Jump to content

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


339 replies to this topic

#201 Pht

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,299 posts

Posted 21 November 2011 - 02:33 PM

View PostDsi1, on 21 November 2011 - 12:10 AM, said:

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


Not what I'm after.

I'm after simulating what it's like to be a Mechwarrior in the BT universe. :lol:

Quote

Guess what, these games all use TT as a baseline.


... and I'm not arguing with that. What I don't care for is when people irrationally, arbitrarily, or blindly for no reason they can understand decide to toss out certain things.

Quote

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.


I'm rather put off by the idea of "luck" as anything more than the slightest built in gameplay mechanic.

Now, obviously you don't think it changes how *everything* in combat works - you acknowledge that it's valid to follow the weapons damage models in some form...

What I suspect you might be thinking is that I want a "die roll" on something that we can (and SHOULD) control with our computers - I don't. Anything that's possible for us to do with our pcs that an MW pilot has to do in the Lore is something we should have control over... well, the MW pilots don't control how well their 'Mechs bring their weapons to bear on what the pilot is aiming at... The COF tries to address this, but induces a concept that's needlessly complex (when done robustly).

Quote

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)


Everything that takes a die roll is an unknown; and in double-blind games there are even more unknowns.

Quote

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)


No, "we" aren't shooting anything. The 'Mech does that! "we" paint the target and pull the trigger - the 'Mech is what physically brings the weapons to bear and calculates how best to hit what's being indicated. "We" can only indirectly control how well our 'Mech can hit what we're aiming at, by choosing the conditions that make it easier for our mech to actually connect with the target we're indicating.

FPS implies FPS style aiming - there is no simulation of your being in an armored combat unit that does the actual shooting (everything besides choosing a target and when to pull the trigger) and T&T work in an FPS. "FPS" carries a whole set of things that people will expect that have nothing to do with an first person armored combat sim - it's just confusing language to use in reference to an MW game.

Edited by Pht, 21 November 2011 - 02:35 PM.


#202 CeeKay Boques

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Knight Errant
  • Knight Errant
  • 3,371 posts
  • LocationYes

Posted 21 November 2011 - 02:47 PM

View PostPht, on 21 November 2011 - 02:33 PM, said:

No, "we" aren't shooting anything. The 'Mech does that! "we" paint the target and pull the trigger - the 'Mech is what physically brings the weapons to bear and calculates how best to hit what's being indicated. "We" can only indirectly control how well our 'Mech can hit what we're aiming at, by choosing the conditions that make it easier for our mech to actually connect with the target we're indicating.

FPS implies FPS style aiming - there is no simulation of your being in an armored combat unit that does the actual shooting (everything besides choosing a target and when to pull the trigger) and T&T work in an FPS. "FPS" carries a whole set of things that people will expect that have nothing to do with an first person armored combat sim - it's just confusing language to use in reference to an MW game.


Holy smokes, except if you're RPing all that mechanical hot action in your head how can you make that fun? I'm painting the target? You want a combat themed paint simulator? How complicated do you have to make piloting and tactics to make painting a target instead of shooting it even remotely exciting? I'm tongue in cheek about watching paint dry, but the thought is the same! The only possible thing I could think of is if you had me able to paint 3 or more targets and shoot them simultaneously. That might be exciting enough.

#203 mithril coyote

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Knight Errant
  • Knight Errant
  • 135 posts
  • LocationNew Mexico

Posted 21 November 2011 - 02:54 PM

View PostJ Echo, on 20 November 2011 - 01:29 PM, said:

That's what the comparison images were showing to begin with. Nothing misleading about them--they were showing exactly what you showed. And it sucks. Not only is it ridiculous and unrealistic and illogical, but it would make for terrible gameplay.


actually, those comparisons
a) didn't depict the aiming system properly. they ignored the fact that even in a CoF system the player has to aim, and that your aiming a point reticle, not a big box. they also ignored the fact that in the CoF system proposed didn't exclude the factors like shake from mech movement or the need to lead the target due to target movement. which creates a false impression about the CoF as being purely random.
:lol: depict a cone of fire far larger reltive to the cockpit than CoF advocates propose, creating a false impression
:) didn't actually describe the CoF system the CoF proponents are advocating (by making the circle change based on things like range or target movement, which none of the CoF proponents have been advocating)
c) use deceptive graphics that don't actually define the battle situations shown. the 'circle' changes sizes arbitraily between comparisons, with no consistant metric applied, making it impossible to determain how the CoF system is actually supposed to work.
d) the comparison comments are anti-CoF biased, creating a subliminal effect of nudging the user towards an Anti-CoF viewpoint before the actual merits are weighed.

i have presented my images as a nuetral example of how the CoF envisioned system works. it is basically just an extra level of realism over the standard MW aiming system. the CoF system not only matches the established setting aesthetic, but also better matches the fact that real world weaponry are not pinpoint accurate even on highly accurate platforms liek the M1A1 abrams, with stable platform, it's targeting computer, and gun advanced active stabilization system

View PostMelissia, on 20 November 2011 - 01:39 PM, said:

Geeze, those are incredibly short ranges... it'd be almost impossible for a 'mech with short-ranged weapons to actually do much against other 'mechs with a range system like that. Even setting up an ambush the other 'mech would only have to take a few steps back from point blank range.

Your examples aren't that great (the "very long distance" is about where the very end of short and the very beginning medium should be), nevermind taht the cone of fire concept is really rather flawed to begin with...

i scaled the images based on previous mechwarrior games. the battletech/mechwarrior setting has fairly short effective ranges for ground units, which represents a combination of the extremely high protection the armor technology provides and the ubiquitious (IE: very very very common) basic electronic warfare systems that reduce the effectiveness of sensors.
there is alos the fact that in the mechwarrior video games, there is generally a degree of range compression occuring. a unit that looks to be only a few meters away will often be listed as dozens of meters away on the targeting displays. this is done by many video games to compensate for the fact that even a three story tall walking tank like a battlemech is going to be little more than small dot at long ranges if using proper perspective. so video games often use a form of 'reverse forced perspective' to make things more visable.

View Postdm5k, on 20 November 2011 - 02:03 PM, said:

Those cones are a bit extreme from what I imagined CoF being. I think your mech should be fairly accurate but range, movement, and heat should play a role in accuracy though.

i threw this together over the span of a few minutes to illustrate the basic concept in an unbiased fashion. the circle size i picked was semi-arbitrary. the exact degree of spread would need to be subject to playtest to find the right balance between aiming accuracy and CoF precision.
certainly however, reducing the size (and thus volume) of the orange circle by 20% to 30% might work just as well, particularly if range compression is handled differently than in other mechwarrior games, or if the mechs are made more responsive to steering inputs (and thus more agile)

View PostMiles Tails Prower, on 20 November 2011 - 02:04 PM, said:

The more control you take a way from the player, the more frustrating the game becomes. Pin point accuracy is only the attacker's part of the equation, the defender should be maneuvering and rotating their torso to avoid and "shoulder" damage aimed at their center torso.

If more variance in the skill for each weapon is what's needed, the add in gravity. Missiles and cannon shells arc as they travel to more distant targets while lasers do not, requiring more learned skills for the behaviors of each weapon. Just like how an FPS has weapons of varying kicks, RPMs and iron sights.

except that in previous mechwarrior games, torso twisting did nothing to offset the over-powering attacks pinpoint acuracy allowed. all it did was instead of coring out the center torso or head, you lost your arm or side torso instead.
torso twisting a means of protecting ones mech actually works better in a cone of fire system, since the shots will be spread out over a wider area on average, and by torso twisting, you reduce the odds of shots striking the center of the mech by increasing the chance of it hitting the arm or side torso. and since the damage is generally going ot be more spread out, in a CoF system such a defensive move will not automatically result in the loss of an arm.
as for things like gravity and battlefeild conditions..the more you simulate in that regard, them ore processing power the game requires. most video games don't actually simulate that, they fake it with a system remarkably similar to the "cone of fire" concept. instead of accurately calculating the effect of the recoil on a humanoid firing platform (IE a person), they program the impact point of the virtual shot to deviate from the initial aimpoint based on a direction and distance derived from random number generation.
generally the only programs that actually calculate all the variables for each shot are high end (and generally classified) military simulation systems used to train real soldiers.

View PostXhaleon, on 20 November 2011 - 02:19 PM, said:


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

as i pointed out above, these were put together rather quickly, and i had to guesstimate based on experiance with both the novel universe and previous mechwarrior games. so there will be a degree of trial and error involved. part of the point of putting these images up is to try and work out how big a circle would be best to balance aiming accuracy with the scattering effect.

and regarding 'maximum weapon ranges' (and ignoring the meme-speak), i am not an advocate of 'maximum ranges'...but i am a advocate of 'effective ranges' in the novel universe, which is what the mecharior games were trying (and failing) to emulate, the weapons all have effective ranges. these were derived from the tabletop 'ranges', which were made short purely for gameplay reasons (so that the map scale could be kept small, and battle occur on playing areas small enough to fit onto a table). but the novel universe justifies the ranges with limitations in targeting systems, sensors, and control systems. shots beyond the effective ground range are possible, but require a great deal of skill to acheive.
in the novels, the medium laser's effective range of 270 to 300 meters was not a maximum range, but rather the range at which the laser could be fired and still be assured to hitting the target with enough precision and power to have an effect against the targets armor. more powerful (read: uses more energy to produce a better beam) lasers like the large laser had an effective range of 450 meters, for the same reasons. developments of better optics (producing Er lasers, with effective ranges of up to 50% better), and alternative firing modes (pulse lasers, which fire multiple weaker pulses, reducing effective range but increasing damage) only modified these effective ranges by a measure of degrees.
in a cone of fire system, trying to fire a weapon past it's effective range could see the cone of fire expand by a few %, to reflect that at those ranges the targeting is less certain. this would encourage players t close to within their effective ranges. a PPC armed mech like the awesome would need to close to within 570-600 meters (the effective range of a PPC), to ensure it's shots have the best effect... and if he closes even more, the target will fill more of his CoF and thus his shots will naturally spread out over the target mech less, increasing the effect of his shots.
the pinpoint acuracy of previous mechwarrior games created a metagame of rapid kills from extremely long ranges. a CoF system would encourage players to engage at closer ranges, and to employ manuever as a means to weather enemy fire, not merely as a means to get between line of sight blocking cover. just like in the novel universe.

#204 Alen Crest

    Member

  • PipPip
  • 21 posts

Posted 21 November 2011 - 03:03 PM

Kudzu is right on everything he is saying. Think of this, in physics you have a little thing called reaction. and for every action you have and equal yet opposite reaction. same works for firing ANYTHING from a pistol to a ******* artillery cannon. of course computers, springs, pulleys, and anything else that is implemented to lower that recoil would be in action, so even though that PPC has (lets say) an output of 700psi per shot, you would have just as much recoil in that shot. given that a normal realignment can handle about 100psi per second, you have 7seconds of inaccurate fire. so if you happen to be firing more than one weapon at the time, and since you will never be able to pull off (regardless of calculations, this is physics on time mechanics) those other shots will be off. Just like in all the FPS games you play, that first shot is ALWAYS your most accurate one.

#205 MaddMaxx

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Survivor
  • Survivor
  • 5,911 posts
  • LocationNova Scotia, Canada

Posted 21 November 2011 - 08:32 PM

View PostHodo, on 19 November 2011 - 11:34 PM, said:


The right hand column is the one I suggested in another thread. It makes the most sense seeing as you are moving around in a inharently unstable 15-17m (45-55ft) tall machine. And dont argue that they are as stable as a tank, because that is Bull Sh&t. A great description of man moving, "walking is a cascade of the human skeleton constantly falling forward."

So I am all for AIM EFFECTORS. But not COF.


Can I get a definition of "AIM EFFECTORS" please. Tried Google, and others. Nada!

#206 Creel

    Member

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

Posted 21 November 2011 - 08:52 PM

View PostMaddMaxx, on 21 November 2011 - 08:32 PM, said:


Can I get a definition of "AIM EFFECTORS" please. Tried Google, and others. Nada!


I believe it is intended to mean "variables that affect aim". Effector is a poor noun choice, but the meaning is clear.
[color=#000000]
[/color]

#207 Haeso

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 474 posts

Posted 21 November 2011 - 11:14 PM

View PostDsi1, on 20 November 2011 - 03:48 PM, said:

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...])

You do realize that all the FPS games with a circle reticule are using cone of fire and a random number generator to determine where inside that circle things hit, right? Others use an RNG based recoil so the gun bounces randomly after each shot in various directions to control the amount of shots you can accurately fire. The last group use a fixed recoil that can be easily exploited by skilled players to the point where recoil might as well not exist. Plenty of games use the first two. I don't know what world you live in, but it's certainly not reality.

#208 diana

    Member

  • PipPip
  • 41 posts

Posted 22 November 2011 - 01:29 AM

A lot of FPS games use a set pattern for their guns, not a RNG.

#209 Dsi1

    Member

  • PipPipPip
  • 88 posts

Posted 22 November 2011 - 01:47 AM

View PostHaeso, on 21 November 2011 - 11:14 PM, said:

You do realize that all the FPS games with a circle reticule are using cone of fire and a random number generator to determine where inside that circle things hit, right? Others use an RNG based recoil so the gun bounces randomly after each shot in various directions to control the amount of shots you can accurately fire. The last group use a fixed recoil that can be easily exploited by skilled players to the point where recoil might as well not exist. Plenty of games use the first two. I don't know what world you live in, but it's certainly not reality.

Every game that has anything approaching an RNG based CoF has failed. Games with predictable CoF are all incredibly arcade, and I assume this is something we don't want for MWO.

Affecting the physical weapons(and ballistics) on the mech through outside forces (caused by the player, the opponents, and the environment) is the least annoying and most skillful way to fight. If you missed, you know why you missed, if your shot connects, you know why it connected. You can learn how to shoot, have to be effective under pressure, or fail.

#210 VYCanis

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 597 posts

Posted 22 November 2011 - 01:55 AM

comparing cone of fire between a infantry man on foot and a combat vehicle with multiple weapons are two totally different things

infantry centric games with cone of fire:
-Only really do 1 or 2 weapons at a time
-generally represents hip shooting/not sighting the weapon
-represent the inherent fallibility of human bodies to totally control a weapon

Mechs are not scaled up infantry. they may look like it sometimes, but they are not. they are articulated combat vehicles. As such their behavior with weapons should reflect that.

Edited by VYCanis, 22 November 2011 - 01:56 AM.


#211 Shawshank

    Rookie

  • 4 posts
  • LocationMonmouth UK

Posted 22 November 2011 - 04:27 AM

why not follow the hinted at technology in canon and/or follow modern day targeting systems (as they are both pretty much the same)... instead of firing all your weapons through a reticle, which, to say the least, is a crap way of targeting ANY large weapon, why not incorporate a targeting box that outlines your target in exactly the same way we see on the news through gun cameras.

Allow the mech pilot to lock weapons onto individual targets (the same way as an apache gunship). Incorporate gun leading technology to allow the pilot to target the point in space that the enemy mech is going to be in by the time the shot reaches them.

different heads up displays for the different styles of weaponry, laser, missile, gausse, AC. Fill the screen with targeting layers, give the player masses of info linked to all his weapons systems and radar settings.

also create some simple weapons changes, such as Anti-Radiation Missiles (ARM) that can be launched into the air at the start of an engagement that will target any mech that switches on its radar system, could be equivilent to a LRM 20 strike. This in turn places more reliance on light mechs to scout the enemy as turning on a radar to detect an enemy mech will get your mech smashed from above (potentialy, but its an increased risk).

The pc game is based on science fiction, and has a very tight universe that it works within, but stealing some aspects of modern combat could greatly enhanse the game play.

It also neatly addresses all the issues of cone of fire etc and stable firing surfaces (anyone heard of a stabalised main gun?) by taking the majority of weapon aiming tasks out of the players hands and leaving them to "targeting computers", unless the player wishes to slave all his weapons to his main targeting for an alpha strike, but then a penelty has to be incorporated (effectively cone of fire) as all the individual weapons have to keep tracking to the new targeting point.

But this last aspect could be made into a really cool feature by showing "pilots aim point" as the reticle and "weapons aim points" bobbling about the screen as all the weapons try to lock onto that point, its then about skill and timing to get as many wepons as possible to strike the target.

#212 Xhaleon

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Money Maker
  • The Money Maker
  • 542 posts

Posted 22 November 2011 - 04:30 AM

View PostDiana, on 22 November 2011 - 01:29 AM, said:

A lot of FPS games use a set pattern for their guns, not a RNG.


The opposite. Most carry along a random distribution because its easier to implement, no longer a balance issue, and because the alternative leads to CS1.6; those who are new to the game think the entire pro-league is full of bullshit and hacking because they can seemingly spray on full auto and hit every shot, because they knew the exact spread of the weapons.

For that particular game, CS Source came along and gave it a proper RNG, which caused complete buttdevastation and claims of lowering the skill ceiling, instead of simply adapting and using actual teamwork and tactics to more consistently defeat "newbies". So thus CS: Global Operations was born. I see the same here, honestly, and always implicitly refer to this example whenever I talk about cones around these parts.

It is still perfectly fine to have both games for both kinds of gameplay, of course.

#213 Nik Van Rhijn

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,905 posts
  • LocationLost

Posted 22 November 2011 - 04:35 AM

What it will all come down to in the end for the game is computational power. The system will have to be able to deal with maintaining the environment,(ie landsape, damge,smoke etc) plot the movement of mechs plus their appearance etc and then onop of that deal with the effects of multiple weapons being fired at multiple targets. Letting all of a mech's weapons converge on a single point is effectively a "cop out" used to simplify the calculations involved. In all other FPS games only one weapon per person involved is needed to be calculated for. With a mech you not only have multiple weapons but 3 different weapons classes (energy, balliistic and missile) with very different characteristics and a wide variety of damage and ranges. If we have a scenario with 32 mechs invoved, in a normal FPS that would be 32 weapons, With nechs that could easily be 160 plus. This means the dev's will almost certainly have to make compromises to enable the game to run smoothly while trying to retain the "flavour" of mech combat with balanced play. To cope with wide variations in things like connection speed and user PC spec and to avoid user "hacks" most of what goes on is going to be server side.
I would imagine that many of the arguements that are going on here have already been played out in the dev team. We may have helped by throwing out ideas, even if they are not always "lore" based.
What we all want in the end is a game that works, even if it is not what many of us would consider ideal. Don't forget if it is successful they will have a chance to continual "tweak" things from a good solid base.

#214 Kudzu

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 769 posts
  • LocationSomewhere in the SEC

Posted 22 November 2011 - 09:31 AM

View PostDsi1, on 22 November 2011 - 01:47 AM, said:

Every game that has anything approaching an RNG based CoF has failed.

World of Tanks wants to say hello to you.

Quote

Affecting the physical weapons(and ballistics) on the mech through outside forces (caused by the player, the opponents, and the environment) is the least annoying and most skillful way to fight. If you missed, you know why you missed, if your shot connects, you know why it connected. You can learn how to shoot, have to be effective under pressure, or fail.

You just described expanding reticule cone of fire.

#215 TheRulesLawyer

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,415 posts
  • LocationChicagoland

Posted 22 November 2011 - 10:13 AM

View PostKudzu, on 22 November 2011 - 09:31 AM, said:

World of Tanks wants to say hello to you.


You just described expanding reticule cone of fire.


Not quite. They just think that they can predict all these things in their head and it somehow ends up with the bullet landing right on the crosshairs. Never mind this never happens in real life. I find it amusing that the people arguing the hardest based on "physics" seem to have very little understand of ballistics.

#216 CeeKay Boques

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Knight Errant
  • Knight Errant
  • 3,371 posts
  • LocationYes

Posted 22 November 2011 - 10:42 AM

I am firing a Light Gauss 1200 meters from a 0% throttle Mech.

Do I:

A: Fire a little high because I know gravity is going to pull that shot down, even at hypersonic speeds.
B: Shrug and fire in my cone of fire, knowing that it'll land somewhere in there, hopefully. I mean, I stopped and everything.

Which involves the player more?

#217 Creel

    Member

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

Posted 22 November 2011 - 10:56 AM

View PostTechnoviking, on 22 November 2011 - 10:42 AM, said:

I am firing a Light Gauss 1200 meters from a 0% throttle Mech.

Do I:

A: Fire a little high because I know gravity is going to pull that shot down, even at hypersonic speeds.
B: Shrug and fire in my cone of fire, knowing that it'll land somewhere in there, hopefully. I mean, I stopped and everything.

Which involves the player more?


Building men, out of straws.

for clarification:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

Edited by Creel, 22 November 2011 - 10:56 AM.


#218 CeeKay Boques

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Knight Errant
  • Knight Errant
  • 3,371 posts
  • LocationYes

Posted 22 November 2011 - 11:15 AM

Quote

or over-simplified version of the opponent's original statement, which has been distorted to the point of absurdity


Most of us BT nerds are over complicating. Taking it to the root does not make it "Straw Man".

Creel: Answer the question. Many players here are speaking of what it "Should be like" without extrapolating that with a real world example.

Lots of ideas thrown around. The core of it, what involves the player more? What is more what you think would happen on a planet. Lets throw out gravity, wind, heat, all the things that might make a planet special. Should Bullets ricohet? Or should their trajectories be predetermined at trigger point?

What happens when you pull the trigger 10 times on 10 gauss shots at 1200m standing still? What should happen? What factors do YOU take into account? Just Movement + Range?

#219 MaddMaxx

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Survivor
  • Survivor
  • 5,911 posts
  • LocationNova Scotia, Canada

Posted 22 November 2011 - 11:21 AM

View PostTechnoviking, on 22 November 2011 - 10:42 AM, said:

I am firing a Light Gauss 1200 meters from a 0% throttle Mech.

Do I:

A: Fire a little high because I know gravity is going to pull that shot down, even at hypersonic speeds.
B: Shrug and fire in my cone of fire, knowing that it'll land somewhere in there, hopefully. I mean, I stopped and everything.

Which involves the player more?


Introduced in 3056 means you wait 8 years to fire it. LOL ^_^

#220 Kudzu

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 769 posts
  • LocationSomewhere in the SEC

Posted 22 November 2011 - 11:27 AM

View PostTechnoviking, on 22 November 2011 - 10:42 AM, said:

I am firing a Light Gauss 1200 meters from a 0% throttle Mech.

Do I:

A: Fire a little high because I know gravity is going to pull that shot down, even at hypersonic speeds.
B: Shrug and fire in my cone of fire, knowing that it'll land somewhere in there, hopefully. I mean, I stopped and everything.

Which involves the player more?

Seeing as how you're out of range for the TT Light Gauss (by 15 hexes or 450 meters, however you want to look at it.) it really doesn't matter, does it?

But in all seriousness, at zero throttle with a long range weapon the CoF should be small enough that you're still going to hit even at extreme range. What you won't have is the pinpoint accuracy to be a super-sniper and turn the game into a camp-fest. CoF does a great job of balancing mobile combat while introducing tactical choices and reducing the impact of several of the more problematic issues that have popped up in past games. No system is perfect, but to me (and several others) a good CoF system solves a lot more problems than it causes and it happens to stick a lot closer to the lore and feel of the original game.





16 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 16 guests, 0 anonymous users