229 replies to this topic

[NetRDR]

simply put if i am driving a 100 ton futuristic war machine, that is not capable of putting every weapon on target whether that be using advanced focusing or targeting gear, when today's modern war machines can put every weapon in there arsenal on target to within a few sq feet of a target, then something is very wrong!!!

fair enough u have lost tech etc etc but u cant tell me that 1000 years from now there computers are going to be less smart then the latest iPhone with its G.P.S chip

as for keeping the game fun well yea u have to or u don't make money, that being said for this game id like the accuracy/cone of fire to be automatic handled otherwise its going to be more mechsim and less mechwarrior, e.g if my left arm is the only thing with a clear shot when i hit the trigger i want only it to fire unless i have overridden the controls.

[Iron Horse]

NetRDR, on 26 November 2011 - 06:51 PM, said:

simply put if i am driving a 100 ton futuristic war machine, that is not capable of putting every weapon on target whether that be using advanced focusing or targeting gear, when today's modern war machines can put every weapon in there arsenal on target to within a few sq feet of a target, then something is very wrong!!!

fair enough u have lost tech etc etc but u cant tell me that 1000 years from now there computers are going to be less smart then the latest iPhone with its G.P.S chip

as for keeping the game fun well yea u have to or u don't make money, that being said for this game id like the accuracy/cone of fire to be automatic handled otherwise its going to be more mechsim and less mechwarrior, e.g if my left arm is the only thing with a clear shot when i hit the trigger i want only it to fire unless i have overridden the controls.

Basically the premise is that the universe has been at war for so long that people have lost much ability to create and maintain weapons. This plus the preponderance of electronic counter-measures' "battlefield noise" creates the seemingly lower-tech effect.

I also like the idea of a "moderate" cone-of-fire effect. This will probably be necessary as PGI has mentioned that they want a semi-RPG sort of Pilot Progression system (like Pilot Skill in TTBT).

Edited by Iron Horse, 26 November 2011 - 08:00 PM.

[SL33TBL1ND]

This is actually a really cool idea, and if it was included in the interface as well as the actual game mechanics it would work really well.

[Yeti Fiasco]

I agree with the OP 100%, everything in canon states that weapons should not and could not ever be 100% accurate, the problem of legging/heading/coring in every other mechwarrior game can be boiled down to weapons being hitscan accurate, this was originally done in the earlier games due to technical limitations and was just repeated in the later ones because that had become the "done thing", hence why lasers have always been the "go to" weapon.

[Kanatta Jing]

But still, them some cool graphs on that OP post.

[TheWorstRobot]

Cavadus, on 20 November 2011 - 02:51 PM, said:

We should include aliens because there were some in the novel Far Country.

I agree with this post.

[GreatBeer]

This is an old post but its definitely a good one.

[Grokmoo]

I'm hopeful the implementation in game is very similar to what you have described.

[Argon3]

Its a game
The guns in torso have small actuators that adjust for the range
Sometimes not as well which coud be a miss

Happy now


And for some other posts

Lostech improves things because it shows how to MAKE chips or weapons that make such improvement
People can still make lasers but range was lost (standard vs ER)
Size stays the same because you can put more into the same package
Double heat sinks
Twice as much in the same package
In the TT LRMs are just rockets not missles
Missles are guided
Rockets are not

In one of the GDL books
they foun a starleague cache
it was not the mechs that where the true gold but the memory core they could copy
Lostech info

Edited by Argon3, 18 June 2012 - 08:49 AM.

[TKG]

this is incredibly well thought out and well illustrated. Good work I hope the devs are looking at it.

[Kael Tropheus]

Rather than go through the entire thread as this might have been covered already but:
In the case of the three arm pulse lasers, dont you think the engineer/designers would have taken that into account and simply mounted them to converge in the first place inside the arms. I know even modern day weapons systems in armored vehicles have to be zero'd to the targetting reticule. As for hull weapons, they arent going to fire dead ahead, there will be small motors that can do minor aiming and they will obviously converge to each other. I would bring the designer outside and shoot them if they made a retarded weapons system like that that did not converge on each other automatically. We arent talking big movement here. Just a few mils would have them locked on whatever target you pointed at. I wouldnt mind seeing a tiny delay for this to happen so they could converge on a target despite range.

LRMs are guided a little. MRMs when they come out are just dumb rockets you point in a direction and just fire.

Edited by Kael Tropheus, 18 June 2012 - 11:04 AM.

[Arbalister]

Cavadus, on 18 November 2011 - 01:51 PM, said:

I explicitly stated in the OP: Frankly, I don't care about any fluff made up in regards to gymbalization of torso weapons and I find the concept detrimental to gameplay.

Just a point about this - while your concept is interesting, the choice to assume that the torso weapons, or in fact any weapons, are fixed aim is probably the "fluff" of which you speak. Even with WWII technology gimbal mounts for weapons were routine. It's fact, not fluff. Using focal lenses for lasers is technology that exists today - so it's not that far fetched that, as in your example, the 3 laser grouping in one arm could be non-parallel and adjustable.

Just saying. :-)

[Worrlock]

CoF ftw.

[GHQCommander]

Nice post.

Always good to see people taking it as far as it can go especially with images. I'm guilty of not posting any images right now, heads all over the place with work, web dev, so I get enough of it.

Impressed A+ for your effort and understanding.

[Cerlin]

Posting in support of this very interesting topic. It directly brings into question previous games pinpoint firing in a very logical way AND provides a solution.

+1

[Reaver 1 1]

Your Data on the Atlas is wrong...

Reminds me of the time I.......http://youtu.be/wUZxSf_P2r0

Edited by Reaver 1 1, 18 June 2012 - 03:55 PM.

[RG Notch]

A well thought out post that sadly won't make any difference. This is an F2P game aimed at a mass audience, not a hard core sim aimed at people who care about these things. Not saying that's a good idea, just saying it is what it is. the devs themselves have said they want mass appeal, hard core mechanics like this are just what turns off a lot of people. Would the game be better if they were turned away, it doesn't matter because with out them they're be no game. So continue you discussion for the sake of discussion but realize where the money is.

[Chal]

I will give you the "Parallel Barrels" target solution theory for alpha strikes only. First, cone of fire is used for a descriptor verse single point weapons verse a group of weapons.

Your argument is that Parallel Barrels have a "cone of fire", they in fact do not, they have a seperate weapon resolution for each weapon, if you were going to use you very long winded argument on how cone of firee affects an alpha strike, i would read it as it is, i cant agree on 99% of what you do not know about weapon systems, both real and imagined.

I will break it down for you. I am retired military. i work/have worked on some of the most sophisticated weapon systems around as both mechanic and consultant in both military and civilian gs mode, that is 25 years plus and growing.

For arguments sake we will not discuss an alpha strike as it relates to a cone of fire, or weapon and target solution as everyone should know that firing everything at once with limit firing solutions, ie:read, not cone of fire.

A cone of fire is the imaginary limit in a vertical and horizontal movement solution for a particular weapon system and its particular ammunition type, be it energy or ballistic (shotgun type or rifle).

The OP states that the Parallel Barrels would leave the solution hit areas as the OP so colorfully put them, they would not. We are not discussing alpha strikes at which point the OP would have a great argument instead we are discussing targetting and weapon resolution (firing solutions) .

Weapons are not fired in alpha strikes all the time as most nooblets want to do and try and get a quick kill, instead weapon systems are grouped in varying stagger to prevent overheating and the problem the oP was trying to argue.

The common sense approach for a multi barrell laser is the stagger of the firing resolution on target, meaning each time a laser is fired the arm is adjusted minutely and the next laser fires on target, not a hard thing to do as all the targeting system is doing is firing at a point in space, it does not know it is hitting another mech. Real targeting systems function this way. M1A2 SEP for instance have three point fire weapon systems, the .50 cal is usually independant of the coax and main gun which are slaved together (coax is mounted to the side of the main gun giving the Parallel Barrel example. All are boresighted individually and they all have their own firing solution, but when toggled they WILL hit the same point on any target, the way they are made to, no matter how fast they fire.

Using the OP's argument of the tribarrel, unless it alpha stikes or the user has it setup to constantly fire in a group, each weapon system will fire and adjust, meaning the arm will minutely adjust to fire on the same point in space for each fixed barrel in that arm.

Now for stabiliazation. the OP and his arguments are wrong. A stabilized weapon platform will automatically adjust to the pilots targeting a point in space and the barrel will not move off of it, regardless of mech movement, this includes tracking. Gunners in the USA of any weapon system train with SNAKE boards, those in the military will understand what these are and what they are for. We will use the Atlas and its fixed railgun in the torso. the legs and torso swivel act in concert to keep this point fire system on target with the reticles point in space, if that gun were mounted in a leg or the legs were stiff and solid then the OP and his pretty curves would make sense, as it is that is not the way a stabilized wepon platform works, in real life or fantasy.

Modern weapon systems induce automatic lead, meaning as a gunner tracks a target, the computer is automatically moving the reticle to compensate for turning or standing still and simply tracking a fast moving target. The bad part about this is if a fast moving target suddenly stops, that lead is still induced and if the gunner fires at that moment the shot/s will go way wide in the direction of travel. this is why real life gunners let go of the palm grip (not the handle) dump the hydraulics and the current firing solution, relaze and fire, this can be done by a well trained tank gunner/commander in an eye blink though it sounds complicated, it is not.

As for the game and FIXED parallel point fire weapons if you group a single arm together to fire at once yes you will see what the op described in regards to a target resolution, but grouping like this is simply alpha striking small weapon groups and not smart in a heat management view.

Edited by Chal, 18 June 2012 - 05:13 PM.

[AlanEsh]

Chal, on 18 June 2012 - 05:11 PM, said:

wall of overcomplicated real life™ stuff

a ) People are going to alpha strike in this game. When they do, it will HURT if everything is pointing at the precise aim point of their mouse. So you get a heat spike, big deal, your target is dead.
b ) Battletech targeting computers aren't as good as today's, read canon sources, mechwarriors have to "struggle to stay on target" while moving, ducking, firing.

I'm for each weapon location on a mech having its own aiming circle, each of which try to follow the aiming pip around as you move your mouse. If you're stationary, this is trivial. If your target is moving, this becomes a bit harder for your targeting system. If both you and your target are running/jumping/etc, the aiming circles should have a very tough time staying on your aiming pip.

This is a game and it needs game-friendly solutions, not ultra-real-21st century whizzbang everything hits in a perfect world.

/edit -- dang smileys.

Edited by Angelicon, 19 June 2012 - 07:10 AM.

[SideSt3p]

OK. I didn't read the whole thing, but this is awesome. Good work man!