229 replies to this topic

[Halfinax]

Well I've suggested in a number of threads that players should be able to (in the highly unlikely event that my system is implemented) have preset convergence ranges for various firing groups. Fire group 1, all short range weaponry, would have a player set default convergence of say 60 meters, but this can be adjusted by 10 meter increments by the player, and the computer would further adjust that within +/- 5 meters (whatever is appropriate or barring that the player setting), fire group 2 could be say 135 meters, and fire group 3 at 225 meters, and group four could be set at 135 meters. These ranges could be scroll wheel adjusted with every "click" of the wheel accounting for 10 meters. This would be further adjusted by the computer to the nearest 5 meters.

I do realize though that this would be unnecessarily cumbersome to the average player, and would in fact drive many more casual players away than it would attract. Since my suggestion, although a fair middle ground between the pin point and cone of fire crowds (it takes player skill into account while also factoring in the varying convergence ranges of weaponry) would not be enjoyable or manageable to the more casual players.

It would definitely favor more sim style play, but not a broader audience.

In the end this is why I see the more casual friendly Cone of Fire method being the most balanced and player friendly solution.

[simon1812]

SquareSphere, on 18 November 2011 - 12:53 PM, said:

ok this is a pretty bad A$$ argument for a realistic cone of fire that could still remain fun and dependent on player skill.

-this

[Gaius Cavadus]

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

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

Cavadus, on 18 November 2011 - 12:50 PM, said:

I'm going to suppose that torso weapons are 100% fixed and not gymbalized. They possess no independent movement from the torso. Aiming a torso weapon means aiming your torso.

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.

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.

Edited by Cavadus, 18 November 2011 - 09:02 PM.

[Riptor]

Maybe not to you but aparantly to alot of people it does mean something.

[Gaius Cavadus]

Riptor, on 18 November 2011 - 09:03 PM, said:

Maybe not to you but aparantly to alot of people it does mean something.

And I care why?

[Halfinax]

Cavadus, on 18 November 2011 - 09:04 PM, said:

And I care why?

Because that was the entire argument of your OP? I'm not saying your statements are without merit, but they do not fit within any measure of canon, or even balanced gameplay. We are all entitled to our own opinions, and sitting there and being completely obtuse because someone disagrees with your opinion is the antithesis of being open to suggestion.

[Conradiqlous]

I completely agree with Feor. This solution for aiming is perfect for energy weapons which have no recoil and no noticeable effect from gravity. As for the ballistics, those are the weapons I think should receive a cone of fire, because they recoil and are very much effected by gravity. Another cool effect would be as you move your cursor over the maximum range of all weapons, their reticles should disappear from your HUD, to reduce clutter when it's not needed. I also love the idea SquareSphere had to make this an option in your computer that you can turn on when you are feeling particularly pro. XD

I'm going to assume that guided rockets wouldn't receive their own reticle, just the normal one that beeps and turns red and rotates when you have a lock. It would be interesting for the part of the enemy mech that the rockets are locked onto to faintly glow, so you can precisely target the arms, cockpit etc. And for those times when you don't quite get a lock with your LRMs, they should just fly out of the silos in random directions to prevent the "n00b tubing" that happens in other games.

[Riptor]

Quote

And I care why?

And why should people care that you dont care? No seriously.. whats the point in all this "i dont care" business? What do you want to achieve with stating that you dont care?

I mean did anyone of us call the carebears in an attempt to make you care? (i feel so old remembering the care bears all of a sudden T_T)

You posted an idea.. thats fine and dandy.

If you post your ideas and opinions on a public forum you should expect that people will discuss the pro and cons of your idea/opinion

And stating that you dont care isnt going to change the fact that people will have different opinions.

[Gaius Cavadus]

Halfinax, on 18 November 2011 - 09:12 PM, said:

...they do not fit within any measure of canon

Don't care. I've made that very clear.

Quote

or even balanced gameplay.

Says who? You?

Your a TTer purist. You'll never put gameplay ahead of TT devotion. I might as well try to move Mount Everest with a pick axe. Sorry, but I'm not going waste my time trying to convince you of anything. After all, some sourcebook out there said some weapon in some mech is gymbalized. That's all you need to know declare anything invalid.

We're pretty much always going to disagree. I've made my peace with it. I want MWO to rock; you want MegaMek with a cockpit view.

Quote

We are all entitled to our own opinions, and sitting there and being completely obtuse because someone disagrees with your opinion is the antithesis of being open to suggestion.

Clearly a lot more people are intrigued by my proposal then anything you've added to the discussion. I put quite a bit of thought and effort into my OP.

You're regurgitating some fluff out of sourcebook. Excuse me if just don't care

[Halfinax]

Cavadus, on 18 November 2011 - 09:24 PM, said:

Don't care. I've made that very clear. Furthermore clipping my statement to suite personal gain doesn't further your argument. I do believe your argument has merit, but needs some adjustment to work well in balanced gameplay.

As I said being completely closed to suggestion does not help your cause.

Cavadus, on 18 November 2011 - 09:24 PM, said:

Says who? You?

Your a TTer purist. You'll never put gameplay ahead of TT devotion. I might as well try to move Mount Everest with a pick axe. Sorry, but I'm not going waste my time trying to convince you of anything. After all, some sourcebook out there said some weapon in some mech is gymbalized. That's all you need to know declare anything invalid.

My argument directly contradicts that accusation. I don't think the TT rules would convert well directly to a Simulation/FPS style combat game. You are again trying to misconstrue my meaning and intent which seems to be where you and I most commonly butt heads. I've said multiple times that a 1:1 transference of TT rules to the Sim/FPS style gameplay the devs are seeking would not work well.

Cavadus, on 18 November 2011 - 09:24 PM, said:

We're pretty much always going to disagree. I've made my peace with it. I want MWO to rock; you want MegaMek with a cockpit view.

Clearly a lot more people are intrigued by my proposal then anything you've added to the discussion. I put quite a bit of thought and effort into my OP.

You're regurgitating some fluff out of sourcebook. Excuse me if just don't care

You've put out a lot of information based on your opinion. I've only made one thread and it was not based on my opinion of how things should work much less some sense of self superiority. I've not regurgitated anything about fluff, that is your own machination. I've only ever suggested a balance between fluff and what I believe would be balanced gameplay. You seem to only consider my difference of opinion to yours as a denial of the validity of you as a being.

Edit: Misplaced quotation mark.

Edited by Halfinax, 18 November 2011 - 09:38 PM.

[Agent 0 Fortune]

Good post.
I would like to point (as other appear to have) that convergence can be made on any weapon system, even 3 medium lasers in the same arm. They just need to angle each weapon to converge at the desired range. Alternately you could have them all fire parallel but you would only hit with one at longer ranges.

Torso mounted weapons and gimbals

• Each weapon would require a a dedicated gyro for leveling correction when walking, running and being hit.
  
• Convergence of gimbal mounted weapons is not instantaneous, therefore a building, allied mech, tree, street sign, heavy smoke, or anything crossing your line of site could cause a fatal recalibration by the targeting computer.
  
• Arms with have all the actuators and mobility for convergence of their weapons systems at any range, so why would you invest the time and effort in building torso actuators.

Where do you set convergence on torso mounted weapons if you cannot adjust it later?

• You probably don't want them to fire parallel unless you only plan to hit with one weapon. Instead convergence would made at MEDIUM range (yes this also explains why lasers and ballistic weapons lose there effectiveness at certain ranges).
  
• At short range your target is so close that accurate convergence isn't needed, you are essentially hitting the broad side of a barn.
  
• At medium range your weapons are calibrated for convergence (and you could have many convergence points depending on your weapon load out, so a cross hairs for your medium lasers will be a large circle (cone) for small lasers or LRMs.
  
• At long range you are outside of your convergence so now weapons are firing wide in the opposite directions they were short range and weapons don't magically stop, but are just far off target (convergence) that it is impossible to hit.

Points of interest.
A cone of convergence is actually two cones. One wide end at your mech, the other at maximum range. and you would have a targeting reticule (circle) for each range class of weapons that would shrink and grow depending on where your target fell in your cones.
[firing mech] [narrowing cone] [convergence] [widening cone] [maximum range]
][ >< ][

Arms. As I mentioned earlier I believe arms should be able to alter convergence. Mechanically in game this would be as simple as a convergence trigger/button to lock them then hit the fire button. Or to be generous to players arm weapons could automatically track a targeted mech and no convergence modification would be required.

Edited by Agent.0.Fortune, 18 November 2011 - 10:12 PM.

[Halfinax]

Agent.0.Fortune, on 18 November 2011 - 10:10 PM, said:

Arms. As I mentioned earlier I believe arms should be able to alter convergence. Mechanically in game this would be as simple as a convergence trigger/button to lock them then hit the fire button. Or to be generous to players arm weapons could automatically track a targeted mech and no convergence modification would be required.

This fails to factor in Vertical convergence which is just as much of a factor as horizontal convergence. If vertical convergence is set at 150 meteres, but the target is at 75 meters then the veritcal convergence will be off by a factor of 50% both convergences must be considered, and regardless of arm or torso mounted weaponry this is still a factor. For all intents and purposes all weapons must be considered at very least semi-turreted and therefore either have a player set convergence range, or be computer assisted (a cone of fire) level of divergence.

[guardiandashi]

realistically all battletech weapons are mounted so they have realtime adjustable convergance managed by the targeting computer of the battlemech

thats right the weapons are actually AIMED and controlled by the mechs computer NOT the pilot. the pilot tells the computer where they want the weapons to fire and the computer makes a "best effort attempt" to do what the pilot told it to do.

[Riptor]

Quote

realistically all battletech weapons are mounted so they have realtime adjustable convergance managed by the targeting computer of the battlemech

thats right the weapons are actually AIMED and controlled by the mechs computer NOT the pilot. the pilot tells the computer where they want the weapons to fire and the computer makes a "best effort attempt" to do what the pilot told it to do.

amen to that.. thats how its described in the lore about how battlemechs function.

Thing is we dont know if the Devs will stick to the lore or to the PC games that came before it.. i would rather have the first one personaly.

[Agent 0 Fortune]

Halfinax, on 18 November 2011 - 10:17 PM, said:

This fails to factor in Vertical convergence which is just as much of a factor as horizontal convergence. If vertical convergence is set at 150 meteres, but the target is at 75 meters then the veritcal convergence will be off by a factor of 50% both convergences must be considered, and regardless of arm or torso mounted weaponry this is still a factor. For all intents and purposes all weapons must be considered at very least semi-turreted and therefore either have a player set convergence range, or be computer assisted (a cone of fire) level of divergence.

I like to think this is built into the cone concept. Your opponent is dissecting your cone at a give range creating a circle which is your targeting reticle for that weapon system, and yes that circle could include areas outside of the opponents mech, mean you do have a chance to miss.

However I think you and I are talking about different mechanisms. I am considering fixed point weapons, no turret. Your are suggesting turret or gimbal mounted weapons that can be dynamically adjusted in combat, in which case the biggest issue is: Does the turrent automatically converge, and how does it converge. Consider the following options:

• Converge on target (assuming you can target a mech and use tab targeting etc)
  
• The crosshairs which could slip off the mech as it manuvers converging your weapons on a building (which brings up the question of how long does it take those mini-turrents to re-converge, much like a digital camera attempting to auto focus)
  
• manual convergences where you either manually set a convergence range, or "click-convererge" meaning what ever is under your crosshairs sets your convergence range.

guardiandashi, on 18 November 2011 - 10:20 PM, said:

realistically all battletech weapons are mounted so they have realtime adjustable convergance managed by the targeting computer of the battlemech

thats right the weapons are actually AIMED and controlled by the mechs computer NOT the pilot. the pilot tells the computer where they want the weapons to fire and the computer makes a "best effort attempt" to do what the pilot told it to do.

Computers are notoriously bad at picking targets, and identifying profiles. You could say they are a lot better in the future, however if that were the case why would gunnery skill be so important (oops showing my tabletop background). This also brings up an issue I mentioned above, how long does it take for your weapons systems to rotate to the target? If you start alt-tabbing through a target list do you weapons systems automatically and instantaneously converge on that target, OR does it take time for the turret to tracking, I can see a it taking a while to line up that 14 ton AC 20 to a new mech as you switch targets.

Edited by Agent.0.Fortune, 18 November 2011 - 10:50 PM.

[Bear Shaman]

Ach! Lasted two whole pages before the TT vs. MW argument, and I was so hopeful. Whatever. I'm going to play it anyways, guys. Whether the devs go with a suggestion similar to Cavadus' in the interest of more visceral play or adhere to the lore for purely cerebral play, it'll be a good game. Have a little faith.

[Halfinax]

Agent.0.Fortune, on 18 November 2011 - 10:46 PM, said:

I like to think this is built into the cone concept. Your opponent is dissecting your cone at a give range creating a circle which is your targeting reticle for that weapon system, and yes that circle could include areas outside of the opponents mech, mean you do have a chance to miss.

However I think you and I are talking about different mechanisms. I am considering fixed point weapons, no turret. Your are suggesting turret or gimbal mounted weapons that can be dynamically adjusted in combat, in which case the biggest issue is: Does the turrent automatically converge, and how does it converge. Consider the following options:

• Converge on target (assuming you can target a mech and use tab targeting etc)
  
• The crosshairs which could slip off the mech as it manuvers converging your weapons on a building (which brings up the question of how long does it take those mini-turrents to re-converge, much like a digital camera attempting to auto focus)
  
• manual convergences where you either manually set a convergence range, or "click-convererge" meaning what ever is under your crosshairs sets your convergence range.

Computers are notoriously bad at picking targets, and identifying profiles. You could say they are a lot better in the future, however if that were the case why would gunnery skill be so important (oops showing my tabletop background). This also brings up an issue I mentioned above, how long does it take for your weapons systems to rotate to the target? If you start alt-tabbing through a target list do you weapons systems automatically and instantaneously converge on that target, OR does it take time for the turret to tracking, I can see a it taking a while to line up that 14 ton AC 20 to a new mech as you switch targets.

I'm not sure if you are trying to argue the validity of my point or not, because you are saying exactly what I said just with more words. The only deviation seems to be that I suggested a middle ground of player set convergence ranges instead of a pure Cone of Fire system. I however said multiple times that since my suggested (player set convergence range) would be too complex for most players that the CoF system is the only viable system to use in a MMO type environment.

[Agent 0 Fortune]

I will be happy to retract/edit my last post if Gunnery skill does not exist in the game.
Gunnery skill is a throwback to the tabletop game, and if it isn't in MechWarriorOnline, that one can assume that your targeting computer is doing all the math behind the scene.

However it does not define how (and if) cones of fire and RNG should be applied, only that mundane things like convergence is handled by the targeting computer, which would ultimately mean that you weapons would automatically have the optimal cone at any given range.

[Halfinax]

RNG aren't exactly the same thing. Cone of Fire allows for a middle ground deviation from where the center of the reticule is pointed, but RNG would be within a randomly determined deviation based on where the reticule is pointed. I know this sounds like a very similar method, but RNG would suggest that X is a completely random number within an algorithm, but a Cone of fire says that X must be within a specified quantity of Y in order for it to be considered.

That simple distinction means a vast difference between the two schools of thought. If X = random then X has an infinite quantity, but if X + 10 = Y (where Y has a finite value) +/- 5 then then the value of X has a very finite value as determined by the value of Y.

Edited by Halfinax, 18 November 2011 - 11:06 PM.

[Agent 0 Fortune]

Halfinax, on 18 November 2011 - 10:55 PM, said:

I'm not sure if you are trying to argue the validity of my point or not, because you are saying exactly what I said just with more words. The only deviation seems to be that I suggested a middle ground of player set convergence ranges instead of a pure Cone of Fire system. I however said multiple times that since my suggested (player set convergence range) would be too complex for most players that the CoF system is the only viable system to use in a MMO type environment.

I think it was more of a misunderstanding. But I think I know where you are coming from now, having to 'dope your scope' setting the horizontal and vertical (+drop) to your target. Which may be more complex than most casual gamers want, but I think could be fit into the game.
Initially I was suggesting.

• NO turrets. convergence is factory set, no adjustment outside of a mech lab.
  
• Point and Click convergence, where you set your range finder on a target (likely another mech) and the computer zeros the convergence

I think your suggestion has merit, although it may steer more players to a role other than Fire Support, something where they can just get into short range and not worry about it, swear off shooting completely and go scout. But that may be a good way to help define roles.