339 replies to this topic

[Nik Van Rhijn]

Phades, I like your system which is the most extensive consideration of the problem's raised in many threads here. A few comments;
1)Missiles - LRM's are semi guided, ie get to general position of target but not to any particular area on the target. SRM's and MRM's are unguided and go where they are aimed at the time of fireing. I am concerned at the computational requirements when you consider that a single Longbow can put 70 missiles downrange at a time.Streaks only fire after the TC has achieved a "lock on" ie optimal firing solution ie better accuracy. All MRM's & SRM's have a chance for unexpected target movement to mitigate or avoid being hit.
2)Autocannon - should have drop off in accuracy and damage after maximum range, shots do not "drop to the ground" after they reach in game range limit. depending on how long matches are expected to last, and the ammount of customisation allowed, dev's may want to consider doubling the no of shots per ton of ammo. also tacking into mind the damage penalty you take from having ammo if it does get hit.
Again some chance to dodge.
3)PPC - no real world equivalent but others have said speed of "shot" is 80% od light speed ie effectively no time to target. Like lasers no chance to dodge.
4)Lasers - should be affected by "thermal bloom" which reduces energy available and thus should suffer a reduction in damage with .range. Accuracy variations caused by atmospheric conditions can be effectivly ignored, those by mounts etc will be the same as for any other weapon.

Taking all the variables into account individually for each weapon in real time may be beyond the computational capabiliities of the system. This has traditionally been dealt with by computing all the variables and probabilities for weapons, mounts etc in advance and combining their effects into what has been referred here as "Cone of Fire"

[Phades]

The PPC commentary and reference was more a parting from canon in a deliberate fashion for the sake of cross platform balance. All weapon fire in the table top resolved simultaneously. If the PPC shares more in common with lasers, I would worry about player bias over time and overuse of the weapon platform and would arguably obsolete the need for the Gauss rifle and auto cannons 10 and lower calibers. Most of the hard values suggested in section 6 are rough estimates without having the personal ability to play with it in order to get a better feel for how that interacts more true with moving mechs over time. Similar issues with heat accrual I am sure will be a "hot" topic of discussion upon release.

Alternatively, if it is made to be a beam over time, that could be a different solution as well, but I'd worry about heat management and firing cycle times. If this is the better compromise, then I'd be fine with a faster reuse time on a gauss rifle.

As far as the missile example went, that was more of a demonstration for effect. I realize guided/semi guided weapon systems will strike the first target within their path. I have no real suggestion for a fair implementation for SWARM SRM variants for example. Streak also seems to be a sticking point for the no launch without a guaranteed hit. Generalized terms for lock vs no lock in specific situations opposed to laser guided by hand in the more "dead fire" solutions.

I thought i included laser fall off damage.... Scrolls back.... Ok i need to fix that.

With the auto cannon rounds losing potency beyond maximum optimal range and having a fairly real flight time and a burst spacing out the time in which the shots leave the barrel, the accuracy at beyond maximum optimal ranges for everything sans ac20 should have a fairly reasonable feel to it assuming the target is moving in any direction but straight into the shot. The AC20 would either need a slower shot velocity, higher damage fall off, or slightly more shake during the weapon discharge in order to place all projectiles as hits on the target. A factor I think would require play testing to really know for sure assuming the system as a whole is viewed favorably and is feasible.

Edited by Phades, 19 November 2011 - 01:31 AM.

[Nik Van Rhijn]

The PPC is effectively a "special case" laser with regard to it's effects. The advantage of the Gauss Rifle is it's very low heat when compared to it's range/damage, proper treatment of heat in game should ensure it's continued retention - it could be considered a "special case A/C".
Swarm is not a guaranteed hit, except perhaps at very close range. Also to start with we dont have swarm and only SSRM 2's and not many of those fitted, so not an immediate problem for the dev's to consider. The primacy of energy weapons, particularly if engagement times are long is something that needs to be considered for game balance.

[Melissia]

Making ammo easy and cheap to get (or even an automatic reload after each engagement as long as you have a supply line?) would help minimize the need for energy weapons, especially if you make heat management vitally important (even a heavy AC has a very efficient heat/damage ratio).

[Riptor]

Quote

would help minimize the need for energy weapons

Under the current customisation option cannons just are to unattractive.. they give you short usage due to ammo limits, relative high chance of loosing your fire power in one hit.. and getting one hit killed (if ammo explosions will be in the game mind you) vs an unlimited supply of laser beams whose only drawback can be mitigated by using more heatsinks, that are not as easaly taken out by a single shot and that dont blow up your mech if they get hit.

The only AC variant that has some use are LBX weapons because you can use their shotgun style ammo to destroy an oponents internals better as you can do with lasers. But then at short range you might aswell take SRMs and at long ranges LRMs for that.

[Phades]

Nik Van Rhijn, on 19 November 2011 - 01:43 AM, said:

The PPC is effectively a "special case" laser with regard to it's effects. The advantage of the Gauss Rifle is it's very low heat when compared to it's range/damage, proper treatment of heat in game should ensure it's continued retention - it could be considered a "special case A/C".
Swarm is not a guaranteed hit, except perhaps at very close range. Also to start with we dont have swarm and only SSRM 2's and not many of those fitted, so not an immediate problem for the dev's to consider. The primacy of energy weapons, particularly if engagement times are long is something that needs to be considered for game balance.

I think I see your point regarding the PPC. I have a couple ideas floating to make it more unique rather than a "big laser", such as variable discharge time (IE beam it, but make it a hold down the trigger affair until full discharge occurs and spread the damage/heat per damage slice and have the beam last perhaps slightly longer potentially), or display a beam as the ions "warm up" while having a concentrated mass travel to the target along the path of the beam. The mass would deliver the damage, but make it less of an instant hit scan style weapon implementation. The flight speed of the mass would be faster, roughly parallel to Gauss speed or slightly faster.

If the missile mechanics are consistent and implemented well, then we won't have to worry as much down the road if/when clans arrive and they are playable by players. Behavior can even vary per unit in missile discharge, but I haven't convinced myself on one style over another. Semi-guided, for example, could fire in tandem with a set flight pattern, while dumb fire MRM style could fire in groups of 5-10 in a stream over the course of .5 seconds, but that could make them too ineffective when combining it with the flight speed.

Edited by Phades, 19 November 2011 - 09:27 AM.

[Yeach]

Kudzu, on 18 November 2011 - 07:55 PM, said:

Oh, and the arms would be pumping and the whole mech jostling, this is due to physics.

I'm just going to use your quote from another thread here.

Kudzu, on 18 November 2011 - 08:17 PM, said:

Stop trying to apply the physics of our world with the physics of a fictional universe?

Kudzu, on 18 November 2011 - 07:55 PM, said:

Rewatch the space battles and count the hit to miss ratio using lasers in a vacuum in a universe where space travel is possible. It falls under "rule of cool"-- sometimes firing away and not hitting looks a lot cooler than having super-accurate computer controled weapons that never miss.

My point was never that they were super-accurate. My point was that they didn't use RNG to determine misses or hits.

Kudzu, on 18 November 2011 - 07:55 PM, said:

Pumpkin, the first said "medium lasers". The second, when read in context, was referring to medium weight mechs.

I apologize for this.
When you mention medium laser boats, I thought you meant medium-weight laser boats aka Shadowcats with 15 ERSmalls in MW3 dominating multiplayer due to the high laggy environment.

Kudzu, on 18 November 2011 - 07:55 PM, said:

The "never miss" part is a huge part of the problem.

Why is a there problem to "never miss" when you are on target?
I think that most former MW3 players can agree that it sucks to fire onto a locked target and miss due to lag.

Kudzu, on 18 November 2011 - 07:55 PM, said:

Come play a few dozen games on some of the megamech campaign servers. You'll quickly learn what I'm talking about.

What kind of of hack are you using to increase the dice rolling to your advantage?

[Kudzu]

Yeach, on 19 November 2011 - 10:21 AM, said:

I'm just going to use your quote from another thread here.

Yes, please use a quote that was in-context to people wanting a realistic-to-our-world sim with a quote that was saying how bad of an idea that is.

Quote

I apologize for this.
When you mention medium laser boats, I thought you meant medium-weight laser boats aka Shadowcats with 15 ERSmalls in MW3 dominating multiplayer due to the high laggy environment.

No worries, I figured that you had just misread it.

Quote

Why is a there problem to "never miss" when you are on target?
I think that most former MW3 players can agree that it sucks to fire onto a locked target and miss due to lag.

By never miss I also mean that everything you fire hits the same pixel-- this leads to constant one-shotting. And lag is something that is out of your control, CWERCoF is based on your actions, which you are in total control of.

Quote

What kind of of hack are you using to increase the dice rolling to your advantage?

It's not about increasing your dice rolls, it's about lowering your target number while keeping your opponents target numbers high-- thus minimizing the effect the rng has on you while maximizing the effect it has on your enemy. The same principle goes into CWERCoF.

Edited by Kudzu, 19 November 2011 - 10:59 AM.

[diana]

Kudzu, on 19 November 2011 - 10:58 AM, said:

By never miss I also mean that everything you fire hits the same pixel-- this leads to constant one-shotting. And lag is something that is out of your control, CWERCoF is based on your actions, which you are in total control of.

I don't think many, if any at all, people suggested that everything you fire should hit the same pixel, so I think you are overreacting here for dramatic effect.
Or perhaps you misunderstood 'never miss the mech if you aim at it' as 'all weapons have perfect convergence and are hitscan\have same speed'.
Well, maybe I'll stop posting in these threads, and in closing, I'll say i liked VYCanis's suggestion and the slight addition to it in a later post.

[mekabuser]

its not best suited.
ballistic weapons require lead and have bullet drop. Its hard enough to hit a moving target with these mechanics. I was a decent pilot in mw4 and mwll , Not great but I know that the existing mechanics in mwll are more difficult than more people care to admit. As long as armor values are up then there is no need whatsoever for a cof. It detracts from skillfull shooting and with increased armor values there is no such thing as boom your dead. It takes a long time to die in mwll one on one . Even when you are being focus fired upon if you high tail it immediately you can escape gener\ally

[Creel]

J Echo, on 19 November 2011 - 02:34 PM, said:

Fact: people who want cone of fire want it because they suck at aiming. : )

This is false, and unnecessarily antagonistic.

[Tarl Cabot]

Creel, on 19 November 2011 - 02:47 PM, said:

J Echo, on 19 November 2011 - 02:34 PM, said:

Fact: people who want cone of fire want it because they suck at aiming. : )

This is false, and unnecessarily antagonistic.

Hai, agree with Creel. Having all weapons hit one spot would ruin gameplay and not even approach canon. It would be akin to playing one of the FPS games and the player firing several different guns at once and hitting the same spot.

A comparison would be when MPBT Solaris started up on AOL. Intentional targeting of legs was banned as it ruined the gameplay of newbies, many who did not return as it was no fun to be on one's back, waiting to be picked apart and killed.

Of course, in Solaris (as well as EGA and MW1) , tic'd weapons did not fire all at one time but cycled through the weapons. If the mech was being hit by another player or the targeting hairs were moving, the weapons fire often did spread around.

Again, there needs to be a balance between instant gratification and overall gameplay experience.

[mithril coyote]

Tarl.Cabot, on 19 November 2011 - 04:08 PM, said:

Hai, agree with Creel. Having all weapons hit one spot would ruin gameplay and not even approach canon. It would be akin to playing one of the FPS games and the player firing several different guns at once and hitting the same spot.

A comparison would be when MPBT Solaris started up on AOL. Intentional targeting of legs was banned as it ruined the gameplay of newbies, many who did not return as it was no fun to be on one's back, waiting to be picked apart and killed.

Of course, in Solaris (as well as EGA and MW1) , tic'd weapons did not fire all at one time but cycled through the weapons. If the mech was being hit by another player or the targeting hairs were moving, the weapons fire often did spread around.

Again, there needs to be a balance between instant gratification and overall gameplay experience.

actually, i was damn good at aiming. i support cone of fire because it adds complex tactics to the game, which means that if i lose, it's because the other guy is better than me, not just faster on the trigger, and it actually matches the feel and metagame of the Battletech/mechwarrior universe as described in the novels.

it also balances the mechs better. the mechs in the mechwarrior games, including MW4, continue to use the tabletop's armor distribution system. Legs so many point, arms so many point, etc, with the maximum amount per spot relative to the internal structures durability.

this system was created to handle randomized hits, which in the tabletop represent a multitude of battlefeild factors, some of which aren't modelled fully in a SIM game. by removing the scattered hits, the mechwarrior games unbalanced the armor distribution set up.
many of the mechs used in the MW games used what tabletop fans call "smart distribution'. the amount of armor was allocated based on the probability the location would be hit. so for example, the arms and legs are hit a few % more often than the torso's, so many designs add a few extra points to the legs and arms instead of placing them in the torso's. this gives the mech slighlty better survivability.

in the MW games, ultra acurate convergence and aiming means that your far less likely to hit anything but the torsos. since reallocating armor on every mech means more developer work, and just means players will start lopping off now-weaker legs, it makes more sense to add in some extra scatter on each shot to make where the shots hit slightly more random.

i'm not suggesting it go fully random. you'd still aim the same as previous games, you'd still have to deal with the mech's bouncing steps, the reticle swaying side to side as you move, your aim being messed up if your hit, etc.
i'm just saying instead of always hitting that little circle your using to aim, let them go a little to the side, a little up, a little down... fire 4 weapons and let them hit different spots around that aiming dot. give us Shot groupings like in real life. previous games had high accuracy and precision, which even real world tanks Like the M1 can't give while standing still. accuracy is something the player has to provide, but the computer controls precision. and in the setting, precision is low but accuracy is high.

Edited by mithril coyote, 19 November 2011 - 05:18 PM.

[guardiandashi]

the problem that a lot of the "1st person shooter" maximum precision advocates are ignoring and /or refusing to acknowledge and no this is not intended as a criticism of them per say, is that while pinpoint targeting of SINGLE weapons is somewhat plausable in the "battletech universe" but pinpoint targeting of groups of weapons is excessively disruptive to a number of aspects of the game universe.

yes there are ways to compensate for the excessive power of the excessive accuracy such as dramatically increasing the base armor and/or radically reducing the damage of weapons

example the dasher from TRO 3050 in the tabletop game it has a grand whopping total of 33 internal structure points, and 38 points of armor, the mw4 version with pinpoint targeting issues most likely has in excess of 200 points of total damage taking

[Melissia]

mithril coyote, on 19 November 2011 - 05:10 PM, said:

actually, i was damn good at aiming. i support cone of fire because it adds complex tactics to the game, which means that if i lose, it's because the other guy is better than me, not just faster on the trigger

You're basically saying "the other guy won because the other guy's more skilled than me, not because the other guy's more skilled than me."

It's inherently contradictory. Apparently people here don't think aiming and reaction time are skills. But they're wrong in thinking so; both of them can, in fact, be trained (several martial arts, such as Krav Maga, have practices designed to speed up your reaction speed for example; and aiming gets better with practice as well). And just because aiming matters doesn't mean other things don't matter. Just because you need to aim doesn't mean you don't also need to use terrain, team tactics, etc. If you blindside someone, their reaction speed doesn't matter quite as much because you're tearing in to their (usually quite a bit) weaker back armor.

Edited by Melissia, 19 November 2011 - 08:05 PM.

[mithril coyote]

while reaction time and the ability to move a mouse are skills, thats not what i mean.

i'm refering to tactics. as in, "i got beat because the other guy realized my move between cover would cause my shots to scatter wider, and used that opening to close in point blank where he could be assured his shots would do the most damage while i was unable to effectively counter fire...that guy is darn good."

and not

'i got beat because when i moved between cover that guy alpha-shotted his entire weapons suite into my center torso from half a klick away, before i my eyes even registered him on the screen."

in previous mechwarrior games, the former was pretty much absent. while the later was standard.

[Melissia]

mithril coyote, on 19 November 2011 - 08:28 PM, said:

i'm refering to tactics

And needing aiming skill and reaction time removes tactics? Oh wait, no, it doesn't.

In fact, tactics will often overcome raw skill-- as proved by the Inner Sphere in its first victories against the clans. Tactical preparations have to take into account the enemy's skill at arms. It's the way of war.

Edited by Melissia, 19 November 2011 - 08:32 PM.

[Kudzu]

Melissia, on 19 November 2011 - 08:01 PM, said:

It's inherently contradictory. Apparently people here don't think aiming and reaction time are skills. But they're wrong in thinking so; both of them can, in fact, be trained (several martial arts, such as Krav Maga, have practices designed to speed up your reaction speed for example; and aiming gets better with practice as well). And just because aiming matters doesn't mean other things don't matter. Just because you need to aim doesn't mean you don't also need to use terrain, team tactics, etc. If you blindside someone, their reaction speed doesn't matter quite as much because you're tearing in to their (usually quite a bit) weaker back armor.

I love how you act like CWERCoF would somehow remove the importance of aiming and reaction time. If anything it actually increases their importance as skills. Shooting goes from a simple formula of "as soon as I see the bad guy, I put crosshair on him (leading if needed), and pull trigger" to "See the bad guy-- do I immediately take the snap shot, do I slow down to improve my accuracy (while making it easier to be hit), or do I speed up to make myself a harder target while increasing the chance that my shots will scatter/miss?". But I guess understanding those points would actually require you to understand how CWERCoF works, something you have still failed to show.

[Creel]

Melissia, on 19 November 2011 - 08:31 PM, said:

And needing aiming skill and reaction time removes tactics? Oh wait, no, it doesn't.

In fact, tactics will often overcome raw skill-- as proved by the Inner Sphere in its first victories against the clans. Tactical preparations have to take into account the enemy's skill at arms. It's the way of war.

...Wat?

[Melissia]

Creel, on 19 November 2011 - 08:53 PM, said:

...Wat?

Wat ain't no country I ever heard of.

Old movie references aside, I meant what I said. Raw skill obviously matters, and the clanners were all trained to very high standards-- but the inner sphere generally had better tactics, and so once they began adjusting their tactics and strategy to account for the clanners' skill and technology, they began winning battles. The battles were still hard fought, but then again, battles in game should be hard fought too.

More importantly, the idea that this suggestion would somehow make players use tactics more is rather silly... no, the effectiveness of the tactics will make players use it more. This wouldn't make the tactics more effective.

Edited by Melissia, 19 November 2011 - 08:59 PM.