I'd suggest that missile convergence would be separate from both ballistic and energy based convergence. Missile based convergence should be as the Devs have suggested of more a semi guided weaponry. AKA the missiles all independently attempt to track the the initial locked on target, but do not take into account intermediate objects (this is purely my interpretation of what the devs meant). I'd also like to see indirect fire support in which my missiles can target a general area (area of effect) rather than a specific 'Mech.
12
On Cones of Fire Without RNG Nonsense
Started by Gaius Cavadus, Nov 18 2011 12:50 PM
229 replies to this topic
#62
-
-
- 213 posts
Member
Posted 18 November 2011 - 11:27 PM
It's a bit down the line, but I'd be awfully sad if everytime I fired my Fafnir's Heavy Gauss Rifles I blew the arms off a light 'mech, Or if it could just stand between the shots and watch them harmlessly whizz by.
Other than that, this is one of the more elegant ideas I've seen for cone of fire, and am not wholly against it. Beats the hell out of only being able to hit anything reliably if you're stationary.
Other than that, this is one of the more elegant ideas I've seen for cone of fire, and am not wholly against it. Beats the hell out of only being able to hit anything reliably if you're stationary.
#63
-
-
- The Bowman
- 3,715 posts
Member
- LocationO'Shaughnnessy MMW Base, Devon Continent, Rochester, FedCom
Posted 19 November 2011 - 07:27 AM
Cavadus, you've done a really good thing here, and you sold ME, a severe BattleTech purist, on the technique of Cone of Fire you want. Don't mar your excellent and obviously well-thought works by getting angry about alternate opinions, alright? Opinions are like noses, everyone has one, or more, and they all smell. Relax, you did good.
#64
-
-
- Veteran Founder
- 1,043 posts
Member
Posted 19 November 2011 - 07:39 AM
Take a look at the MW5 trailer
Even there the Torso weapons of the atlas fire at seemingly random points... two of the beams fired heading downwards right while a third one downwards left... all fired from the same position of the atlasses torso.
So theres a high chance that in the game torso weapons will also have some room to move their aiming.
Also that jenner couldnt even converge his arms to hit the same location on the warhammer.. again hitting seemingly at random.
Also notice how the Warhammer keeps his reticule on the HEAD of the atlas but randomly hits his left arm and then his lower torso with his PPCs?
Thats everything but "i shoot where i am pointing at"
Why do i bring up the trailer? Because its a pretty epic trailer and the fighting is intense and interesting and not "atlas comes around corner and one shots the warhammer landing all hits in the same place"
Even there the Torso weapons of the atlas fire at seemingly random points... two of the beams fired heading downwards right while a third one downwards left... all fired from the same position of the atlasses torso.
So theres a high chance that in the game torso weapons will also have some room to move their aiming.
Also that jenner couldnt even converge his arms to hit the same location on the warhammer.. again hitting seemingly at random.
Also notice how the Warhammer keeps his reticule on the HEAD of the atlas but randomly hits his left arm and then his lower torso with his PPCs?
Thats everything but "i shoot where i am pointing at"
Why do i bring up the trailer? Because its a pretty epic trailer and the fighting is intense and interesting and not "atlas comes around corner and one shots the warhammer landing all hits in the same place"
Edited by Riptor, 19 November 2011 - 07:48 AM.
#65
-
-
- The Bowman
- 3,715 posts
Member
- LocationO'Shaughnnessy MMW Base, Devon Continent, Rochester, FedCom
Posted 19 November 2011 - 08:32 AM
Riptor, that's a complete matter of perception. I've watched that trailer a dozen or more times, and the torso weapons don't move at all.
#66
-
-
- The Spear
- 404 posts
Member
- LocationNova Roma, Alphard
Posted 20 November 2011 - 02:51 PM
Kay Wolf, on 19 November 2011 - 07:27 AM, said:
Don't mar your excellent and obviously well-thought works by getting angry about alternate opinions, alright?
I'm certainly not going to get upset of other people's opinions; I just have no respect for them if their only basis is completely irrational devotion to fluff text out of a sourcebook.
It's meaningless to me. It's like saying we should include aliens because there were some in the novel Far Country.
#67
-
-
- Veteran Founder
- 1,043 posts
Member
Posted 20 November 2011 - 02:59 PM
Quote
The reason everyone's shots are going wide in that trailer were because their shots were knocking each other's torsos around.
Uhm.. come again?
No one was firing on the jenner when his lasers went scatterific...
And the atlas was under fire by the warhammers MGs when he fired his medium lasers that went into different directions.
The only shot that went haywire was that one PPC shot from the warhammer when the AC/20 of the atlas landed a hit on the warhammers shoulder, after he hit his hip and lower torso.
Also the atlas wasnt shaking at all during that. The only times the atlas was influenced by the warhammer was when he shot the atlas arm off and when he landed that hit in the lower right torso possibly taking the AC off the atlas. Those shots werent aimed either cause the reticule allways was on the atlasses head.
Quote
Riptor, that's a complete matter of perception. I've watched that trailer a dozen or more times, and the torso weapons don't move at all
So it was entirely my perseption that the three medium lasers in the atlasses middle torso shot at three entirely different positions and did not infact focus on one point?
Or the jenners lasers that fired in different directions and didnt hit the same point? I think that has nothing to do with my personal perception but what was actually shown in the trailer.
Either they hit the same point and converge or they dont and scatter..
Now they might not have moved but they sure as hell shot into different directions and to do that they have to have some spiel in their aiming... or else that Atlas should look for some new Techs because they know jack **** about weapons calibration.
Edited by Riptor, 20 November 2011 - 03:07 PM.
#68
-
-
- 2,299 posts
Member
Posted 20 November 2011 - 03:16 PM
Cavadus, on 18 November 2011 - 12:50 PM, said:
This is one of the largest topics of debate on the forum but what's generally missing from the dicussions are visual aids which quickly and easily demonstrate logical weapon spread concepts.
I have created the (crappy) arts needed to demonstrate a few principles. Let's jump right in.
►Parallel Barrels
This is an issue that is invariably overlooked. Parallel barrels are the barrels of multiple direct fire weapons which cannot converge with one another because they are either mounted in the torso, in which weapons cannot pivot or adjust their aim outside of orienting the entire torso, or are mounted next to one another in the same arm.
Here's a quick demonstration using the arms of a Nova Cat.
http://47th.info/images/mwo/ncla.jpg
The Nova Cat's left arm is a triple grouping of medium pulse lasers. Since they are all located in the same section the lasers can never converge to hit the exact same point. The barrels are parallel to one another. Parallel things can never intersect which means the lasers can never occupy the same points while traveling.
Firing all medium pulse lasers in a group would leave a hit pattern as illustrated above.
Now, the right arm:
http://47th.info/images/mwo/ncra.jpg
The right arm demonstrates the same concept. The two PPCs are mounted parallel to one another and can never intersect to hit the same point in space.
I have created the (crappy) arts needed to demonstrate a few principles. Let's jump right in.
►Parallel Barrels
This is an issue that is invariably overlooked. Parallel barrels are the barrels of multiple direct fire weapons which cannot converge with one another because they are either mounted in the torso, in which weapons cannot pivot or adjust their aim outside of orienting the entire torso, or are mounted next to one another in the same arm.
Here's a quick demonstration using the arms of a Nova Cat.
http://47th.info/images/mwo/ncla.jpg
The Nova Cat's left arm is a triple grouping of medium pulse lasers. Since they are all located in the same section the lasers can never converge to hit the exact same point. The barrels are parallel to one another. Parallel things can never intersect which means the lasers can never occupy the same points while traveling.
Firing all medium pulse lasers in a group would leave a hit pattern as illustrated above.
Now, the right arm:
http://47th.info/images/mwo/ncra.jpg
The right arm demonstrates the same concept. The two PPCs are mounted parallel to one another and can never intersect to hit the same point in space.
How do we decide what artwork to go by as a standard for barrel mounting, and how do we decide how to place what barrels where on modified mechs?
Is there any non-subjective standard?
Quote
▼Convergence
Convergence is simply collapsing trajectories so that they overlap onto a target. The Nova Cat has it's weapons in the arms. Arms are very dexterous.
If you look at the two shot groupings above it's not hard to imagine what it would look like if the Nova Cat was targeting a mech for an alpha strike. The two shot groupings would be overlaid onto one another for a composite shot group. It would look like this:
http://47th.info/images/mwo/ncba.jpg
The shot groupings for each individual arm can never change. The space between the points where the weapons strike is the same amount of space between the barrels the weapon's fire is leaving. For instance, if the two PPC barrels in the Nova Cat's right arm are separated by 1 meter then the two PPCs will always strike a target in two locations 1 meter apart from one another and in the same geometric pattern.
The above composite shot grouping demonstrates that arms, because they are independent from one another and dexterous, possess the ability to dynamically converge their weapons' fire trajectories for overlapping fire. This means more weapons can be brought to be bear to hit a smaller portion of a mech.
This leads to an interesting trade off in mech design. Arms can be lost easily but they also provide the most accurate weapon mounts. This is a great unintended balance.
Unless you allow the firing ports to be moved in relation to each other, they're always going to be parallel, arm mounted or not, in relation to the other weapons mounted in the arm. So you still get the "barrel spread distance" which I don't think you're accounting for on the arms.
If you allow for the weapons to converge at their ports - focusing lenses for lasers, steppers and rotators for ballistics - than the logic of the port-mapping mostly collapses.
Quote
►Torso Weapons
The issue of torso weapons is very complex. Arms can move so they can converge their fire dynamically to match the range of their target.
For this demonstration 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.
Using an AS7-D as my illustration firing the four MLs and AC-20 simultaneously would create a hit pattern something like this:
http://47th.info/ima...convergence.png
As you can see the two medium lasers in the center torso and the AC-20 located in the right torso are all parallel to one another and therefore cannot converge. The two arm mounted MLs can converge. But what would this shot grouping actually look like on the poor Zeus?
The issue of torso weapons is very complex. Arms can move so they can converge their fire dynamically to match the range of their target.
For this demonstration 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.
Using an AS7-D as my illustration firing the four MLs and AC-20 simultaneously would create a hit pattern something like this:
http://47th.info/ima...convergence.png
As you can see the two medium lasers in the center torso and the AC-20 located in the right torso are all parallel to one another and therefore cannot converge. The two arm mounted MLs can converge. But what would this shot grouping actually look like on the poor Zeus?
What about a mech like say, the blackhawk, with virtually all of its weapons in it's arms? Unless you allow those weapons to converge in relation to each other, there will be spread even with arm weapons - the spread dictated by where those weapons are in relation to each other on the arms.
Quote
Something like this:
http://47th.info/ima...onvergence2.png
The two upper red dots indicate where the AS7-D's center torso mounted MLs struck the Zeus. The lower single red dot indicates where the two arm-mounted MLs struck the Zeus. Remember, arms can converge to produce overlapping fire patterns at dynamic ranges!
Here's the same image except with a Cone of Fire based meta-reticle:
http://47th.info/ima...onvergence3.png
As you can see grouping the MLs and the AC-20 into a single fire group produces a large cone of fire which is inaccurate. The AC-20's ballistic trajectory and origin of fire makes this grouping inaccurate. The two CT mounted MLs are close to one another and mounted centrally on the mech. The arms can converge. Those four MLs combined could provide a relatively accurate and tight cone of fire by themselves.
The AC-20's barrel, or "origin of fire", is located at forearm level but it's off-center on the right side. Since the AC-20 is mounted perpendicular to the torso it's trajectory skews the cone-of-fire reticle to be larger because it's aim cannot be adjusted inwards to better match the reticle's center pip.
But what would the cone-of-fire look like if you subtracted the AC-20?
http://47th.info/ima...onvergence4.png
As you can see the cone-of-fire is much smaller because the four ML grouping corresponds much better to a centrally located targeting reticle. You could even go one further with the accuracy and assume that the arms can dynamically converge based on the locations of other weapons in their grouping which means the targeting and tracking system of the AS7-D could tell the arms to move their aim up so that the two arm mounted MLs strike inbetween the two torso mounted MLs. This would create a very accurate and tight shot grouping.
http://47th.info/ima...onvergence2.png
The two upper red dots indicate where the AS7-D's center torso mounted MLs struck the Zeus. The lower single red dot indicates where the two arm-mounted MLs struck the Zeus. Remember, arms can converge to produce overlapping fire patterns at dynamic ranges!
Here's the same image except with a Cone of Fire based meta-reticle:
http://47th.info/ima...onvergence3.png
As you can see grouping the MLs and the AC-20 into a single fire group produces a large cone of fire which is inaccurate. The AC-20's ballistic trajectory and origin of fire makes this grouping inaccurate. The two CT mounted MLs are close to one another and mounted centrally on the mech. The arms can converge. Those four MLs combined could provide a relatively accurate and tight cone of fire by themselves.
The AC-20's barrel, or "origin of fire", is located at forearm level but it's off-center on the right side. Since the AC-20 is mounted perpendicular to the torso it's trajectory skews the cone-of-fire reticle to be larger because it's aim cannot be adjusted inwards to better match the reticle's center pip.
But what would the cone-of-fire look like if you subtracted the AC-20?
http://47th.info/ima...onvergence4.png
As you can see the cone-of-fire is much smaller because the four ML grouping corresponds much better to a centrally located targeting reticle. You could even go one further with the accuracy and assume that the arms can dynamically converge based on the locations of other weapons in their grouping which means the targeting and tracking system of the AS7-D could tell the arms to move their aim up so that the two arm mounted MLs strike inbetween the two torso mounted MLs. This would create a very accurate and tight shot grouping.
Are you trying to say that the lasers in the above example will, when fired with the ac20, have the same chance to hit anywhere inside of the composite cone as the ac20 - making them only as precise as the ac20?
This also still does not reduce the inherent complexity in the concept of using the cones - you still have to change their volume, their offset, and their shape, as well as calculate those cones for each and every weapon to have a truly robust COF system.
Quote
►Other Factors Which Influence the Size of the Cone-of-Fire
In addition to the physical locations the weapons are mounted in and the basics of parallel barrels there other factors which can influence where a weapon shot is placed.
Movement is huge. The faster a mech travels the more the arms oscillate to maintain balance during movement. This would create a predictable sway to the path the reticle would travel on for arm and torso mounted weapons.
Using the AS7-D's the four ML weapon group a sway pattern would look something like this:
http://47th.info/images/mwo/sway.png
The lines above indicate the paths of travel the weapons mounted on the corresponding location would take during movement. For a practical exercise stand up and lift your forearms so your elbows are bent 90 degrees much like an Atlas' arms.
In addition to the physical locations the weapons are mounted in and the basics of parallel barrels there other factors which can influence where a weapon shot is placed.
▼Movement
Movement is huge. The faster a mech travels the more the arms oscillate to maintain balance during movement. This would create a predictable sway to the path the reticle would travel on for arm and torso mounted weapons.
Using the AS7-D's the four ML weapon group a sway pattern would look something like this:
http://47th.info/images/mwo/sway.png
The lines above indicate the paths of travel the weapons mounted on the corresponding location would take during movement. For a practical exercise stand up and lift your forearms so your elbows are bent 90 degrees much like an Atlas' arms.
'Mech targeting computers calculate for this and can virtually overcome it under most conditions.
Quote
Now start walking forward and take notice of how your torso twists correspond to which leg you have extended in front of you and the natural movement in your arms that is used to maintain balance.
Using the above sway patterns we can deduce that if the Atlas was running at top speed and you took a snap shot at where the weapons would be aimed on their sway paths when the Atlas' left leg was fully extended forward it would look like this (note that the large DoTs indicate where the weapons inside of the corresponding section would be pointed at inside of the cone-of-fire):
http://47th.info/ima...wo/swayleft.png
With the left foot fully extended forward at max run speed the torso would be twisted clockwise to some degree so that the right arm comes forward and the left arm is pulled back. This would also move the trajectories of the CT mounted MLs to the right as the torso is twisted that way.
Obviously if the right foot was fully extended the dots would be on the opposite side.
As the speed of the Atlas decreases the length of the sway travel paths would also decrease. If the Atlas was at a dead stop most of the points would be completely center or as near as centered as would be allowed taking parallel barrels into consideration.
Using the above sway patterns we can deduce that if the Atlas was running at top speed and you took a snap shot at where the weapons would be aimed on their sway paths when the Atlas' left leg was fully extended forward it would look like this (note that the large DoTs indicate where the weapons inside of the corresponding section would be pointed at inside of the cone-of-fire):
http://47th.info/ima...wo/swayleft.png
With the left foot fully extended forward at max run speed the torso would be twisted clockwise to some degree so that the right arm comes forward and the left arm is pulled back. This would also move the trajectories of the CT mounted MLs to the right as the torso is twisted that way.
Obviously if the right foot was fully extended the dots would be on the opposite side.
As the speed of the Atlas decreases the length of the sway travel paths would also decrease. If the Atlas was at a dead stop most of the points would be completely center or as near as centered as would be allowed taking parallel barrels into consideration.
As well as with this; unless you're running, the effect on your 'Mechs ability to target is negligible at most ranges below "long." 'Mechs are pre-programmed with movement routines and the T&T setups have access to these tables and sensors that tell them when they're being executed.
Yes, the effect is there, but it's one of the smaller ones.
Edited by Pht, 20 November 2011 - 03:18 PM.
#69
-
-
- The Bowman
- 3,715 posts
Member
- LocationO'Shaughnnessy MMW Base, Devon Continent, Rochester, FedCom
Posted 20 November 2011 - 05:12 PM
Cavadus, on 20 November 2011 - 02:51 PM, said:
I'm certainly not going to get upset of other people's opinions; I just have no respect for them if their only basis is completely irrational devotion to fluff text out of a sourcebook.
It's meaningless to me. It's like saying we should include aliens because there were some in the novel Far Country.
It's meaningless to me. It's like saying we should include aliens because there were some in the novel Far Country.
For many of those of us who are advocating very much for the lore, BattleTech has around the same strength, if not a whole lot more, such as in my case, as Star Wars. As far as I'm concerned, Star Wars is a bug on the wall compared to MY PERCEPTION of the BattleTech universe. BattleTech is my flight of fancy, my science fiction entertainment. I know deep-down in the back of my mind that nothing dreamed of in BattleTech, written in the lore, is real, it's not physically possible to the best of my knowledge, right now. However, it's a whole lot closer than Star Wars, isn't it?
Now, in 1967, the Star Trek television series launched, and it only lasted three seasons, but from that television show, and some innovation from dreamers, we now have some of the most kick-*** computers money can buy, and they're a whole lot cheaper to produce and build than they used to be, which means they're also cheaper to buy. We also have cell phones based on the communicator idea, scientists are working on shields, tractor beams, and transporters, all based on a 3-year long television show with zero basis in fact. Let's not forget lasers, missiles, and other destructive items such as gauss rifles.
Before the first mobile phone hit the market, everyone speculated and dreamed, and talked down the realism or the possibility of that sort of technology ever existing and, yet, here it is. So, here we are talking about the potential realism of the fluff, the rules that wouldn't possibly exist, the alien environments, the various effects of atmospheres and environments on alternate worlds, etc.
Now, since the fluff and lore of the books must, by definition, be the basis and grounding for this universe, why should it be dismissed? What makes your version of game-play, or realism any more important than that established in the fluff and lore. You might be sick of hearing about it, but that's where this game we all want to play originates from.
Listen to me, and listen to me good: the posting rules on this forum say we're not supposed to talk about the differences between BattleTech and MechWarrior, but I felt it utterly necessary to bring these things, these examples, to your attention. I want to be entertained every bit as much as you do, but neither ultra-realism nor ultra-adherence to BattleTech dogma are going to get us there. You have presented your case, Cavadus, in a timely, well-built fashion and, as I said earlier in this thread, you sold me on it, but you ARE REQUIRED to either listen to what others have to say about what you've posted here and respond with intelligence rather than anger, or you have to Unfollow this thread. You make the decision, buddy.
Edited by Kay Wolf, 20 November 2011 - 05:13 PM.
#70
-
-
- The Spear
- 404 posts
Member
- LocationNova Roma, Alphard
Posted 20 November 2011 - 07:59 PM
Kay Wolf, on 20 November 2011 - 05:12 PM, said:
...neither ultra-realism nor ultra-adherence to BattleTech dogma are going to get us there.
I understand that. It's the people who don't which I have no time for and get added to my forum ignore list.
Quote
...you ARE REQUIRED to either listen to what others have to say about what you've posted here...
I do but if the basis of the argument is completely irrational I'm going to tell that poster that the basis of their argument is completely irrational. And since their argument is irrational it's likely that they're irrational about this entire subject (MWO, MechWarrior, BattleTech).
Sorry, but I have no patience for that and I simply dismiss them. Anyways, please stop trying to e-reform me.
#71
-
-
- The Spear
- 404 posts
Member
- LocationNova Roma, Alphard
Posted 20 November 2011 - 08:08 PM
Pht, on 20 November 2011 - 03:16 PM, said:
How do we decide what artwork to go by as a standard for barrel mounting, and how do we decide how to place what barrels where on modified mechs? Is there any non-subjective standard?
Piranha decides. They can do whatever they wish.
Quote
Unless you allow the firing ports to be moved in relation to each other, they're always going to be parallel, arm mounted or not, in relation to the other weapons mounted in the arm. So you still get the "barrel spread distance" which I don't think you're accounting for on the arms.
Did you miss the first few images of the Nova Cat arm shot groups?? I covered all of this in great detail.
Quote
What about a mech like say, the blackhawk, with virtually all of its weapons in it's arms? Unless you allow those weapons to converge in relation to each other, there will be spread even with arm weapons - the spread dictated by where those weapons are in relation to each other on the arms.
Again, I think you need to look closer at the opening section involving the Nova Cat's arms. It covers everything you raised in great detail.
Quote
Are you trying to say that the lasers in the above example will, when fired with the ac20, have the same chance to hit anywhere inside of the composite cone as the ac20 - making them only as precise as the ac20?
No.
Are you not able to see the images in my post or something? Because I clearly displayed and explained how the different weapon groups reticles work to make a meta-CoF. That's what the smaller circles inside of that image are; the CoFs for those weapon groups.
Quote
This also still does not reduce the inherent complexity in the concept of using the cones - you still have to change their volume, their offset, and their shape, as well as calculate those cones for each and every weapon to have a truly robust COF system.
Yeah, I'm guessing you must have some type of adblock software which is blocking the images in my post.
Quote
'Mech targeting computers calculate for this and can virtually overcome it under most conditions. As well as with this; unless you're running, the effect on your 'Mechs ability to target is negligible at most ranges below "long." 'Mechs are pre-programmed with movement routines and the T&T setups have access to these tables and sensors that tell them when they're being executed. Yes, the effect is there, but it's one of the smaller ones.
Fluff lore; don't care. What matters is gameplay.
I think you need to look over my OP a little more closely and spend a few seconds with the pictures. Every question you asked was explicitly answered in detail in the OP.
Edited by Cavadus, 20 November 2011 - 08:08 PM.
#72
-
-
- Legendary Founder
- 959 posts
Member
- LocationLaval, Quebec, Canada
Posted 20 November 2011 - 08:21 PM
To respond directly at the OP (I didn't read the 3 pages of replies), I still think every weapon needs to have a fixed spread statistic which will affect the cone-of-fire. Stop arguing about it, it has to be there! No weapon, especially in the BattleTech Universe (read the novels dude) is 100% pinpoint accurate. NONE! Laser or not.
What you explain only details how the movement and weapon placement on a 'Mech would also affect the cone-of-fire of GROUPED weapons, but not how it would affect each individual weapon.
You need to add, to each weapon, their own spread factor. That AC/20 will be spreading like crazy, especially if you group-fire it. The impact point will not be that small either. There has to be some RNG to calculate the spread (probably based on skill of the pilot per PG's FAQ and Q&A1).
EDIT: I just backtracked and read a few pages of the thread, and seriously Cadavus, you need to put some ice on that ego of yours. Wow, you really come out as a ****** in some of your replies! You're so full of prejudice towards TT gamers (and NO I never played the TT game, but I still put importance on the lore or "fluff" as you call it), that it's not even funny anymore. I really don't see what's the point in even arguing with you, cause you're clearly not bulging from your narrow-minded point of view.
You say you don't give a damn about the fluff? Well, I don't give a damn about what you think!
What you explain only details how the movement and weapon placement on a 'Mech would also affect the cone-of-fire of GROUPED weapons, but not how it would affect each individual weapon.
You need to add, to each weapon, their own spread factor. That AC/20 will be spreading like crazy, especially if you group-fire it. The impact point will not be that small either. There has to be some RNG to calculate the spread (probably based on skill of the pilot per PG's FAQ and Q&A1).
EDIT: I just backtracked and read a few pages of the thread, and seriously Cadavus, you need to put some ice on that ego of yours. Wow, you really come out as a ****** in some of your replies! You're so full of prejudice towards TT gamers (and NO I never played the TT game, but I still put importance on the lore or "fluff" as you call it), that it's not even funny anymore. I really don't see what's the point in even arguing with you, cause you're clearly not bulging from your narrow-minded point of view.
You say you don't give a damn about the fluff? Well, I don't give a damn about what you think!
Edited by Tweaks, 20 November 2011 - 08:42 PM.
#73
-
-
- The Bowman
- 3,715 posts
Member
- LocationO'Shaughnnessy MMW Base, Devon Continent, Rochester, FedCom
Posted 20 November 2011 - 08:38 PM
Cavadus, on 20 November 2011 - 07:59 PM, said:
Iunderstand that. It's the people who don't which I have no time for and get added to my forum ignore list.
Quote
I do but if the basis of the argument is completely irrational I'm going to tell that poster that the basis of their argument is completely irrational. And since their argument is irrational it's likely that they're irrational about this entire subject (MWO, MechWarrior, BattleTech).
Quote
Sorry, but I have no patience for that and I simply dismiss them. Anyways, please stop trying to e-reform me.
#74
-
-
- 10 posts
Member
Posted 20 November 2011 - 08:59 PM
Awesome post Cavadus, back you up 100%. Especially about looking at gameplay mechanics first, instead of adherence to The Lore (Its not a religion chaps). I would love the game to be as true to its roots as possible but defiantly NOT at the expense of gameplay. If it don't play well then nobody will play it.
#75
-
-
- The Bowman
- 3,715 posts
Member
- LocationO'Shaughnnessy MMW Base, Devon Continent, Rochester, FedCom
Posted 20 November 2011 - 09:28 PM
Garviel, on 20 November 2011 - 08:59 PM, said:
The Lore (Its not a religion chaps)
#76
-
-
- Veteran Founder
- 1,043 posts
Member
Posted 20 November 2011 - 09:44 PM
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*
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.
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?
No matter what system is implemented in the end you cant have pinpoint shooting. There has to be an element of randomness to it.. wether you can compensate with player skill (something the anti CoF people seem to want but dont really know how to do it with lasers and PPCs) or lessen the effect with player char builds. Because if you dont, medium and heavy mechs become obsolete and certain weapon types extinct. SRMs, AC/10s, PPCs, AC/5sfor example all loose their apeal compared to the allmighty laser.
Both medium and heavy mechs do not posses the speed to dodge alpha strikes... light mechs have their speed.. assault mechs their armor. Mediums and heavys will not survive long either in long range or short range maps and what the game will boil down to is tons of assaults with a couple of light mechs as scouts to find targets for them or NARC targets for them.
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.
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?
No matter what system is implemented in the end you cant have pinpoint shooting. There has to be an element of randomness to it.. wether you can compensate with player skill (something the anti CoF people seem to want but dont really know how to do it with lasers and PPCs) or lessen the effect with player char builds. Because if you dont, medium and heavy mechs become obsolete and certain weapon types extinct. SRMs, AC/10s, PPCs, AC/5sfor example all loose their apeal compared to the allmighty laser.
Both medium and heavy mechs do not posses the speed to dodge alpha strikes... light mechs have their speed.. assault mechs their armor. Mediums and heavys will not survive long either in long range or short range maps and what the game will boil down to is tons of assaults with a couple of light mechs as scouts to find targets for them or NARC targets for them.
#77
-
-
- 304 posts
Member
- LocationCanada
Posted 20 November 2011 - 10:51 PM
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*
Of course we're not planing an actual religion. Peace of Blake be with you.
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.
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?
No matter what system is implemented in the end you cant have pinpoint shooting. There has to be an element of randomness to it.. wether you can compensate with player skill (something the anti CoF people seem to want but dont really know how to do it with lasers and PPCs) or lessen the effect with player char builds. Because if you dont, medium and heavy mechs become obsolete and certain weapon types extinct. SRMs, AC/10s, PPCs, AC/5sfor example all loose their apeal compared to the allmighty laser.
Both medium and heavy mechs do not posses the speed to dodge alpha strikes... light mechs have their speed.. assault mechs their armor. Mediums and heavys will not survive long either in long range or short range maps and what the game will boil down to is tons of assaults with a couple of light mechs as scouts to find targets for them or NARC targets for them.
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?
No matter what system is implemented in the end you cant have pinpoint shooting. There has to be an element of randomness to it.. wether you can compensate with player skill (something the anti CoF people seem to want but dont really know how to do it with lasers and PPCs) or lessen the effect with player char builds. Because if you dont, medium and heavy mechs become obsolete and certain weapon types extinct. SRMs, AC/10s, PPCs, AC/5sfor example all loose their apeal compared to the allmighty laser.
Both medium and heavy mechs do not posses the speed to dodge alpha strikes... light mechs have their speed.. assault mechs their armor. Mediums and heavys will not survive long either in long range or short range maps and what the game will boil down to is tons of assaults with a couple of light mechs as scouts to find targets for them or NARC targets for them.
I blame all of that on poor implementation in previous iterations of the Mechwarrior games. All of them have been really lax on heat, which was designed into the game as one of the big balancing points for different weapons. If you have 10 Double Heat Sinks (i.e. No extra sinks) firing 2 ERPPCs should immediately slow your speed drastically (by roughly 22km/h) and scramble your targeting reticle. You would need to add 5 more DHS to overcome those effects. 2 AC/20s on the same chassis will have similar effects (except only slowing you by about 11km/h). Even in MW4 where rising heat could have a significant impact on your performance, it was pointless, you just press the "more heatsinks" button until the number's green or you run out of tonnage with the guns you want. You could mount more heat sinks than your mech should be able to have physical room for. Not saying they should carry the heat scale directly from the tabletop game, it was setup for a turn based game, not a realtime system, but it should definitely be used as a guideline for what a weapon can do and what it will cost you t counter that.
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.
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?
#78
-
-
- 2,905 posts
Member
- LocationLost
Posted 20 November 2011 - 11:16 PM
The thing is that we all know that many of the rules from TT don't translate directly to a PC game. The arguement is over thae adaptations that need to be made. Whatever is done needs to be playtested to see how it affects game balance and without affecting "fun". In my opinion one way to "balance" the inherent accuracy/speed of energy weapons would be to take into account the physics based effects of such things as "thermal bloom" and reduce damage based on range. As an example a ML would still do 4 points damage at short range but 3 at medium and 2 at long. AC's are already affected due to their inherent inaccuracy and higher aiming difficulty.Missiles then become a problem, especially with the use of NARC, TAG and Artemis IV. A Catapult with 30 missiles fired, although the damage is spread has the possibility of taking a mech out in a number of salvo's. If the Longbow is included in the game then a one shot kill is a much higher probability - 70 missiles involved. The main limitation at the moment is down to small quantities of ammo carried. All of these "problems" are down to how the dev's wish to solve them. I think these threads have shown that a number of people consider that there are problems, but until there is a Beta we don't know how they are going to implement things in game. As Riptor has said, the problem is compounded by ensuring that anything less than a light can survive without then making it so that assaults are only killable by another assault after a long time, due to low accuracy/damage.
#79
-
-
- 354 posts
Member
Posted 21 November 2011 - 01:36 AM
I see 2 problems with this approach.
1) Torso weapons simply CAN NOT be fixed mounted. They need at least independent vertical aiming system. it's good and well if we have a bushwacker or Jenner, but any humanoid mech has its torso center of gravity too high and will just flip over trying to aim too high or too low (like Highlander trying to hit a raven circling it).
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? An arm full of medium lasers will be just as good as an arm of large lasers. Unless we derail again into the world of 300m long lightsabers vs 650m long lightsabers.
1) Torso weapons simply CAN NOT be fixed mounted. They need at least independent vertical aiming system. it's good and well if we have a bushwacker or Jenner, but any humanoid mech has its torso center of gravity too high and will just flip over trying to aim too high or too low (like Highlander trying to hit a raven circling it).
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? An arm full of medium lasers will be just as good as an arm of large lasers. Unless we derail again into the world of 300m long lightsabers vs 650m long lightsabers.
#80
-
- 3 posts
Rookie
Posted 21 November 2011 - 05:34 AM
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.
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.
3 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 3 guests, 0 anonymous users
