229 replies to this topic

[Blackfire1]

If people alpha strike... they are going to shut down fast. Making them an easy target.

[Torban]

I completely agree with everything in the op and hope the game itself will resemble this. An extremely detailed and well thought out post deserving of much respect and consideration.

[Jost]

Blackfire1, on 19 June 2012 - 07:53 AM, said:

If people alpha strike... they are going to shut down fast. Making them an easy target.

Yes. But if you're dead, you can't shoot back. For that type, it doesn't matter if they get killed immediately after: that's a K/D of 1/1.

[Monky]

I'm a fan of everything except the movement sway. This game's targetting is complicated enough by different weapon types, travel times, multiple reticles, etc. Adding in movement sway is probably best as a last resort, and even then it should be slight.

[SilentWolff]

Well OP, nice that you put alot of work into that post, but sadly I'm afraid the answer is still a resounding "No"

[Hikaru]

Why was this bumped?

To counter the OP: lasers can be guided with mirrors and lenses, non issue. Swaying arms can easily be stabilized with gyros/computers. The only thing that pretty much can't be rapidly aimed is a non-gyro torso-mounted projectile weapon, like a center torso AC/5. But then you could make the argument, hey, since it's torso mounted, how can u ever fire up a hill or down a mountainside, since you can't really control that angle well, since the knees only articular so much, and the waist not at all, etc...

At the end, actual gameplay and user experience trumps armchair physics.

[Frostiken]

OP is ******* brilliant.

Complicated, but a brilliant solution to a long-standing Mechwarrior problem.

[Alfred VonGunn]

Cool looking except that they have can easily have them designed to converge at almost any range with very slight tweeks either to their stationary design. Or they could have adjustable stabilizers in them linker to fire control that re-aligns them to get a tighter pattern. This seems to be what the Devs have in mind based on their comments about convergence,,,

THink about WWII fighters. Their guns where mounted parallel yet adjusted to converge at a range decided on by the pilot(based on the way he flew and shot.. Granted this was a single adjustment made while on the ground for only a single range.. But in MW we are talking about tech over 1000 years newer with computers and everything:)

[Grimjax]

Seeing that this game is based in the future, convergence will be mostly handled by the Mech's basic targeting system. Also there are modern military vehilcles where all the weapon's convergence are adjusted by a targeting computer (built with rangefinders). Why would you fix mount a weapon when you could easily mount a gimbal or turreted system, again look at modern planes, helecopters, ships, and tanks.

K.I.S.S. let the mech's targeting computer handle that kind of work.

Now the CoF works fine for lasers but not for ammo driven weapons (too many variables to be that accurate).

Like your diagrams but feel this is way beyond a F2P game model and programming. They might tweak some of this later, but if you want to see the game online in the next 2 months, it's not going to happen anytime soon.

Nice idea though...

Edited by Grimjax, 20 June 2012 - 02:47 PM.

[TekGnosis]

I applaud the OP for a fine effort; however fundamentally disagree that weapons mounted in torsos cannot converge; which unfortunately breaks his structure.

This is because of the presence of myomer technology in the canon, which overcomes the response time and load limits of servos. Arc of said convergence would be low, but speed wouldn't be an issue; and you're only trying to correct a couple radians at most ranges. Yes, this slightly breaks down sub-90m or so for very large weapons; however this is a computer game and that deviance from reality is likely a small sacrifice for avoiding a complex game mechanic that would confuse the 70% or so of players wearing their baseball caps on backwards indoors shouting 'brah' at the screen. They have money too, ok?

Despite BT being a 'lostech' world; Battlemechs are still a field being innovated within during the entire span of canon. Lostech factories produce myomer, foamed ablative armor alloy, and neural helmet based feedback systems that allow balance to be brain-reaction derived; but engineers are pretty free to innovate WITH those technologies should their world have access to such a factory. Why they chose some of the canon design loadouts can only be attributed to committee politicking and not the engineers crying in their beer seeing their epic chassis sent to the field with LL and srm2 because some contract was signed. 'But they can't DO that' isn't valid for me, sorry.

Regarding a specific piece of the OP supposition, I agree and +10 the mech movement based 'sway' mechanic and have considered posting something similar. The weapons on mechs are attached to fast reacting rubber bands; and a 30m tall machine taking 10m strides adds some hardcore vectors to be compensated for. I'd guess 80% of it is mitigated by the same system that keeps the mech balanced, and keeps the weapons gyro/myomer control systems pointed within a few degrees of where you want... but it can't be perfect. Linking this to actual impulses of stride/impact adds something that can be held to player skill to overcome. Also, it makes the stride of each unique mech something to be learned by feel as a gunner.

[kaadu]

Amazing post. Hopefully somthing like this is implemented to stop players dropping 10 medium lasers on your center torso with one mouse click.

[Kalimni]

Okay, only read the OP. Agree with the principals, but I would like to add one thing. If you look at a typical aircraft with weapons, the guns, while fixed, do have a convergence point. Basically, the guns are set up with laser optics, and the aircraft is positioned in a fixed location. The guns are then adjusted until the lasers line up with the desired convergence range.

I think convergence for weapons on an individual arm, or the torso could be hard set in the lab to converge at a specific distance, adjustable by the player. So, first set of example pics, the PPCs may converge at 500m, the 3 lasers at 300m, and the torso mounted weapons at 700m (just random values.) Convergence values would be fixed while in battle, but could then be tweaked in the lab.

[Fachxphyre]

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.

As long as we're abandoning fluff, and sticking to strictly logical arguments, let's do this correctly. Show me a logical reason for your premise that any of the weapons would be mounted in such a manner as to be perfectly parallel to one another. Even in WWII, fighters such as the P-51 Mustang were armed with fixed position machine guns on the wings, but they were calibrated so the fire converged at a set range (300m for the standard 6 .50 cal on the wings). What conceivable reason would you suggest for not having a preset convergence for any given grouping of weapons?

My suggestion would be to implement a set convergence range for any given weapon grouping. Mechwarriors could choose to set this range at the maximum range of the weapons, or closer if they so desired (effectively choosing a zero for the weapon group). This would hopefully eliminate some of the whining from those who complain about advanced weapons systems actually striking the point of aim.

As for the point of aim, If the programmers see fit to incorporate reticle sway while under motion or taking fire, I would wholeheartedly agree with the thought that this should have a corresponding effect on the direction of shots fired. That being said I detest the thought that some random number generator is going to decide for me where my essentially linear beam of coherent energy is being directed. This removes the skill and timing of the player from the equation, and turns it into another mindless clickfest where putting a larger number of shots down-range will tend to lead to victory. If you want to combat boating, this is not the way folks.

Derp, this is what happens when you skip five pages of posts, ninja'd by hours XD. The point stands though.

Edited by Fachxphyre, 21 June 2012 - 07:27 PM.

[Alfred VonGunn]

Angelicon, on 19 June 2012 - 07:09 AM, said:

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.

Yes and no... MIssles Damage will be spread all over teh mech not in a single spot like MW4, Same for LBXs.. Lasers are time to damage weapons so if he and you are both moving that damage will be across 2 or 3 sections or some will miss(as will some missles)... Only weapons that are likely to do all their damage in a single armor section are ACs,PPCs, and Gauss.... Alpha Strikes will still hurt. But they shouldn;t be the be all end all there were in some other games..

[Stormeris]

If pgi havent added it yet...they should

[JHare]

The OP posted something similar to thoughts I've had in the past. The difference is this guy laid it out coherently and thoroughly. I'd back this aiming system completely.

[Wendigo Vendetta]

Yes, we definately need this! With one important exception... STOP SHOOTING MY ZEUS!

[Stormeris]

Wendigo Vendetta, on 24 June 2012 - 12:17 PM, said:

Yes, we definately need this! With one important exception... STOP SHOOTING MY ZEUS!

Hell yeah, shoot the Urbanmech or a LAM, maybe the hoplite ;D

[Weatherman]

Very well done!

[Hawker]

Your essay is pretty good OP, and since I was a Fire Controlman in the Navy, I am pretty familar with the gun fire control problem, and it is far more complex than what you have shown, however, I really fail to see why this would need to be implemented in the game. It is a game, not a realistic simulator to predict your survival rates in real world scenarios. Good overview though.