firing range.

2F2) When zoomed, impose a slower turret change speed.

2F3) When zoomed, impose a smaller firing arc.

2F4) Allow for more than one zoom magnification, but impose greater restrictions on movement for re-targeting in exchange for better grouping at that magnification.

2F5) Each zoom option, no-zoom, 2x, 4x, etc, has a different fixed convergence point in meters so that snapping to a zoom mode does not allow for automatic convergence to the same pixel as indicated by the player when the shots are fired. Turret rotation speeds to settle on that point are required. The convergence point is a general area size, not specific pixel in space.

3) Allow for the victim of an attack react to the incoming damage.

3A) This assumes that the machine speed to scale will be responsive and have good acceleration rates.

3B) This assumes torso rotation is relatively as quick or quicker than acceleration and turn rates of the mechs.

3C) This assumes arm movement to be true when aiming and can create collision effects with inbound attacks.

3C1) Purpose being that if the target realizes that lasers and bullets or missiles are streaking at them, they can maneuver to force the damage to spread out and not naturally concentrate more than it has to and sacrifice limbs if needed.

3C2) This also assumes that mechlab changes will reflect the size and shape of the weapon mounted in the arm. This also assumes that each weapon type and category will be visually identifiable by each player at range by both the mounted look and the style of projectile fired.

3D) *optional* Allow players to perform "advanced" maneuvers such as crouching/kneeling, covering up with arms, and going prone in order to give more mitigation to the player and make better use of cover where appropriate.

3E) Allow for MASC activation to be a faster than normal acceleration curve in order to help throw off aim of aggressors or alter impact zone of inbound weapon fire.

3F) Allow for friendly fire to occur upon instances of pilot error.

4) Allow for heat and electronic warfare to moderately disrupt precision based targeting of machines and reduce the accuracy of shots at longer ranges.

4A) This assumes items like visual magnification become blurred, thus creating a more difficult precision shot.

4B) This assumes longer missile lock accrual times at varied ranges under different circumstances or zoom.

4B1) Require longer lock times at range while hot.

4B2) Require longer times at range while ECM active or targeted.

4B3) This assumes existence of AMS shooting in limited bursts per missile volley.

4B4) This assumes lock difficulty with clustered objects. IE radar based lock opposed to laser guided.

4B4a) This assumption only made for LRM and streak SRM. MRM and normal SRM should be semi laser guided following the cursor path within the visual cockpit targeting area.

4C) This assumes target priority bias reduced when cycling objects. IE targets acquired either manually via cursor or cycling through console commands chooses non-ECM targets first over ECM covered targets.

4D) This assumes weapon systems can dummy fire against non-targeted opponents.

4E) This assumes C3, NARC, TAG, and BAP options for automatic snap to orientation when in use, that will be disrupted by ECM. C3 may not alpha strike team mates, chain fire only. This is more sanity preserving and anti-grief measure more than anything.

4E1) Master unit for C3 should have additional weapon listings for each C3 slave unit with weapons dedicated to the system. Firing of each listed C3 weapon based off of a zoomed gun cam image with step and shake as appropriate with the mech owning the weapon. Owning mech’s use of weapon is temporarily disabled while master is in use with possible transition times implemented between master control and mech control.

4E2) Missile lock via NARC, target designation via BAP, TAG, or C3 should give options to target through cycling commands prior to launch and making the launch a pilot choice rather than automatic. Allow for locks beyond maximum normal lock range of the mech mounting the launcher. This should not impact the maximum flight time of the missiles and allow for situations where missiles run out of propellant and fall to the earth.

4E3) Artemis IV shrinks the deviation pattern in flight of missiles to allow for the potential for max damage in a single armor plate a more common occurrence.

5) Assuming melee attacks occur within the game, allow them to strike where the blow lands on the target.

5A) Charging and DFA should be distributed damage ordeals over wide areas as they should represent multiple collisions occurring in a rapid succession.

5B) Each plate struck on the exterior would take a reduced amount of damage after the first.

5C) Allow for penetration to occur in regions where weapon fire created previous holes or weak points in armor. A big fist or axe will hurt, but the pressure per square inch is distributed over a wider area and can create breach points, but not penetrate unless all points of contact are breached.

5D) Deflection values do not apply to melee attacks due to the size and overall spread of the attack.

6) Some weapon values may need to be altered to fit better with the original intent of the core rules and additional armor present due to additional armor plate divisions.

6A) Missiles should have an optimal target lock range maximum and minimum allowing for a variable lock time between these points with bonuses associated for C3, TAG, and NARC.

6A1) Missile damage should be calculated in a blast/splash model not modified for deflection values. This will create situations where greater than “normal” table top damage is being inflicted, but it is simulating spreading the damage out across a wider area (see summary/simulated combat section for reference). Brief example: A LRM 5 pack fired in an X flight pattern will likely have a most concentrated point of damage at the center of the X generating 3 damage across a single plate due to explosion overlap between individual missiles, while the least possible damaged armor plate area will experience 1-2 damage depending on coverage. This allows for a potential bell curve, but will not peak out without extenuating circumstances, yet will inflict far more damage overall due to multiple armor plates struck.

6A2) Missile flight time/range should be roughly 1.5x the maximum optimal lock range in order to accommodate for indirect firing situations, missiles that need to correct direction while in flight, and accommodate for C3, NARC, or TAG locks.

6A3) Missile flight speed should cover 1km in roughly 3-4s.

6B) Have all auto cannons except the AC 2 and LBX versions fire a 3 shot burst per trigger pull (think battle rifle in halo). Have the bursts occur between .3 seconds to .5 seconds. Autocannon projectiles should cover 1km in roughly 1-1.5 seconds. Shots going beyond maximum range reduce damage per projectile by 1,2, or 3 per 100 meters depending on caliber.

6B1) The AC 5 would fire 3 rounds each shot doing 2 points each. More damage overall, but it can get spread out between plates.

6B2) The AC 10 would be 3 rounds doing 4 points each (bigger bump for damage, but I don't think it would be game breaking).

6B3) The AC 20 would be 3 rounds doing 7 damage each. (less of a bump, but more consistent with the original). AC 20 rounds should be large.

6B4) The Ultra variants electing to double fire would have to be handled differently, since streaming fire over really long periods of time will net less damage total.

6B5) The Ultra AC 5 would be 4 rounds doing 3 damage each.

6B6) The Ultra AC 10 would be 4 rounds doing 5 damage each.

6B7) The Ultra AC 20 would be 4 rounds doing 10 damage each. AC 20 rounds should be large.

6B8) Machine gun fire should be twin barrel 1 point per projectile fire and allow for constant fire over time. Heavy machine gun be tri-barrel 1 point per projectile and constant fire as well.

6C) Lasers should either be a beam or pulse in a 3 round burst depending on the weapon type. Beam discharge occurring over 1 second dealing damage every .25 seconds based upon where the beam strikes as guided by the player and limited by the turret rotation speed. Pulse lasers discharging 3 rounds between .3 to .5 seconds. Laser fall off beyond maximum optimal range should be at least 1 damage per 50m for smaller lasers ranging upwards of 1 per 100m for larger lasers (Nik Van Rhijn caught my unintentional damage fall off omission)
.

6D) Flamer should be constant fire over time, but splash damage similar to missiles (heat is the real limiting factor on that one).

6E) PPC rounds should have a large projectiles and a flight time to cover 1km in roughly 2-3 seconds. Damage fall off past maximum optimal range should be 2 per 100m.

6F) Gauss rounds should have a large projectiles and a flight time to cover 1km in roughly 1-1.5 seconds. Damage fall off past maximum optimal range should be 1-2 points per 100m. The re-fire rate should be twice the PPC recycle time.

Edited by Phades, 19 November 2011 - 01:33 AM.


#118 Phades

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 334 posts

Posted 18 November 2011 - 10:50 PM

Summary /simulated combat:

Lets say you have a medium mech at 55 tons with a front center torso allocation of 36 armor external and 18 internal, l/r torso with 26 external front and 13 internal (going for simplicity atm). The internal armor behaves the way it has always; any damage striking it will be applied to it after penetrating the external armor. The external armor has instead of one big plate representing 36 damage points, it has perhaps 4 plate sections each containing an armor value up to 36 (using this figure as a benchmark for general sturdiness and would be subject to modification). The left and right torso being 3 plates (smaller areas generally) representing 26 points each. This mech is fighting a light mech at 30 tons with 20 in the center torso front 10 internal with 6 plates and the right and left torsos have 4 plates at 14 points each with 7 internal.

The medium mech fires first with a ER large laser, producing a beam over 1 second that strikes the light with the core rules indicating 8 damage (IS weapon). Initially the beam strikes the left torso, the light mech player reacts by turning or rotating the torso over the time of the beam causing it to strike 4 different plates. 2 damage in the left torso and 2 damage in the center torso. Split the damage evenly across 4 different plates dealing 2 damage points to each armor plate. The medium mech also fired a LRM 5. Due to the flight time of the missiles, they all strike center torso regions dividing the damage up across them equally (explosive splash damage). This would produce damage dealing 1-3 points across all affected plates assuming an X firing pattern and flight. Net damage suffered 2 points of damage to 2 plates on the LT, 5 damage to two plates in the CT, 3 points of damage to 2 other armor plates and 1-2 damage across the other 2 armor plates. The worst damage areas would have 15 armor left in the CT plates. This would be opposed to previous iterations of the games where it would be more likely that the CT took 13 damage total leaving 7 armor left.

The light mech returns fire with 4 ER medium lasers. They all strike the right torso initially each striking a different plate with one clipping a CT plate angle(convergence, but not same exact point). The medium mech pilot chooses not to rotate in order to keep LOS on the target. 3 of his right torso plates take the full 5 damage, while one center torso plate takes 4 (due to minor angle deflection). This leaves his RT with 21 armor in each plate as opposed to 11 and his center torso with 32.

Then the medium mech decides to fire off another volley of missiles and a light gauss round hoping to punch through the target light mech. He has decent aim and lead and the missile volley lands CT again leaving the most concentrated damage area taking 3 points of damage leaving 12 armor left in two plates. Then fires the gauss round which hits an overlapping point (due to projectile size) in two plates doing 8 total damage allocating 4 to each plate leaving 8 points of armor in each section. This is followed by the laser again splitting half the damage between the two visibly cooked/smoldering sections of armor leaving 4 points of damage on each. If we were using the regular sized hit sections, we would be talking IS damage and crits at this point. If we were doing randomized hit locations, anything from the head to leg popping off would have been possible at this point as well.

The light could choose at this point to give one last volley off to the medium before peeling off and offering different sections of armor, or kneeling or going prone/offering arms to split the damage more widely and prolong the fight. Also if other fire occurred in those 2 weakened armor plate sections we would have penetration to IS occurring. On the last volley from the medium, there should be some visible shaking or jarring from the concentrated LRM and gauss strike to the chest. The overall toughness is greatly increased even on the light mech and it encourages player precision to rule over simple random determinations. Much of the armor allocation, hit sizes, angles of armor, overall visibility would be subject to change or argument for the sake of cross balance.

#119 Amechwarrior

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • 729 posts
  • LocationHawaii

Posted 18 November 2011 - 11:21 PM

View PostMelissia, on 18 November 2011 - 10:25 PM, said:

If the Awesome chain-fired, it wouldn't have any effect at all really. But firing all three PPCs at once is bound to produce a heat spike even in the Awesome. Three ppcs at once generates roughly 150% as much heat as three autocannon/20s, for example. But given the Awesome's massive use of heat sinks, this isn't as much of a problem for it as it would be for other 'mechs. In order to gain more firepower, however, one would need to take away either heat sinks or armor to make up the seven tons necessary for the PPC, so trying to min-max its alpha strike would have really bad results either way for the Awesome's pilot (even with a balanced armor/heat sink removal).


I am, like others, slightly confused. The Awesome is all about the alpha striking. It does not need to gain more firepower. Standing it can do a 3-3-2-3-3-2 pattern forever(enough to CT core an Atlas on the 3rd salvo). Running it can do 3-2-3-2 forever and never take a hit to speed. It really does not need any more heat sinks as it is, it was built as a balanced energy boat. Increasing the heat levels for grouped weapons would take this balanced design and destroy its ability fire its only serious weapons in group mode. Many stock designs like this would be adversely effected if suddenly alphas did more heat then chain fire. It also does not solve the problem of people just making macros to one-button rapid chain fire.

#120 Creel

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 189 posts
  • Google+: Link
  • LocationFort Worth, TX

Posted 18 November 2011 - 11:23 PM

View PostMelissia, on 18 November 2011 - 10:40 PM, said:

It's much less difficult to put two lasers in the same hole than two bullets, however.

Man this conversation is starting to sound dirty.


The assumption here is that the largest factor is trajectory. It isn't.

The largest factor in determining precision is the control system, which shouldn't be capable of keeping all of the disparate weapon systems perfectly aligned at a single dot at all times for all ranges and adjust with a 0ms response time.

I would absolutely be in favor of a system which accounts for all the variables, defines performance profiles for each weapon and mount, and calculates mount traversal time, vibration from the engine, stabilization thresholds for each subsystem, and the effects of damage on each pixel. I just think that's asking a bit much from the platform, and especially from the devs. I'd still like to represent these variables, in addition to all of the others we talk about (movement, heat, range, all that jazz).





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users