229 replies to this topic

[Tweaks]

Bridger, on 21 November 2011 - 05:34 AM, said:

Even though this seems like a very explosive thread (hee hee, made myself laugh), I believe that it is worth mentioning that this game is set 1000 years in the future! The reason i point this out is that all these supposed problems you are bringing up are already dealt with in modern times. Tanks, artillery and aircraft all have targeting computers nowadays, and they compensate for all of these problems. No matter how much technology you might lose, as long as you can make giant robots with lasers, you can make simple computers to compensate for parallax, parallel barrels, range and so forth.
It makes more sense that weapon mounts have servos to compensate for such things, rather then being simply bolted on (exception might be main weapons on arms and missile pods) as that is what modern day combat vehicles use.

Even with all the targeting computers, servos and gyros and such to compensate for a tank's movement, the tank's canon STILL has a spread or "cone of fire". If you ask a tank to fire at exactly the same spot 500m away 10 times, I don't believe all the shells will be going through the same hole created by the first shot... it will spread.

Sure all the modern day equipment DO help in making them more accurate on the move despite bumps in terrain and recoil, but it still doesn't make them pin-point accurate.

Anyone who says otherwise needs to give me proof cause I won't believe it until I see it. And as per the BT fluff and the novels, it's still like that a thousand years in the future. They may have been able to get smaller weapons more accurate, but the bigger the guns, the more you're likely to have a bigger cone of fire, especially at longer ranges... And compared to modern day tanks, 'Mech weapons are HUGE!

Edited by Tweaks, 21 November 2011 - 05:44 AM.

[Bridger]

Tweaks, on 21 November 2011 - 05:38 AM, said:

Even with all the targeting computers, servos and gyros and such to compensate for a tank's movement, the tank's canon STILL has a spread or "cone of fire". If you ask a tank to fire at exactly the same spot 500m away 10 times, I don't believe all the shells will be going through the same hole created by the first shot... it will spread.

Sure all the modern day equipment DO help in making them more accurate on the move despite bumps in terrain and recoil, but it still doesn't make them pin-point accurate.

Anyone who says otherwise needs to give me proof cause I won't believe it until I see it. And as per the BT fluff and the novels, it's still like that a thousand years in the future. They may have been able to get smaller weapons more accurate, but the bigger the guns, the more you're likely to have a bigger cone of fire, especially at longer ranges... And compared to modern day tanks, 'Mech weapons are HUGE!

http://videos.howstu...ation-video.htm

secondly, not talking about pin point accuracy, but rather about the thought that 1000 years from now, they can build giant bipedal combat machines, but can't make a system that aligns weapon mounts. The claim/thought that weapons in the 31st century are fixed in their mounts seems ludicrous to me.

As far as this concerns gameplay, there will be (probably) a cone of fire. However, all the suggestions about fixed convergence points seem over the top, as they are simply not "realistic" concerns, as far as the mech pilot is concerned (the computer should account for that)

[Gaius Cavadus]

On random CoFs, the answer is "not really".

Even in older weapon systems like the M2. .50 Cal the weapon spread is close to negligible at longer-than-BattleTech ranges. If that M2 is mounted securely and the gunner is using a T&E (traverse and elevation) it's going to lay down incredibly accurate fire. We're talking about a spread of maybe a single meter at best and that's being very generous.

And do people actually think anti-vehicle canons have 1+ meter weapon spread? I spent seven years in the Cavalry and became pretty intimate with the M3 Bradley CFV. The 20mm bushmaster on there can easily throw rounds through the same holes at 1,000 meters. We're talking a random deviation in mere millimeters.

And the guns only get even more accurate as they get larger. When you get up the 120mm on an Abrams gunners can easily place shots on the same point again and again.

So can there be and is there random deviation? Yes. Is it nearly as large as any of it's proponents think? Absolutely not.

Infine, on 21 November 2011 - 01:36 AM, said:

1) Torso weapons simply CAN NOT be fixed mounted.

Says who? They can be however Piranha wants them to be. In fact, they will be however Piranha wants them to be. There's no specific way they have to "do" anything.

Quote

2) What is the reason to choose a Gauss rifle over an AC-20. No. In fact, what is the reason to choose ANY weapon over a medium laser?

Range and armor penetration for damage on internal modules.

Edited by Cavadus, 21 November 2011 - 07:31 AM.

[Infine]

Bridger, on 21 November 2011 - 06:02 AM, said:

http://videos.howstu...ation-video.htm

secondly, not talking about pin point accuracy, but rather about the thought that 1000 years from now, they can build giant bipedal combat machines, but can't make a system that aligns weapon mounts. The claim/thought that weapons in the 31st century are fixed in their mounts seems ludicrous to me.

1000 years from now they can build giant fusion powered bipedal combat machines that have no clear advantage over small tracked or wheeled or flying combat machines and have usual engagement ranges of about 300m which is a knife fight range for a modern tank.

Every time you try to apply common sense to BT, SJ warship bombs a DC city. Please spare poor civilians.

[Infine]

Cavadus, on 21 November 2011 - 07:26 AM, said:

Says who? They can be however Piranha wants them to be. In fact, they will be however Piranha wants them to be. There's no specific way they have to "do" anything.

Which makes this thread entirely pointless. But since we are already posting in a pointless thread preaching about realism, I tried to bring a new dimension to the discussion - lasers that can't shoot straight versus magical gyros that can hang mechs mid-air.

Cavadus, on 21 November 2011 - 07:26 AM, said:

Range and armor penetration for damage on internal modules.

Wait wait wait. Range? On lasers? So lightsabers again?

[Gunman5000]

Bridger, on 21 November 2011 - 06:02 AM, said:

http://videos.howstu...ation-video.htm

secondly, not talking about pin point accuracy, but rather about the thought that 1000 years from now, they can build giant bipedal combat machines, but can't make a system that aligns weapon mounts. The claim/thought that weapons in the 31st century are fixed in their mounts seems ludicrous to me.

As far as this concerns gameplay, there will be (probably) a cone of fire. However, all the suggestions about fixed convergence points seem over the top, as they are simply not "realistic" concerns, as far as the mech pilot is concerned (the computer should account for that)

That video is pretty sweet, and definately does show current technology is capable of solving most issues in regards to parallel barrels and weapons convergence. However even this system is not 100% accurate, as you clearly stated, which means that Tweak's arguement about there still being a "cone of fire" is still valid. And the same seems to go for most other arguements in this thread.

Back to the OP, the overall concept, idea, and system for a cone of fire WITHOUT a RNG influencing it is very sound and everyone seems to agree that it is the way to go, not necessarily Cavador's exact system, but definately something similar and most importantly without a RNG. I tend to agree that it makes logical sense that, regardless of any canon, fluff, TRO, source book, or novel, a torso mounted weapon in the 31st century would be capable of small adjustments to allow convergence to some degree through computer control. However, it is explicitly stated in the OP (and multiple posts by Cavador later on) that the system is based upon an assumed STATIC mounting. It doesn't say that it is impossible for a weapon to be adjustable, it simply states that this system assumes they are not. Now I could be wrong about this, but I read the whole OP on the basis that it was a proof of concept, not writtent in stone that this is how it is going to be and nothing will change. Disregarding later posts were things seemed to getting slightly personal or at least aggravation was affecting posts, the OP is very well thought out, logically put together and presented in a very intelligent and professional manner. I personally think that a system along the lines of the OP would provide the best mix between "realism" and "fun". The only real change I would suggest, as others have as well, would be to slightly redesign the system in order to take into account the ability of torso weapons and parallel mounted arm weapons to have limited convergence. The degree of movement and the speed at which the adjustments are made can only be fairly determined through playtesting, which if I recall correctly was stated as one of the great things about the F2P model, regardless of how much Beta testing and whatever else is done, if a system simply doesn't work or needs to be tweaked its very easy to do with the F2P model even after its been released.

A final note, couldn't find the actual post quickly in order to quote it but in regards to the MW5 trailer. One its been stated that while the video is definately awesome, it is NOT representative of what MWO will be. So using the video as a basis for saying that it looks like the weapons simply shoot randomly in the general vicinity of the target is already invalid. However, having just watched the video again myself out of curiousity I noticed that a few points are invalid even if the video was representative of MWO. First, the PPC doesn't fire randomly. The Warhammer's targetting reticule is NOT aimed at the head when the PPC strikes the lower right torso. It does appear to be aimed at the head when the arm is removed, but the portion of the arm that is actually hit falls under the circular targetting reticule when it is fired. For the torso hit, the Warhammer was rocking from weapons fire and the reticule passed directly over the lower torso when the shot is fired.
For the Jenner, the weapons do NOT scatter everywhere, yes there is definately a rather large pattern between them, but the each laser on either side fire relatively close to each other and since we can't see the Jenner's actually targetting reticule there is no way to know whether the Jenner was simply trying to lead the moving Warhammer with the second set of lasers or not. On the other hand, the Atlas' medium lasers definately do appear to have a very large spread considering the range they were fired at and the lack of significant weapons fire to cause poor aim.

[Gaius Cavadus]

Infine, on 21 November 2011 - 07:33 AM, said:

Wait wait wait. Range? On lasers? So lightsabers again?

Gauss rifles have a longer range then medium lasers FYI. Considerably longer.

-

Gunman5000, on 21 November 2011 - 07:42 AM, said:

The only real change I would suggest, as others have as well, would be to slightly redesign the system in order to take into account the ability of torso weapons and parallel mounted arm weapons to have limited convergence.

But then we're back to square one with the RNG crowd. I'd rather just have the static torso weapons and all of the spread that implies than a RNG modifier which starts removing elements of actual player skill.

The point of the thread was to propose an alternative to the RNG B.S.. If you start removing elements of the spread for no other purpose to accomodate RNG shot dispersal then there's no merit in my OP at all.

Edited by Cavadus, 21 November 2011 - 07:52 AM.

[Infine]

Cavadus, on 21 November 2011 - 07:45 AM, said:

Gauss rifles have a longer range then medium lasers FYI. Considerably longer.

How will this be reflected under proposed system? What makes effective laser range shorter than effective gauss range?

[Threat Doc]

Okay, I feel a two-poster coming on, hehe...

Riptor, on 20 November 2011 - 09:44 PM, said:

Comparing a hobby to a religion is taking it a bit far imo. And i hope that the fans of BT are not as nutty then the star wars community planning to have "Jedi" as religion.. *shudders*

What?! Where did you hear about this, or are you just foolin' around? As for a hobby being akin to a religion, I bet if you asked the right questions, many tabletop players would tell you through their answers that they are, indeed, religiously devoted to BattleTech. That does NOT mean they worship it as any sort of 'god', but I gave you a generic definition of religious. I eat my breakfast religiously every morning, I watch the NBC and CBS evening news religiously every week night and on Saturdays, I watch BBC News on PBS at 10:25 every night that it's on, and I drink Mountain Dew like it's the only soda-pop on Earth, religiously.

Quote

But whats wrong with wanting a mechwarrior game that is actually mechwarrior? If i want super fast over the top action ill play armored core.. and even there the aiming is not really in the hand of the player but rather dependand on how accurate your ACs FCS is.

Okay, but here's where we get into the problem; the lion's share of Inner Sphere equipment, up to 20 years after GDL finds the memory core, is 200+ years old... how is equipment going to act when it's that old? Like it's brand new, especially if it's not been able to be much more than bubble-gum'd and bailing wired together?

Quote

Also how can piranha claim they are sticking as close as possible to the Lore when such basic things as inacurate FCSs are replaced for modern day action game pendants?

Well, they haven't said they're doing anything of the sort, first of all. Second, we really need to wait and see rather than acting like the proverbial monkeys throwing fecal matter...

(odd English accent)"If you have poo, fling it NOW!"(/odd English accent)

Quote

No matter what system is implemented in the end you cant have pinpoint shooting. There has to be an element of randomness to it.

One, if you're the developer and that's the way you want it to go, then that's how the game is going to be.

feor, on 20 November 2011 - 10:51 PM, said:

Of course we're not planing an actual religion. Peace of Blake be with you.

Quote

I blame all of that on poor implementation in previous iterations of the Mechwarrior games.

(thumbs up!)

Quote

Previous games have all gone the way of "WE WANTS MORE DAKKA!" and basically nerfed heat management into the ground, letting you fire weapons like crazy for big flashy mega firing battles. I hope Piranha takes that particular element of the game to heart and keep heat a serious element of the game. If you want to fire forever without risking shutdown/ammo explosion, the tradeoff will be that you have to mount smaller, low heat weapons.

...and use tactics, real tactics, not get behind X hill and jump-fire until your enemy is dust.

Quote

Also, maybe I missed it, but where did a discussion about a non-random cone of fire mechanic (which I've hardly seen anyone say is a bad idea, at least as far as energy weapons that can expect the kind of "hits where you shoot it" travel needed for it to work) turn into a tabletop vs. videogame argument?

Well, there are tabletop elements to a Cone of Fire, but those folks want Gundam or Robotech for their giant mecha game, they don't want to have to think about this things, just point-and-click their way through boredom. Cone of Fire, if built correctly, could well-replace the system in the tabletop game to the satisfaction of not only myself, but a great many of us on these forums.

[Threat Doc]

Nik Van Rhijn, on 20 November 2011 - 11:16 PM, said:

The thing is that we all know that many of the rules from TT don't translate directly to a PC game.

No you don't, you have the first clue, buddy. Have you ever actually TRIED to implement those rules? Or, are you just parrot'ing what every other dev group has said when THEY DIDN'T TRY?!

Quote

As an example a ML would still do 4 points damage at short range but 3 at medium and 2 at long.

What?! Why? Now you're talking about taking the rules of the TT game and nerfing them for zero good reason. Obviously, as in previous games, the maximum ranges are likely going to be extended to between three and five times the distances given in the board game, if not more, based on what our hosts have designed. Now, the maximum EFFECTIVE range of BattleTech weapons is what's listed; so, beyond those ranges, then we begin reducing the damage potential, how about?

Tweaks, on 21 November 2011 - 05:38 AM, said:

Even with all the targeting computers, servos and gyros and such to compensate for a tank's movement, the tank's canon STILL has a spread or "cone of fire". If you ask a tank to fire at exactly the same spot 500m away 10 times, I don't believe all the shells will be going through the same hole created by the first shot... it will spread.

Ummm... I don't know about that... that's a pretty big hole, hehe.

Quote

Sure all the modern day equipment DO help in making them more accurate on the move despite bumps in terrain and recoil, but it still doesn't make them pin-point accurate.

To fire accurately an M1A1 still has to slow, or stop; can it get in the very general vicinity of its target while moving, yes, but it's most definitely not that accurate, even with all the bells and whistles. I've talked to enough DATs to know.

Quote

And as per the BT fluff and the novels, it's still like that a thousand years in the future.

During the days of the Terran Hegemony and the first Star League, technology goes through the roof, well and beyond anything we can possibly imagine today -according to the fluff-, but centuries of warfare, especially BattleMech warfare, after Stefan Amaris coup against the Cameron's, has brought the technology level back to early 21st century standards. The fact that these remnants, BattleMechs, DropShips, JumpShips, and these other LosTech devices from a far better day are still around is only because they became so numerous that even centuries of unmitigated warfare could not destroy them all. LosTech means the lost ability to build anything new, in many cases, the lost ability to maintain these items to their Star League manufacture, etc. These items are still being built, but only because of pre-built plans and manufacturing capabilities that were NOT destroyed in the Succession Wars, where the manufacturers themselves have a ComStar-like awe cast on them, but not as strong as the communications magnate.

[Gaius Cavadus]

Infine, on 21 November 2011 - 07:51 AM, said:

How will this be reflected under proposed system? What makes effective laser range shorter than effective gauss range?

Lasers in general? You specifically asked why someone would choose a gauss rifle over a medium laser.

Anyways, there's any number of ways to address that question. It'll probably handled by an arbitrary ruleset derived or inspired from the TT in which the gauss rifle has superior range over a medium laser canonically.

Also, some form of Mw4-esque hardpoint system could solve most/all boating issues.

In context of the OP, though, the gauss rifle applies all of it's damage to a single point and would be highly accurate. I showed in the OP what the shot dispersal of the AS7-D's four medium lasers might look like. They did not all impact the same point.

[feor]

Infine, on 21 November 2011 - 07:51 AM, said:

How will this be reflected under proposed system? What makes effective laser range shorter than effective gauss range?

It's called "attenuation", while a laser can, in theory, hit something on the horizon, the entire time it takes to get to the horizon it will be expending some of its energy heating the air it passes through. This will only be made worse if it's also heating any dust or smoke in the air (a common occurrence on the battlefield). Add on top of that that the beam will be focused at a certain point, probably auto-focused on your target by your fire control system, and anything very far outside of that focus point will see damage drop off dramatically, and lasers would have a very definite maximum effective range.

[Infine]

Cavadus, on 21 November 2011 - 07:57 AM, said:

In context of the OP, though, the gauss rifle applies all of it's damage to a single point and would be highly accurate. I showed in the OP what the shot dispersal of the AS7-D's four medium lasers might look like. They did not all impact the same point.

Ok. Imagine there's a mech with a single AC-20 as its main weapon. And a mech with a Gauus as its main weapon. Apart from travel time, what's the point of gauss?

feor, on 21 November 2011 - 08:03 AM, said:

It's called "attenuation", while a laser can, in theory, hit something on the horizon, the entire time it takes to get to the horizon it will be expending some of its energy heating the air it passes through. This will only be made worse if it's also heating any dust or smoke in the air (a common occurrence on the battlefield). Add on top of that that the beam will be focused at a certain point, probably auto-focused on your target by your fire control system, and anything very far outside of that focus point will see damage drop off dramatically, and lasers would have a very definite maximum effective range.

Problem is, BT lore already has a laser that gets reduced damage with range - the variable pulse laser. Well, it's sort of Jihad era but still. Also, lasers by their definition require no focusing.

[Gaius Cavadus]

Infine, on 21 November 2011 - 08:37 AM, said:

Ok. Imagine there's a mech with a single AC-20 as its main weapon. And a mech with a Gauus as its main weapon. Apart from travel time, what's the point of gauss?

Aside from the gauss rifle's massive range superiority it weighs 1 ton less than the AC-20 and carries more ammo per ton.

This is based on the TT statistics for each weapon and obviously Piranha will adjust many of their characteristics during play testing.

[Threat Doc]

Cavadus, on 21 November 2011 - 08:58 AM, said:

This is based on the TT statistics for each weapon and obviously Piranha will adjust many of their characteristics during play testing.

Honestly, that depends on the adjustments and, apart from range, and adjusting extant stats to fit the video game, I really hope they don't mess with the weapons too much, to be honest.

[Infine]

Cavadus, on 21 November 2011 - 08:58 AM, said:

Aside from the gauss rifle's massive range superiority it weighs 1 ton less than the AC-20 and carries more ammo per ton.

This is based on the TT statistics for each weapon and obviously Piranha will adjust many of their characteristics during play testing.

No. What I mean is. If there's no weapon spread. WHAT is weapon range?

[Gaius Cavadus]

Infine, on 21 November 2011 - 09:07 AM, said:

No. What I mean is. If there's no weapon spread. WHAT is weapon range?

Weapon range is the range at which the weapon system in question still applies it's rated maximum damage to the target.

What a lot of us have advocated for, and was eventually modeled in the MaxTech rules for TT, is for the "maximum ranges" to be converted into "maximum effective ranges" with a damage dropoff beyond that until the damage reaches 0. The distance immediately preceding an attack dealing 0 damage would become the "maximum range".

Edit: I feel like you're thinking that "spread" and "range" are synonomous. "Spread" would be the deviation between where an attack actually lands and the location of center pip in the aiming reticle. For instance, if we give the AC-5 a 1 meter "spread" it means the shots from an AC-5 can fall anywhere inside of a circle with a 1 meter radius which uses the reticle's center pip as the cone-of-fire's center.

Edited by Cavadus, 21 November 2011 - 09:18 AM.

[MaddMaxx]

Just force any player, who wishes to have the mech be very accurate with all available weapons, to BUY a TC.

Quote

"The Targeting Computer can be used to help aim all direct fire weapons, including most energy and ballistic weapons. This results in a -1 to-hit modifier for all eligible weapons that tie in, or the ability to aim for a location that is not the head with a +3 to-hit penalty. Clan Targeting Computers weigh one ton and occupy one critical slot for every five tons of equipment they control (rounded up), while a comparable Inner Sphere version weighs one ton and occupies one critical slot for every four tons it controls (also rounded up). Total Warfare updated the rules to specify that pulse lasers and multi-shot firing autocannon cannot aim their fire, unless the affected autocannon are fired in single shot mode. In addition, an LB-X autocannon only receives the benefits if it is firing solid rounds instead of cluster ammunition."

Otherwise a CoF with interior cone spread (as max deviation) be the default.

[Threat Doc]

Cavadus, on 21 November 2011 - 09:11 AM, said:

Weapon range is the range at which the weapon system in question still applies it's rated maximum damage to the target.

LIKE

Quote

Edit: I feel like you're thinking that "spread" and "range" are synonomous. "Spread" would be the deviation between where an attack actually lands and the location of center pip in the aiming reticle. For instance, if we give the AC-5 a 1 meter "spread" it means the shots from an AC-5 can fall anywhere inside of a circle with a 1 meter radius which uses the reticle's center pip as the cone-of-fire's center.

Okay, but at what range does that 1 meter of spread start to become more than one meter of spread, at maximum EFFECTIVE range, or at maximum weapon range? Spread and range are NOT synonymous, but they are sides of the same coin, and spread IS affected by range, and once a weapon is spread too far, it has exceeded it's range and, likely, is laying scattered on the far side of the battlefield.

[Infine]

Cavadus, on 21 November 2011 - 09:11 AM, said:

Edit: I feel like you're thinking that "spread" and "range" are synonomous. "Spread" would be the deviation between where an attack actually lands and the location of center pip in the aiming reticle. For instance, if we give the AC-5 a 1 meter "spread" it means the shots from an AC-5 can fall anywhere inside of a circle with a 1 meter radius which uses the reticle's center pip as the cone-of-fire's center.

No. I think that spread (in degrees, not in meters) is a natural (for kinetic weapons) and effective mean of modelling weapon range. Others being travel time, shell drop and damage reduction with range. The problem is, spread does not make much sense for beam weapons (of which we have lasers - regular and pulse). And lasers are the worst offenders in terms of pinpoint accuracy. What's good in the proposed system if you can just hit an enemy with a single large laser consistently in the same place. How many CT hits with a single large laser does it take for Atlas to go down in tabletop? About 4?