339 replies to this topic

[VYCanis]

Forget fluff for 5 seconds and lets talk gameplay

assuming a standard COF that applies equally to all weapons on a mech....

what is going to happen when weapons at long range are not going where they are aiming? Meanwhile short range weapons seem to hit just fine. answer, its gonna be brawl time, all the time. Because if long range weapons can't reliably hit at long range, then they can't properly stop the short rangers from closing the gap.

How do you deal with weapons that would require leading? if weapons fire is spreading randomly then firing projectiles with drop, projectiles that require numerous sustained hits, and/or have travel times are unfairly penalized, as it becomes effectively impossible to properly compensate for the weapon factors when the gun itself is not consistent, making them significantly harder to hit with than instant hitting weapons, or any missiles with guidance.

How do you deal with missiles? are they still going to have some sort of guidance or is that axed too? are they going to spread with CoF?

-assuming a system where by each weapon has its own CoF base on range brackets

what is going to happen when people discover that the only accurate weapons that go roughly where you are aiming are the long range ones. ONCE AGAIN we get stuck with ER everything, gauss rifles, and lrms. because everything with "short range" can't really hit the broadside of a barn at the bottom edge of medium range.


The way i see it, if you end up making weapons arbitrarily inaccurate for fluff reasons or otherwise:
You aren't going to get your glorious 5 minute long dog fights, you aren't going to get your glorious tactical gameplay where you get to show off how sun tzu you are by slowing down before you shoot, what you are going to get are 13 year olds that have figured out that the most reliable way of killing an opponent is to rush straight into near point blank range and fire fire fire because anything else is a waste of time, heat, and bullets. Either that or they will stick exclusively to all "long range weapons" for the minimum accuracy penalty and snipe at your "unoptimized" stock mechs using nothing but lrms, gausses, ppcs, and er large lasers.

please tell me where i am off base

Edited by VYCanis, 28 November 2011 - 05:08 AM.

[Halfinax]

VYCanis, on 28 November 2011 - 05:06 AM, said:

Forget fluff for 5 seconds and lets talk gameplay

Cone of Fire isn't about fluff it's about game balance.

VYCanis, on 28 November 2011 - 05:06 AM, said:

assuming a standard COF that applies equally to all weapons on a mech....

what is going to happen when weapons at long range are not going where they are aiming? Meanwhile short range weapons seem to hit just fine. answer, its gonna be brawl time, all the time. Because if long range weapons can't reliably hit at long range, then they can't properly stop the short rangers from closing the gap.

This could be handled by long range weapons either having a tighter CoF than their non long range counterparts when the zoom function is enabled, or them having a CoF that shrinks more based on the target being a greater distance from the player's 'Mech.

VYCanis, on 28 November 2011 - 05:06 AM, said:

How do you deal with weapons that would require leading? if weapons fire is spreading randomly then firing projectiles with drop, projectiles that require numerous sustained hits, and/or have travel times are unfairly penalized, as it becomes effectively impossible to properly compensate for the weapon factors when the gun itself is not consistent, making them significantly harder to hit with than instant hitting weapons, or any missiles with guidance.

How do you deal with missiles? are they still going to have some sort of guidance or is that axed too? are they going to spread with CoF?

Having ballistic weapons on the same fire group as energy weapons would be a player choice. In other words the player would be choosing to have weapons requiring lead in the same group as weapons that don't.

Missles are going to be semi guided. No PPA or CoF required.

VYCanis, on 28 November 2011 - 05:06 AM, said:

-assuming a system where by each weapon has its own CoF base on range brackets

what is going to happen when people discover that the only accurate weapons that go roughly where you are aiming are the long range ones. ONCE AGAIN we get stuck with ER everything, gauss rifles, and lrms. because everything with "short range" can't really hit the broadside of a barn at the bottom edge of medium range.

See my suggestions above.

VYCanis, on 28 November 2011 - 05:06 AM, said:

The way i see it, if you end up making weapons arbitrarily inaccurate for fluff reasons or otherwise:
You aren't going to get your glorious 5 minute long dog fights, you aren't going to get your glorious tactical gameplay where you get to show off how sun tzu you are by slowing down before you shoot, what you are going to get are 13 year olds that have figured out that the most reliable way of killing an opponent is to rush straight into near point blank range and fire fire fire because anything else is a waste of time, heat, and bullets. Either that or they will stick exclusively to all "long range weapons" for the minimum accuracy penalty and snipe at your "unoptimized" stock mechs using nothing but lrms, gausses, ppcs, and er large lasers.

please tell me where i am off base

No one suggested making them arbitrarily inaccurate, and this is about game balance not fluff or any other reason.

You seem to think we want this for some honor sense or something. You're not actually reading what people are saying. That 13 year old in your example with the suggested CoF would end up taking tons of shots during his charge, and at the end of it his CoF is going to be at maximum while the player that was being more tactical and not charging head long like some ancient berserker is going to have his CoF tightly grouped. As to the min/maxed (not actually part of this discussion but you brought it up) he/she should have a higher BV (costly) 'Mech so there would be fewer of your hypothetical 13 year olds on the battlefield than the guys with their non variant 'Mechs.

[Xhaleon]

VYCanis, on 28 November 2011 - 05:06 AM, said:

assuming a standard COF that applies equally to all weapons on a mech....

what is going to happen when weapons at long range are not going where they are aiming? Meanwhile short range weapons seem to hit just fine. answer, its gonna be brawl time, all the time. Because if long range weapons can't reliably hit at long range, then they can't properly stop the short rangers from closing the gap.

I do not understand what it is you don't get, or the point you are trying to make here.

1. What does this equal COF mean? Does it mean that all weapons share a standardized COF size? Or do you mean that the COF is an aggregate of all the different COFs of every weapon. In either case, both are biased assumptions. The logical method was always individual cones for each weapon (type), but they are all locked to the center of the player's cursor, or are there other COF-people who got a different idea somewhere up the thread?

2. Why are short range weapons in your example being more accurate than long range weapons? It completely does not follow from your beginning premise at all.

Do you mean that with the assumption that the same-size COF is used for every weapon, long range weapons will have a hard time hitting the target, while close range weapons will appear to not suffer as much since their effective damaging range is shorter in the first place? If so, then as I said before, that conclusion stems from a biased and flawed assumption in the first place. Perhaps even more aggravating is the continuous pushing of the idea that Cones of Fire will be so big that they are ineffective at the ranges the weapons are intended to be used, which is a ridiculous argumentative point.

Long range weapons have smaller cones from the very start, aside from being able to do damage from further away. They are perfectly able to hit a target, so as long as you are in the effective range of the weapon. All COF, short or long range weapons, get more and more accurate as the opponent closes because the cone stays the exact same size while the opponent increases in apparent size. Long range weapons simply start to do so faster than shorter ranged weapons because of their smaller cone, reflecting the range bracket of most long range weapons on the tabletop. COF also easily supports the inclusion of minimum weapon ranges, by gradually increasing the size of the cone once the range gets below a certain value. The only other times it increases are when the mech is hot or is moving.

Again, how does an opponent with short range weapons outshoot the long range player in any case, with the exception of those with minimum ranges? I cannae get the logic, cap'n.

By the way, it isn't wrong for many fast mechs charging into close range to reach a mech before they are damaged heavily. That is a perfectly acceptable game dynamic, and is what happens on the tabletop too in order to justify having fast mechs that aren't scouts. What is wrong are long range mechs that perform the same at every range, which skews designs towards them.
Long range mechs carry short range weapons for a reason, and they had the advantage of shooting first for several dozen seconds. Some mechs have too many long range weapons like the Yeoman, and this is punished by being vulnerable to fast, charging enemies. The only way to counter that is to be more versatile, or work as a team with other mechs intercepting them. Unless of course, you are a filthy Clanner to whom only personal one-on-one combat is worth thinking about.

Agh, I don't even know what I'm supposed to be arguing against anymore. The goalposts keep being stolen.

[VYCanis]

I brought up both a unified CoF and a per weapon CoF to cover both sides of the coin, because i've been seeing the arguments for CoF wander all over the spectrum

but lets focus on per weapon CoF

Per weapon CoF. i.e. my short range weapons are going to be spraying wildly compared to my long range weapons. Because that is exactly how its sounding so far.

This means that aside from short range weapons having shorter ranges than long range ones, they will have poorer accuracy. This tips weapon favoritism in favor of long range weapons, since they will be able to focus firepower from longer range, making them much more practical weapon to use. i.e. how some dude with er large lasers is going to be shooting with precision at ranges where some dude with medium lasers is going to be sloppy as hell.

I bring up missiles because they would seemingly bypass the entire issue of CoF becoming extremely powerful just by virtue of being able to hit what they are aiming at.

and hell, i just got out of a game of MWLL, and even with everything being evil precision aiming, wouldn't you know it, people still miss a whole hell of a lot and damage still gets spread all over.

Edited by VYCanis, 28 November 2011 - 09:24 AM.

[Halfinax]

VYCanis, on 28 November 2011 - 09:21 AM, said:

I brought up both a unified CoF and a per weapon CoF to cover both sides of the coin, because i've been seeing the arguments for CoF wander all over the spectrum

but lets focus on per weapon CoF

Per weapon CoF. i.e. my short range weapons are going to be spraying wildly compared to my long range weapons. Because that is exactly how its sounding so far.

This means that aside from short range weapons having shorter ranges than long range ones, they will have poorer accuracy. This tips weapon favoritism in favor of long range weapons, since they will be able to focus firepower from longer range, making them much more practical weapon to use. i.e. how some dude with er large lasers is going to be shooting with precision at ranges where some dude with medium lasers is going to be sloppy as hell.

Ignoring the offered solutions doesn't validate your argument. A CoF system in which the weapons effective range also helps determine the CoF ring makes long range weapons accurate at range and inaccurate up close, and vice versa.

VYCanis, on 28 November 2011 - 09:21 AM, said:

I bring up missiles because they would seemingly bypass the entire issue of CoF becoming extremely powerful just by virtue of being able to hit what they are aiming at.

Missles will only be semi-guided...guess what that means a probability of missing, and they sure as fire aren't going to all hit the exact same location on a 'Mech. Hrm you know that kinda sounds like an abstraction of CoF now that I think about it.......

VYCanis, on 28 November 2011 - 09:21 AM, said:

and hell, i just got out of a game of MWLL, and even with everything being evil precision aiming, wouldn't you know it, people still miss a whole hell of a lot and damage still gets spread all over.

And it uses some sort of weird delayed fire for energy weapons to arbitrarily make PPA not work.

[Xhaleon]

VYCanis, on 28 November 2011 - 09:21 AM, said:

but lets focus on per weapon CoF

Per weapon CoF. i.e. my short range weapons are going to be spraying wildly compared to my long range weapons. Because that is exactly how its sounding so far.

This means that aside from short range weapons having shorter ranges than long range ones, they will have poorer accuracy. This tips weapon favoritism in favor of long range weapons, since they will be able to focus firepower from longer range, making them much more practical weapon to use. i.e. how some dude with er large lasers is going to be shooting with precision at ranges where some dude with medium lasers is going to be sloppy as hell.

Wha?

Dammit, I had to retype this post once because your argument makes no sense nor justifies anything.

First off, it seems that you are saying that COF is the direct cause of long range weapons to be favored because they have more accuracy than short range weapons. What? And then it would seem that you would prefer a pinpoint fire system, which still results in exactly the same thing only in a different way!

Yes, that person with the ER LLAS will be more likely hit the person with an array of piddly standard MLAS at a particular range, THAT'S THE ENTIRE POINT. What's wrong with him shooting more accurately and hitting further away, when he paid the tonnage, severe heat and big cash for advanced tech to sport that ER LLAS? Maybe even Battle Value if they use that to determine matchmaking. And then when the opponent with short range weapons closes, the accuracy advantage becomes negligible because battlemech parts are so big that the nearly "pinpoint accuracy" of an ER LLAS at this range is irrelevant; the Mediums are still hitting exactly what limb or torso they are being pointed at, so as long as they are up close. There is a good reason why battlemech body parts are so general, and why it is a good model to keep following in a real time game.

And yes, that guy with the ER LLAS can still shoot accurately even up close, is that wrong? You seem to be of the impression that weapons should be balanced along the roles of "short range" or "long range", and battles should be more like a rock-paper-scissors affair with one dominating their respective roles once in range. Battletech was never like that; big long weapons did big damage out to far away and were thus desirable for those traits, but those that could do everything were often deficient in some way or another. Short weapons suffer from their lack of range, but were light and often heat efficient, and while a barrage of them didn't have the single shot power of big guns, they were great for finding holes in armor and doing so much total damage that it forces the enemy to topple over.

Now, let me clarify an important part of my arguments one last time, more clear than my sloppy efforts before.

When I say medium range, I do not mean medium range for all weapons. Take a look at the range bracket for weapons. Each will have a short range, a medium range, a long range, and possibly an extreme range if you use those rules. The to-hit chance goes from +0 to +2 to +4 and then maybe to +6. This range bracket is what I base all my mentions of "medium range" on, at +2 to be exact.

From the above, the cone of a Medium Laser at the ranges listed as +2 will be the exact same size as those of a Large Laser at +2. Its as simple as that. At their respective medium ranges, each of them will have an equal chance of hitting the other, but the Medium Laser will fail if it tries to compete with the Large Laser. The Large Laser is five times as heavy and not as damage efficient, so it is fair. Why does this seem so wrong to you?

I say again, I do not want the cone to be a direct translation of the extremely inaccurate tabletop range brackets, but they should follow the same guidelines set down. The only big deviation from the tabletop is that the static cone will affect accuracy in a gradual way, instead of a leap from +2 to +4.

A cone should be somewhat larger than a mech at the very end of the long range bracket, bordering extreme range, which permits a number of misses. It would then appear to be smaller than a mech at medium range, which still permits a few misses if you have bad aim, while good shots will still spread over the target. Then short range is small enough that people can start aiming for individual limbs and still hit reliably, if not they probably hit the torso of the target instead. Anywhere closer and the gradual effect of the cone would render it practically pinpoint. Any further from that into the realm of extreme range, and it is not unreasonable to expect common misses.

The last thing is that I see no wrong in the gameplay that these rules would render, and think it would be better than the current games we have. The balance of the weapons will already be good from the moment you start testing, requires less work and deliberation from the time-strapped developer (just only half a year!), and remains faithful to the universe's established flow of combat.

Edited by Xhaleon, 28 November 2011 - 12:33 PM.

[VYCanis]

okay, just to clarify,

to make sure we are all on the same page, this is what I am imagining you are describing, is this correct?

all sizes are proportional, assuming you want the CoF to be mechsized at max range for the given weapon. just to be clear, and so no one can say i'm strawmanning.



Uploaded with ImageShack.us

[Xhaleon]

No dice, can't see it. Domain Unregistered. I've never bothered before, is that a problem on my side?

More than mech sized at about the very edge of long range. By the way, I didn't say that ranges should follow the tabletop precisely either. A little tweaking here and there wouldn't hurt, in terms of raw distance. Lemme see... 15 hexes times 30 meters is 450, that might be a bit short for a largie... Maybe not the same extreme tweaking that MW4 did, but a bit more distance on that might or might not be good, depending on how fast mechs run...

Yeah, gotta get that image viewable. I need to go do something else for now though, come back to this later Canis.

[Kudzu]

VYCanis, on 28 November 2011 - 01:20 PM, said:

okay, just to clarify,

to make sure we are all on the same page, this is what I am imagining you are describing, is this correct?

all sizes are proportional, assuming you want the CoF to be mechsized at max range for the given weapon. just to be clear, and so no one can say i'm strawmanning.



Uploaded with ImageShack.us

If the firing mech is standing still and isn't suffering from high heat/certain damage effects, seems about right to me.

[VYCanis]

okay, in first person using MWLL, based off of several screenshots where i checked range on my owens
red is 90m
green is 270m
blue is 450m
stopped after that because i could hardly see the owens anymore enough to make a good guess on its size.

looking at it now its not as crazy as i thought it would be...
but yeah, still not feelin it. seems like all it would do is penalize MGs, flamers, and small lasers more than they are already penalized, and anything with range longer than 450m is going to be hitting with relative super precision compared to everything else.

I still prefer the idea of having aim bounce around, having weapon behavior factor into the damage spread and diffilculty of aiming, and just keeping weapons from ever totally converging (7m off focus from whatever you are aiming at)



Uploaded with ImageShack.us

Edited by VYCanis, 28 November 2011 - 04:27 PM.

[Kudzu]

VYCanis, on 28 November 2011 - 04:24 PM, said:

okay, in first person using MWLL, based off of several screenshots where i checked range on my owens
red is 90m
green is 270m
blue is 450m
stopped after that because i could hardly see the owens anymore enough to make a good guess on its size.

looking at it now its not as crazy as i thought it would be...
but yeah, still not feelin it. seems like all it would do is penalize MGs, flamers, and small lasers more than they are already penalized, and anything with range longer than 450m is going to be hitting with relative super precision compared to everything else.

I still prefer the idea of having aim bounce around, having weapon behavior factor into the damage spread and diffilculty of aiming, and just keeping weapons from ever totally converging (7m off from whatever you are aiming at)

Small lasers, flamers, and MG's make up for it in other ways. Lighter weight (you can put 10 small lasers, 10 flamers, or 8 MG's + 1 ton of ammo in for the weight of a large laser). Small lasers/MG's have a better damage to heat ratio (3:1/2:0 vs 1:1). Flamers can be used to raise the heat level of your target and can also ***** up their vision (at least the ones in MWLL do!) and don't have to be as accurate if used for that purpose.

It really does balance out in the end-- and it encourages a wider variety of weapons to be carried rather than designing around boating one particular weapon.

Edit: Keep in mind that you're also using what the cones would be like for a stationary mech-- which also means you're an easy target. .

Edited by Kudzu, 28 November 2011 - 04:37 PM.

[Xhaleon]

I see them now by typing in the URL directly. Yeah, that's about right, Canis.

For those range numbers, are those supposed to be how large the Owens looks like at a particular range? If so, its pretty obvious that the COF isn't ridiculous in any way, isn't it? Zoom functions shouldn't affect the size, to keep the effect. Remember that the circle still has a lot of blank spaces in it due to a mech's non-box silhouette, so in a real time game the shape of the mech would play an actual important factor. Bushies unite! (3 years too late...)

Like I said before, don't think of them as short ranged and long ranged weapons, but rather as small guns and big guns. That actually isn't even a result of COF, but it transfers over just fine. What we have now with a COF system is that engagement ranges are no longer measured exactly at the point where weapons start doing damage. Now it becomes a jockey for position somewhere in the middle of the effective range, to keep enemies out of their optimum distance while retaining your own, or to stay at a far distance that still permits acceptable accuracy for you but unacceptable rates for the enemy, resulting in your eventual win.

You will still be getting your rocking of weapons, brohams. You and the enemy aren't going to be stationary unless you want to be a sniper or a sitting duck (maybe both).

[plodder]

This is awesome!!!!!I can't read it all, but you fellas seem to know your stuff, or at least one of you do ......

Now.let me start with the hit points placement if you have multiples of hit point placements on each limb torso etc. at every angle, then a hit from even a lg. laser at any range would have some but a limited splash over several hit point placements(if there was enough of them). So the likehood of hitting the same points at long range less realistic if programmed correctly. the cone pictured above should not be how the damage is spread me thinks, but the probable area in will hit. even at extreme range, a lg laser'* *** will not be more ten about 8' of damage area, and if the target is moving that is spread over up to 26" of damage (moving speed while torso twist limb hit) .
can the MWO support a mech with 400-700 hitting points/ places that are hit that may have 10 actual value, meaning 10 x 400-700.....

concentrated fire is difficult, that is why the mech is the baddest fighting weapon any pilot can have. Thanks uncle danno

Edited by plodder, 08 January 2012 - 10:51 AM.

[Fyrwulf]

An arbitrary cone of fire is not the answer. The reason for the targeting modifiers in the BT tabletop game is to represent the movement of a mech during combat and a weapon's innate accuracy (or lack thereof). So long as aiming becomes more difficult the faster a mech moves and so long as the default BT accuracies are kept, I see no reason to introduce an arbitrary nerf to base accuracy. Let a player's skill determine how accurate of a shot they are.

[guardiandashi]

Fyrwulf, on 08 January 2012 - 01:03 PM, said:

An arbitrary cone of fire is not the answer. The reason for the targeting modifiers in the BT tabletop game is to represent the movement of a mech during combat and a weapon's innate accuracy (or lack thereof). So long as aiming becomes more difficult the faster a mech moves and so long as the default BT accuracies are kept, I see no reason to introduce an arbitrary nerf to base accuracy. Let a player's skill determine how accurate of a shot they are.

there are 2 aspects that is the big issue
1 the targeting "lock on" targeting etc and
2 weapon spread, contrary to the example used in previous mechwarrior games mech targeting is NOT "pinpoint" there is 2 ways to represent this feasably IMO

A remove the "group fire" option or rather make it function more as "auto chain fire" meaning you "trigger the group and weapon 1 fires immediately, as soon as it finishes firing weapon 2 fires then weapon 3 fires etc down the group of weapons until you hit the last weapon

B weapons in a group may fire simultaniously but they each have their own "aiming point" within the "cone" of fire this means that if you have the entire upper body within the aim "cone" but not the legs then any "hits" will be allocated at various locations corrisponding to where the weapon was "aiming" at the moment it fired which may NOT be exactly where your "target designator" crosshair was

under model B it may be helpful to view the user "crosshair" not as a representation of where the mechs weapons are AIMING per previous mw games, but a representation of where you (the pilot) is telling the targeting and tracking computer of the mech what you wish to designate as a target, that it then "attempts" to aim each weapon individually at.

[Fyrwulf]

A doesn't happen in the novels unless it's set up that way, so it's probably not going to happen in the game. I can totally see somebody with a macro keyboard setting it up that way, though.

I think my answer covers C. Your mech is moving and your weapons aren't stabilized like an MBT's main gun is. Your opponent is moving and s/he has an intense interest in not being hit. Therefor your aiming is likely not going to be perfect unless you're a sniper and you've set up the perfect shot, in which case you have to move and quickly unless you want a boot shoved up your ****** in the form of an Arrow IV called down by the opposing command.

Hell, I used to play MW4 a lot and even with perfect stabilization the perfect shot didn't happen all that happen. Factor in my suggestions and you'll have an experience that's true to cannon.

EDIT: Also, CryEngine is heavily based in physics, unlike previous MW games. I can guarantee you that there will be recoil for ballistic weapons, proper heat mechanics for those energy junkies, and missile warfare is going to take a lot of stones to pull off correctly because of the SARH nature of guided missiles.

Edited by Fyrwulf, 08 January 2012 - 04:04 PM.

[Phades]

Kudzu, on 28 November 2011 - 04:35 PM, said:

Small lasers, flamers, and MG's make up for it in other ways. Lighter weight (you can put 10 small lasers, 10 flamers, or 8 MG's + 1 ton of ammo in for the weight of a large laser). Small lasers/MG's have a better damage to heat ratio (3:1/2:0 vs 1:1). Flamers can be used to raise the heat level of your target and can also ***** up their vision (at least the ones in MWLL do!) and don't have to be as accurate if used for that purpose.

It really does balance out in the end-- and it encourages a wider variety of weapons to be carried rather than designing around boating one particular weapon.

Edit: Keep in mind that you're also using what the cones would be like for a stationary mech-- which also means you're an easy target. .

Eh? You are just making people boat with gauss/ppc combos or large lasers instead of smaller weapons. Stationary and large banks of small lasers, flamers, or mg? Really?

What about cover? The close range guy will never hit anything until melee range, while the long range guy will never be hit since only the bare minimum of his gun will be pointing out. Also, the target's speed has more impact on the final calculation to hit than your movement did and at least equal weight to the distance. So, do your reticule just arbitrarily get bigger since your target is moving? What about movement directly towards or away (IE the easiest shots in the game i don't care which you are playing)?

Think harder of a different mechanic because you have to realize that the rules were simplified to maintain dice based play and a lot of that was just arbitrary.

[Vulpesveritas]

To me I think this is anti-realism. Really, it SHOULD be skill based. Unless you, the pilot, put effort into trying to learn the game mechanics and controls, and learn how to be good at the game, you shouldn't be given a hanicap just because you aren't good at it. People who are good at first person shooters are generally good at it because they think before they shoot. while most people complain that they're either 'hackers', 'noobs', or 'a******'. Personally, I say "nice shot" and get back to my .85 KDR. Which i have no problem with in first person shooters.

And in a game where we're a millenium into the future with all this advanced technology, you don't think that your guns should well, be accurate? And that you should have to be the one to aim them?

[Orayn]

A smallish cone of fire makes sense. Even with advanced computer systems, there's always some room for pilot error, so it would make sense that weapon aim could be affected by some constant amount of jitter.

[Vulpesveritas]

^ so is having slightly off aim not pilot error?