229 replies to this topic

[Joachim Viltry]

Pht, on 21 November 2011 - 02:13 PM, said:

I guess than that you sort of left out that none of the ports can "aim" (in and of themselves) as something assumed.

Pardon this, but this strikes me as odd since the Novacat example seemed very clear to me. perhaps my own reasoning and interpretation will be helpful to anyone who did not sort this out on their own.

The weapons on the Novacat have rather well defined cylindrical barrels. These barrels are clustered together in a solid looking mount that keeps them either parallel, or focused at a particular distance.

This is what a laser generally looks like under that armored housing


You will note the long thin bit- the barrel- is going to be pointing exactly in the direction of fire. The beam wont be going off at any angle other than directly in line with it's barrel. to alter the aim point it would require the entire assemblage to be gimbaled in some fashion. the laser doesn't have emitters that can fire at 60 degrees from true to engage targets off axis, the entire laser must be pointed in the direction you wish it to be fired. This is not a laser pointer that can be reflected around corners with a mirror, it is a several hundred gigawatt directed energy weapon; which -as such weapons are prone to do- tends to cause sudden explosive energy release on contact with a target.

Therefor the op had assumed that this idea (that off axis fire is not realistic given the nature of the weapons) was understood.

The op's entire point is that it would make for an excellent simulation if we used the advantages of computer modern technology to model the sway and motion of those various weapons mounts actual point of aim, rather than have magical lasers that can fire at targets off axis; and various others have expressed interest in this idea. It would make the game unique, and offer something both truly new and potentially challenging into the game play, while simultaneously deepening the immersion for many (who do not want just another game to play, but an experience to enjoy).


For those with spare time Winchell Chung has several excellent discussions of the actual damage produced by Laser based weapons at his web page http://www.projectrho.com/rocket

Edited by Joachim Viltry, 21 November 2011 - 02:54 PM.

[BlackWidow]

You had a FANTASIC first post! Well, laid out and thought out (within your limited self-defined thought bubble) and eveyone was excited.

Then, the very second someone unworthy of handling the strict allowance of your "system" chimes in....NERD RAGE, or ex-military-I-know-everything-about-anything-that-shoots-RAGE you come back with...

"Fluff lore; don't care. What matters is gameplay."

Well, no-****, Sherlock. Except it does, and it doesn't.

A. Does ONLY gameplay matter? It doesn't, because Mechwarrior EXISTS in the BT universe and whether YOU like it or not, it matters to, oh, I'd say MOST of the people in these forums.

Now, does that mean what you call "fluff" and what others call "rules and/or canon" have no place in a real-time 3D combat simulator? Yes, and no. Yes, if they can implement it. Either gamewise, or programatically. And no, if when implemented, the realities of any one feature break other more important features or are too hard to code for.

B. Does ONLY gameplay matter? It does. Because in the end you make compromises bases on time, money, scope and playability. But does this mean that your narrow-minded supposition (since you yourself stated you have no flipping clue what PGI will implement. Cause....ya don't) has ANY basis on what is "gameplay and what is fluff"? Not a shread. BT canon could just have easily said torso mounted weps are locked in place. Do you now accept the fluff just because it happens to coincide with your idea?

We, the Mechwarrior forum users at large now, (after your polite references have been repeatedly beat into us) realize that this thread was stated with the original premise of locked torso weaps. We. Get. It.

But, when someone tried to broaded the topic and make it more interesting that your original start, instead of grasping at the chance to engage in expanded conversation to broaded our scope or pull it back, you chose to hold up the hand of internet rage. "Start your own thread, you weenies! We'll have no descension in my thread! blah blah blah..."

Long story short....you started out with great sound and fury and in the end.....(since you don't know jack about the game or apparently intellectual discourse) you signify.....nothing.

But, I'll see you on the battlefield anyway and may the better fluff/RNG win!

BW

BTW...no one cares about your M1A1 analogies. I can tell you for a FACT they have ABSOLUTELY NO BEARING in the "gameplay" of ANY BT or MW game. Blame that on lore, fluff or the fact that Mechs are NOT tanks with legs. It may be easy to think of them as nothing more than mobile gun platforms that use legs instead of treads/wheels, but that is for those that don'e belong in the BT universe or it's games. Go play Battlefield 3, and aim your gun with pinpoint accuracy to your hearts content.

/cheers~!

[guardiandashi]

I could live with a some version of the origional posters concept of pattern of movement based "inaccuracy patterns" however I would also prefer that there be at least a small "cone" of inherant/mission "inaccuracy due to weapon misalignment" especially when group firing note this does not have to be huge it could even be capped at 1 degree with a random number setting it from +/- 1 degree horizontal, and +/- 1 degree vertical in .01, or .1 degree increments I know a lot of people who want to be able to shoot a flea off a dogs rear would find this incredibly frustrating but I look at it as being completely reasonable.

scenario you take your nova out for a spin and get it shot to pieces, the tech repairs it, and due to damage has to realign all 12 er medium lasers, because of the tools he has he is only able to dile them in "close" to true.... you take it for a spin and the lasers are firing all over the place... how do you "fix it" the tech has to realign the lasers but what if he looks at your notes on what is wrong... you said "the left arm lasers are not aligned correctly" if he is anything like me I am going to get ticked do another best guess alignment and let you take it out for a spin again, on the other hand if you said "the #1 laser is shooting high right I could attempt to correct that by adjusting it towards low left, or there could be a "callibrate" function where you fire a weapon (one at a time) then "unlock" the targeting reticule and realign it properly at specific ranges based on where the gun is actually firing.

[CeeKay Boques]

Blackwidow, on 21 November 2011 - 03:00 PM, said:

Go play Battlefield 3, and aim your gun with pinpoint accuracy to your hearts content.

/cheers~!

Psst: Modern day shooters like BF3 and CoD use CoF cone of fire to simulate missing because they don't have the engine to actually simulate the trajectory of the bullet. But I get yer point. Arma 2, a milsim would be "pinpoint accuracy", but affected by wind and gravity etc.

[BlackWidow]

Joachim Viltry, on 21 November 2011 - 02:52 PM, said:

The op's entire point is that it would make for an excellent simulation if we used the advantages of computer modern technology to model the sway and motion of those various weapons mounts actual point of aim, rather than have magical lasers that can fire at targets off axis; and various others have expressed interest in this idea. It would make the game unique, and offer something both truly new and potentially challenging into the game play, while simultaneously deepening the immersion for many (who do not want just another game to play, but an experience to enjoy).

So let me get this straight.......you want to use modern technology (by this I assume you mean the advances in PC gaming over the last 10 years) to allow for targeting of fixed weapons within the confines of the movement of the chassis to make it more "realistic" while at the same time (and it doesn't matter at this point in the thread what the original supposition was) deny the ability of movable torso weapons (which in game would be based on 24th century "technological advantages" as unrealistic since they are only "fluff" from BT canon?

Am I missing something here?

I feel that maybe I am. Maybe, if I step back a minute...and it would be easier to step back if Cav would have just stopped at his original post instead of descending in to douch-mode....but

Maybe he was just saying....IF the torso weaps are locked.....then THIS would be a REALLY cool way to handle that in game.....

IF so...then bravo.! Yes. You are very cleaver. /golfclap. Your mom must be proud. But, all we saw was the nerd rage afterwards..

Tsk. Tsk.

BW

[BlackWidow]

Technoviking, on 21 November 2011 - 03:08 PM, said:

Psst: Modern day shooters like BF3 and CoD use CoF cone of fire to simulate missing because they don't have the engine to actually simulate the trajectory of the bullet. But I get yer point. Arma 2, a milsim would be "pinpoint accuracy", but affected by wind and gravity etc.

Exactly. Most games use RNG to some degree. Hell, life throws RNG at us every single day. Embrace it. Besides, if you don't allow for a degree of this (not even saying I like RNG) then you are saying it's all SKILL based. OH, but wait.......what about ISP speed, computer/video game speed, input devices...etc. No WAY a joystick/ruddle/throttle will be more accurate than a mouse. Sorry, tried both for 15 years now....when it comes to MECHS: Joystick=more fun, mouse=more dead enemies. I'd love to have someone show me otherwise. Seriously. I would. I digress, but that is also part of the issue. The user....not all gamers are made alike. Just casue someone is better with the twitchy trigger finger...does that mean the system should always predicate they win the battle? This is the inherent issue with differences between RPGs and FPS....actually, I think I'll start a thread on this....

Later, Mechwarriors!

BW

[Cyber Carns]

Cavadus, on 18 November 2011 - 09:00 PM, said:

Seems like a few posters missed this the first time around:



To reiterate, I don't give a damn that a handful of sourcebooks somewhere say a laser can move inside of the torso of a mech. I also don't give a damn that a few pieces of artwork have what appears to be turreted weapons or whatever.

I do not care. It means absolutely nothing to me and has absolutely no place in the concept I was demonstrating in the OP.

If that bugs anyone then, by all means, go ahead and share your own CoF system.

Dude, you were making some really good points, but with that kind of attitude and not caring what others/sourcebooks/infomation say has just invalidated anything good you have said.

Edited by Cyber Carns, 21 November 2011 - 03:20 PM.

[Gaius Cavadus]

Blackwidow, on 21 November 2011 - 03:10 PM, said:

So let me get this straight.......you want to use modern technology (by this I assume you mean the advances in PC gaming over the last 10 years) to allow for targeting of fixed weapons within the confines of the movement of the chassis to make it more "realistic" while at the same time (and it doesn't matter at this point in the thread what the original supposition was) deny the ability of movable torso weapons (which in game would be based on 24th century "technological advantages" as unrealistic since they are only "fluff" from BT canon? Am I missing something here?

Yeah, you are missing something. The reason I predicated my OP on static torso weapons was because I felt it was better for gameplay. That's it

I don't mean to sound like a broken record or further infuriate TTers but the fact that it contradicts fluff lore was completely pre-meditated and intentional because I regard gameplay much more highly than fluff.

[BlackWidow]

Cavadus, on 21 November 2011 - 01:31 PM, said:

... That would make things a bit more precise but still allow the ideas in my OP to function more or less intact.

Or someone can hopefully devise something better

So what you're are saying.....correct me if I'm wrong...you would sacrifice accuracy for the sake of precision? Wow. Hope to meet you on the battlefield. "Hey everyone in the outfield move up.....easy out at the plate"

BW...just poking at ya.

Edited by Blackwidow, 21 November 2011 - 03:22 PM.

[BlackWidow]

Cavadus, on 21 November 2011 - 03:19 PM, said:

Yeah, you are missing something. The reason I predicated my OP on static torso weapons was because I felt it was better for gameplay. That's it

I don't mean to sound like a broken record or further infuriate TTers but the fact that it contradicts fluff lore was completely pre-meditated and intentional because I regard gameplay much more highly than fluff.

YES! I finally understand! But....gameplay based on .......what, exactly? Really. I'm serious. If not BT, and hell, even modern / past warfare (name me a static weapon that is better than a mobile one.....Nuclear silos dont count ) than what other than your OP which was a VERY CLEVER solution (most give you that) to a supposition that is more artificial that all the fluff combined.

Anyhow, love the discussion.....wish the game would get here sooner.

BW <3

[Gaius Cavadus]

Blackwidow, on 21 November 2011 - 03:27 PM, said:

YES! I finally understand! But....gameplay based on .......what, exactly?

It's completely subjective, of course. That's why some people liked my OP and some didn't. I provided an example of a decent cone-of-fire implementation that doesn't utilize extreme and frustrating RNG magic.; I never said it was the example.

Quote

(name me a static weapon that is better than a mobile one...

I look at it a very different way. Mech torsos are like a tank's turret; the gun doesn't have completely free targeting due to gymbalization. They can only elevate or depress the gun inside of the turret but the turret still has to traverse side-to-side.

The torso of the mech easily serves both functions. It can traverse left and right and be pitched up and down.

You see a static weapon... I see a highly mobile and dexterous torso that allows one to easily place shots; ya just gotta do a little more of the aiming yourself than in previous MW titles

[Datum]

For the love of crap please implement the sway of the weapon cones, that would be awesome.
However, the weapons do not necessarily have to be parallel. They are fixed, yes, but they can still converge.
Old fighter aircraft mounted several guns on the wings, and to ensure a better accuracy despite their distance they had a set convergence on them. This meant that, much like your arm mounted weapons, that they'd be able to hit the same spot, however the convergence cannot be adjusted midflight, so you'd have to be mindful of it.
You could take the torso-mounted weapons on the atlas and converge them by design alone, such as having the AC-20 point a degree up and left to help it hit reliably with the lasers. The downside is that they have to be stuck with that convergence, so any further range would make it wildly-inaccurate and ineffective.

Patriot, on 18 November 2011 - 02:40 PM, said:

Of course, for gameplay purposes we can state that weapons without a Targeting Computer cannot do this, install such a computer and you can have a slight adjustment by the computer of a degrees, the weapons are supposed to be more accurate this way.

Hmmm, you may have finally justified why a targeting computer weighs several tons, as in it's the weapon mounts that take up weight.

[Joachim Viltry]

Blackwidow, on 21 November 2011 - 03:10 PM, said:

So let me get this straight.......

I did not mention fixed Torso weapons at all. I am talking about the weapons clusters mounted in the arms. as per the OP. and i was describing the reasoning behind his 'shot pattern' examples.

However since you have brought it up, certainly some torso weapons should Fixed as opposed to gimbaled on actuators. This would make for an interesting way to differentiate different mech's capabilities. Some designs explicitly have gimballed weapons mounts- the Bombardier has variants with a clearly swivel mounted weapon on top, as does the classic marauder- despite these being (for rules purposes) torso mounted weapons.

Other designs leave room for Different setups regarding fixed/unfixed weaponry. The prime version of the Timberwolf is a solid example, the torso mounted Medium Pulse laser is housed in a pod alongside the main body, and surely could be angled dynamically. Whereas the Large Laser in a Grasshopper might well be fixed, given the space constraints within the torso. Such differences could add flavor to the game, and might well influence play styles. Someone who likes the fixed nature of Our hypothetical Grasshopper's LL might become quite skilled at snapping off shots with it, while someone who prefers dynamic focusing may well prefer another chassis with more flexible weapons housings. it is all just one more capability that could be used to differentiate designs.

ultimately one of the big reasons behind such design decisions is to help establish precisely why it is that arm mounted weapons are as common as they are despite the poor armor on those locations. the OP essentially asked, why should a player keep his med lasers in the arms when the torso is safer? the fact that the arms could dynamically focus fire onto a smaller area, vs a set of fixed torso weapons was part of his solution. nothing more than that.

Personally i believe that his thinking on the way arm mounts should behave is inspired, it would be most excellent. Fixed vs gimballed torso mounts may have to be on a case by case basis- or perhaps a pilot by pilot basis, perhaps a pilot could set a focal distance? or enable dynamic focusing so that a second or 2 after the target is in the crosshairs the lasers group is nice and tight? all would be interesting options to explore really.

[Joachim Viltry]

Datum, on 21 November 2011 - 03:46 PM, said:

Hmmm, you may have finally justified why a targeting computer weighs several tons, as in it's the weapon mounts that take up weight.

actually that IS the official justification... "Targeting Computers are sophisticated pieces of electronics that, unlike normal targeting systems, physically help MechWarriors target their opponents. Recoil compensators and gyroscopic stabilizers are used to prevent normal weapon drift from factors such as recoil and movement while the computer accounts for atmospheric and other conditions to present an accurate "lead" on the target. This allows for more surgical precision of weapons fire, especially with naturally accurate systems, allowing for the user to hit specific parts on the target vehicle. "

Edited by Joachim Viltry, 21 November 2011 - 04:29 PM.

[Tweaks]

@Cadavous: You keep saying your OP has nothing to do with weapon spread or laser dispersion, that you don't care about that or that it's plain BS.

Ignoring a fact or a problem won't make it change or go away you know... Just saying!

[BlackWidow]

Cavadus, on 21 November 2011 - 03:36 PM, said:

It's completely subjective, of course. That's why some people liked my OP and some didn't. I provided an example of a decent cone-of-fire implementation that doesn't utilize extreme and frustrating RNG magic.; I never said it was the example.



I look at it a very different way. Mech torsos are like a tank's turret; the gun doesn't have completely free targeting due to gymbalization. They can only elevate or depress the gun inside of the turret but the turret still has to traverse side-to-side.

The torso of the mech easily serves both functions. It can traverse left and right and be pitched up and down.

You see a static weapon... I see a highly mobile and dexterous torso that allows one to easily place shots; ya just gotta do a little more of the aiming yourself than in previous MW titles

Wow. I recant all the snarky comments I made. I now completely see your point, and understand (you having piloted / gunned an M1A1?) why you originally started down your thought path. You should have included a bit of this allegory in the original post to kinda take the frame of reference a "bit" out of BT universe an firmly root your argument in what appears to be a well-thought-out solution to implementing REAL WORLD physics into the game mechanics...regardless of BT canon. Bravo, sir. You have stood firm in the forum onslaught, true to your original post...and have succeeded in the most basic premise of an argument. You have convinced the other party (namely little ol' me) that you are right. Again, bravo.

I still side with the belief that a mech is not a tank and actually has gymballed torso weapons...but I now see that in NO WAY actually conflicts with your OP and what you were trying to present. And in the end, it doesn't really matter. PGI will implement it one way or the other (or something inbetween) and we will adjust to it and hopefully love it!

Fight hard, Mechwarriors!

[guardiandashi]

part of the issue is that while aspects of the op's origional post have merit possibly even significant merit there are other aspects especially in the followup posts that make most of his arguements of low value.

note this is not intended as detrimental criticism but constructive.

when you are discussing an idea such as for how targeting should work, the lore of the game is just as important IF not MORE important than "real world" physics.

now I have no issues with the understanding of parallel, convergant, and divergant weapon alignments that the OP was trying to convey, but his arguement that he can care less about the game lore IE that mechs have inherant limited accuracy, and that the MECH aims the weapons NOT the pilot is very important to the gameplay design also.

even weapons that appear to have "fixed mountings" such as the arm packs on a nova (black hawk) the 50 ton clan omni, is almost guaranteed that there is some adjustment in the aimpoint for the individual weapons even if it is only in the bay/out of combat where you can do things like inserting shims into the attachments and similar, or pulling a "robocop style" recalibration of where the mechs computer thinks the weapon is aiming.

the point is when you are looking at something lore and history is important to the FEEL of a universe/ip and you ignore it at great peril.

many of the mechwarrior / electronic "battletech" games have gone down that path and the results are often not good

[metro]

Mechanics of NWO unknown.

Topic = Speculative.

[The Basilisk]

@Cavadus

You have some pretty neet arguments. But.....not viable for the weapons you've choosen.
1st Lasers require no streight barrel.
Lenses at their muzzles would easily be able to focus co fired lasers from multiple locations of arms AND torso.
Even if there are barrel like forms of lasers mounted on a mech like on a Warhammer the medium Lasers on oposing torso sides would be able to focus the same location or even the the same point because their trajektory isn't totaly bound to the orientation of their muzzles.
2nd partikle cannons act very much like Lasers regarding the possibility to focus a stream of accellarated ions with magnetic fields.

Considering the behaviour of MGs Autocannons or Gauss you may be right.
Regarding the swing an rocking of weapons you are totaly right.
Next thing is Autocannons fire multiple ganades per round they WILL spread.
And a laser wouldn't be just a burst of light but a continuous stream of several seconds or a serie of of several dozens short pulses with a certain dispersation pattern.

Ps: please excuse bad grammar and spelling its not my primary language.

[metro]

Mechanics of MWO = unknown.

Topic = Speculative.