114 replies to this topic

[Mcgral18]

Blacksoul1987, on 02 July 2014 - 12:17 PM, said:

yeah that's pretty much what I expected and I would imagine that the M1 accuracy is somewhere in that area as well given similar muzzle velocity. So 8" at 800 may have somewhat of an effect when shooting a human but that's gonna be negligible when shooting a Center Torso that is bigger than the buick I have parked in my driveway.

And now shoot 4 of those rifles at the same time; will you get the same accuracy?

Will they all impact on the same location no matter the range? (against a static target)

[Livewyr]

stjobe, on 02 July 2014 - 11:38 AM, said:

(I trained as a 120mm mortar gunner among other things - a long time ago).

High Angle Hell!

[stjobe]

Blacksoul1987, on 02 July 2014 - 12:17 PM, said:

yeah that's pretty much what I expected and I would imagine that the M1 accuracy is somewhere in that area as well given similar muzzle velocity.

The M256 has more than double the muzzle velocity of e.g. the M24 (1580-1750 m/s vs 790 m/s), so if anything it should be more accurate. Notice though, that the accuracy for the m107 (25" at 1,000 m) is way less than for the m24 (7" at 800 m) in the chart above.

Blacksoul1987, on 02 July 2014 - 12:17 PM, said:

So 8" at 800 may have somewhat of an effect when shooting a human but that's gonna be negligible when shooting a Center Torso that is bigger than the buick I have parked in my driveway.

Don't forget that both the gun and the buick-sized center torso are moving cross-country at speeds between 50-150 kph.

It's not exactly an ideal aiming situation, and must be a nightmare for the targeting system (you try pointing six different barrels spaced several meters apart at the same target - even if buick-sized - which is moving erratically at high speed, whilst moving erratically at high speed yourself).

It's not really a stable firing platform.

Livewyr, on 02 July 2014 - 12:25 PM, said:

High Angle Hell!

You know it. The Silent Death, Death From Above, etc etc.

Funny anecdote time: After the first time we went and had a look at the target area after firing delayed-fuze live 12cm rounds, I stopped caring about any orders about digging trenches. I stood at the bottom of the roughly 5-m wide hole the mortar bomb had dug, and it was so deep I couldn't see out of it.

Edited by stjobe, 02 July 2014 - 12:30 PM.

[KamikazeRat]

PappySmurf, on 02 July 2014 - 10:06 AM, said:

First lets define game META shall we? (snipped out a bit of wall'o'text)

Metagaming is any strategy, action or method used in a game which transcends a prescribed ruleset, uses external factors to affect the game, or goes beyond the supposed limits or environment set by the game. Another definition refers to the game universe outside of the game itself.
In simple terms, it is the use of out-of-game information or resources to affect one's in-game decisions.

• In popular trading card games, such as Magic: The Gathering or Yu-Gi-Oh! Trading Card Game players compete with decks they have created in advance and the "metagame" consists of the deck types that are currently popular and expected to show up in large numbers in a tournament. The knowledge of metagame trends can give the players an edge against other participants, while playing (quickly recognizing what kind of deck opponents have to guess their likely cards and moves) and more importantly in the deck building process, by selecting and adapting designs to do well against the popular deck types at the expense of performance against rarer ones. It's also possible to bluff opponents into expecting cards that aren't there, or to surprise the competition with novel decks that nobody is prepared for. The secondary market of cards is heavily influenced by metagame trends: cards become more valuable when they are popular, often to the point of scarcity.^[3]

• In fighting games such as Super Smash Bros. Melee, metagaming may occur at the character select screen. The opposing character has various strengths that can be avoided and weaknesses that can be exploited more easily depending on the character you choose provided you are aware of those strengths and weaknesses (called a "match up"). For a basic example, a character with a projectile attack has the advantage over a grappler who must be close to the opponent to be effective. Match up metagaming is very important in tournament settings. In recent fighting games, blind select has been implemented for online modes. This makes it so that neither player can see what character the other player chose. In tournaments, players have the option to opt for a blind select where they tell a judge in confidence the character they intend to select in the match, making their character choice mandatory. A newer trend in more recently released titles is to allow the selection of multiple characters at once which the player can then switch between on the fly, rendering match-up picking excessively hard and virtually impractical.

Im truly sorry but MWO has no meta and if you think changing mech builds is META I feel dam sorry for those that do.

actually metagaming in MWO, would be knowing what the current popular build is(poptart), and building your mech with that build in mind (either to join the popular build or to take down the popular build) which sort of falls under the MTG analogy.

i left up the SSBM snipit for the point i think you were trying to make, because you have no way of knowing what the other guy is going to bring, it is very difficult to pick a mech to exploit their weaknesses. But back to the MTG analogy, your edge comes from knowing what is currently popular and using that knowledge to gain some advantage against someone who doesn't know what the popular thing is right now. so...you metagame anytime you alter or tweak a mech with anything but "THIS IS COOL" on your mind.

It also depends on what you define "the game" as, is the fight the game? if so, ANYTHING you do in mechlab is metagaming...if you think building is the game, and the fight is just the test arena for your build, then perhaps, metagame isn't what we think it is, but it is still there in knowledge of popular builds, etc.

EDIT: i can't spell to save my life

Edited by KamikazeRat, 02 July 2014 - 01:25 PM.

[Archon]

*Ahem*

"No one can destroy the meta
The meta will strike you down with a vicious blow
We are the vanquished foes of the meta
We tried to win for why, we do not know"
Thank you Tenacious D

Edited by Archon, 02 July 2014 - 01:39 PM.

[Fastwind]

Blacksoul1987, on 02 July 2014 - 11:17 AM, said:

it isn't linear btw as it moves farther out it loses velocity and becomes more susceptible to environmental effects and to reach that range the gun must be elevated and windspeed may change at higher altitudes. I would honestly be surprised if its cof was much larger than 1m at 800m

edit: also at 8000 meters you are getting really close to being indirect fire and any variation in propellant wind speed etc. would have a massive effect on its longitudinal spread but I really think that its deviation from center at 800 meters is likely much less than 1m. but i'm not an expert, I've studied firing patterns from battleship guns and at low elevations the guns tend to be extremely accurate bordering on pinpoint.

^^This
and we are far in the future,you would think that the accuracy gets even better with better technology.
So pls stop all this "OMG this guy shots me and hits me everytime" and simply learn to aim yourself.
+ so many games have RNG mechanics we don't need more of them.Go play these games if you want RNG.

[ArmandTulsen]

About pinpoint convergence.... If an AC130 can hit a target accurately from kilometers away in the sky..... Well.... you figure it out.

[ztac]

All I can say on this topic is that the game is itself is just following the same old cycle , may as well be a Korean playing an mmo that has you doing a fantastical amount of grinding! gets boring after a while.

[Saint Scarlett Johan]

COF: the lazy way of balancing good shots and bad shots. I'm all for reticle deviation, the ordinance should ALWAYS land on the spot under the reticle. The reticle, on the other hand, should be moving about. As I had suggested in a topic that got locked.

In COD4, you know what I saw at the competive level? M14s and M14s only. Always outfitted with a CCO. Why? It beat the bullshit COF RNG garbage. Good players could point and double click for instakills while n00blord Mcgee is trying to hammer away with his full auto M4. If I used the M4, I was on the same level as n00blord Mcgee except I usually had faster reflexes and smarter positioning so I could get the first shots off.

So in comparison, the M14 in COD4 was analogous to the Gauss/PPC of MWO. Only actual higher "skilled" (read: those with the ability to point and click on the target they want to point and click on) players can actually effectively use this weapon system. Same as the COD M14. A bad game for me in COD4 TDM was 30 kills to 6 deaths, I averaged 40 and 4 in just the random server crashes.

Let's be honest, everyone says that gunnery in this game is easy, but I call bullshit. I see too many people turfing or clouding 90% of their ordinance.

Every game will have its high skill weapon. In MWO, its the combo of PPC and Gauss. Does it bother me? No, I've never had difficulty dealing with it. Do I like it? Not in particular. Am I good with it? Eh... I'm okay with it, 5:1 in DS and Timbertarts is acceptable for me. I've been spending all my 12man time in a DDC.


I see poptarting and PPFLD as less of an issue in that those tactics are too strong, but instead that other tactics are too weak.

We can continue trying to nerf the meta, which is still alive after over a year of continuous nerf cycles is still around, yet we have even fewer viable choices now. I almost never see the HGN or a non AC/PPC VTR anymore, because their use as anything but meta was nerfed into oblivion. Hell, I mastered the POS Thud using Gauss/PPC. So meta is obviously good on anything that can fit it, even garbage mechs like the Thunderthud.

So what does this mean? It means other play styles are too weak.

A good starting point, IMO:
- drop heat across the board on all IS energy weapons except the PPC (even drop ERPPC heat a point)
- remove ghost heat entirely for all IS energy weapons smaller than the LLaser
- bump LLaser and LPL ghost heat from 2 weapons to 3.
- delink LPLs and LLs, in lore they are EXPLICITLY different weapons.
- remove ghost heat entirely from missiles, both LRMs and SRMs.
- lower heat on SRMs
- buff SRM damage to 3
- nerf LRM ROF by half (this hurts the Persian-esque LRM spamming)
- buff LRM damage to 2 and velocity to 200m/s (this makes LRMs actually hurt)
- flatten LRM arc so direct fire LRMs get to target more easily, but make it so that for effective indirect the target must be TAGed or NARCed instead of the bullshit target decay landing LRMs on me on the otherside of a 3 story building
-add recoil to ballistics (and not COF COD type recoil but the far better programmed DoD predictable recoil, real world recoil is very predictable. I know exactly where the second shot in the controlled pair from my handgun is going to land.)

And some further nerfs to poptarting specifically (indirect buff to the Nova and Summoner), makes JJs an equipment/upgrade like Artemis where you take all the JJs or none of them. It makes poptarts sacrifice speed, ammo, or heat efficiency (ROF) for the ability to poptart.

End result: more tactics viable/fun while keeping poptarting viable but no longer the pinnacle tactic.

[dwwolf]

I love the no RNG h8ers while real life is essentially RNG ( with a normal distribution ) while the firing platform is inherently much more difficult to stabilise (many more axis of rotation) .
Cone of fire would solve a big part of the pin point weapon damage problem (something difficult for elite mechwarriors and targetting computers ) while tieing in to so many missing parts of btech. Like heat scale effects, actuator and weapon damage.

[ztac]

They will not change the meta! because apparently they use it themselves!

[Pht]

Livewyr, on 01 July 2014 - 10:28 AM, said:

That is cute. I love rolling digital dice to see if I am accurate or not. Screw the whole reticle thing.

A case-perfect example of a strawman; at least if this is supposed to represent how aiming and combat works in the tabletop and in the fictional lore.

Where did you go wrong?

"... see if I am accurate or not..."

The only part that this would be right for is the gunnery skill roll. Which not even I advocate using; as it is *wrong* to put the GSR's into a mechwarrior video game.

The GSR represents the Mechwarrior's gunnery skill.

----

However, and this is the central missing part, there IS a part of the fictional lore represented in the tabletop combat system that describes the battlemech's combat capabilities. This mechanic is referred to as the "Hit-Location Tables." All the HLTs do is simply represent how various combat situations affect a 'Mech's ability to hit the target it's pilot is indicating/tracking with the reticule on their main hud.

They're heavily bell-curved to have most hits concentrate under the reticule; and the best part is, depending on what choices and skill a player would use, there are HLTs that concentrate the weapons fire even more. In fact, if you choose to use a single weapon and have some patience, you can even get that single weapon to hit exactly what's under the reticule.

The HLTs, which, again, represent the BattleMech's combat capabilities.

Quote

(That works in TT because mechs are effectively *not* moving when you shoot.)

Not true. The 'mechs in TT take anywhere from a non-existent all the way up to a massive hit on their combat capability from varying movement modifiers.

In the TT you can fire while running at nearly 300 mph, if you wanted.

Quote

Simple mechanics, apply risk versus reward,...

Easy enough indeed, using the HLTs.

If you want to take the risk of an arm-mounted gauss rifle, being immobile, propping that arm up on an appropriately sized structure, and standing totally still for 30 seconds or more, you can pop slow-moving non-evasive targets out literally as far as you can see, if the HLTs and their associated mechanics were used. Make yourself the perfect target, in order to hit an otherwise impossible target. To top this off, you, as the player, have to have the reticule control skills to track the exact part you want on a visually TINY target. Risk/reward.

Livewyr, on 01 July 2014 - 11:02 AM, said:

How exactly does one miss where his laser is pointed at?

The lasers (in the lore) have to have an "on time" AND hit the exact ... EXACT ... same spot in order to do their full rated battlefield damage. Thus the "slop factor."

KamikazeRat, on 01 July 2014 - 01:57 PM, said:

THIS
...
recoil

... except that we now know for a fact that the recoil affects from firing weapons on a 'mech don't affect the 'mech's weapons alignment abilities in the lore, and the above-mentioned HLTs would fix the problem that the proposed recoil mechanic would try and fix.

Fastwind, on 04 July 2014 - 09:17 PM, said:

and we are far in the future,you would think that the accuracy gets even better with better technology.

BattleTech/MechWarrior aren't "our future" - they were never intended as such and haven't been written as such.

They're about fun escapism, not "uber realism."

Quote

+ so many games have RNG mechanics we don't need more of them.Go play these games if you want RNG.

So, would you have a problem with simulating the combat capability of the mechs as they are in the fictional lore? Even knowing that doing so would NOT remove your physical controller skill or your mental choice making as the determining factor for winning?

Or are you stuck in the mental rut of "RNG = NOT POSSIBLE TO HAVE SKILLS MATTER!!!" fallacy?

Edited by Pht, 06 July 2014 - 09:10 AM.

[Livewyr]

Pht, how does the Hit table reconcile that the mech can literally redirect itself in the middle of the shot (like Burst ACs or Lasers, or missiles)- or that the side profile of a spider presents a smaller target than one single Leg on an Atlas?

Light pilots everywhere would rejoice at the broken mechanic that allows them near impunity as they zip with a side profile presented to you at 150kph where you cannot but maybe graze them with a weapon, while your big fat mech at close range would make them have to *try* to miss.

Hit tables do not translate effectively to a game where movements are made by the millisecond, by mechs that vary this much in size. (Ergo pilot skill must dictate shots, lest the tiny mechs reign supreme simply by breaking the Hit Table mechanic.)

(And in case you are thinking that locking the target will give you the required Hit Table for it- MWO ECM would like to have a word.)

[Devlin Pierce]

I miss the days when everything ended in a good brawl. This tip toeing around the edge of the map chasing each other in circles and pop tarting over hills is so boring.

[PappySmurf]

Devlin Pierce, on 06 July 2014 - 10:28 AM, said:

I miss the days when everything ended in a good brawl. This tip toeing around the edge of the map chasing each other in circles and pop tarting over hills is so boring.

hahahaha find me i will go nose to nose with ya anytime bro

In truth i miss the days of the MSN GAMMING ZONE where 24/7 7 days a week i could log onto the lobby chat talk to players from all over the world find matches for the 20 plus leagues going from solaris to roleplay to planitary which i played exleast in 10+ leauges regularly.

But I belive RUSS and Brian could bring back the golden days of MechWarrior if they wanted to but yet again i might be asleep and dreaming of grand battles live chat and all that MechWarrior once was.

[Pht]

Livewyr, on 06 July 2014 - 09:31 AM, said:

Pht, how does the Hit table reconcile that the mech can literally redirect itself in the middle of the shot (like Burst ACs or Lasers, or missiles)- or that the side profile of a spider presents a smaller target than one single Leg on an Atlas?

Wow, for once it's actual questions. Thank you.

"Redirect itself in the middle of a shot like burst acs lasers, or missiles"

Burst ACs use the cluster hit tables or alternatively, each "damage packet" of ac fire is individually put through the table.

Missiles use the cluster hit tables.

Lasers - the TT doesn't go that fine grained due to time constraints; and thus the lasers are balanced for only "raking across" a single panel, where as often in the novels they can rake across several panels. If you wanted them to perform like they do in the novels, you could put them through the hit-table for multiple times representing fractions of their damage; and buff their damage a bit and add heat, or just leave them at the compromise the tt has.

"side profile of a spider..."

HLT's don't represent this. This would be represented by "can the 'mech even make the shot" part of the combat system in the TT.

This instance you bring up is specifically represented in the "quirks" section of the advanced TT rules. For instance, 'mechs with extremely thin profiles are harder to hit "in that profile." There are very few that have this "quirk." The spider is not one of them, if memory serves.

Quote

Light pilots everywhere would rejoice at the broken mechanic that allows them near impunity as they zip with a side profile presented to you at 150kph where you cannot but maybe graze them with a weapon, while your big fat mech at close range would make them have to *try* to miss.

First, the HLT's aren't the whole of the combat system that should be ported over; I never claimed that they were.

Second, 'Mech combat capabilities are such that they don't have really noticeable problems hitting the majority of moving targets, all other things being equal.

Size modifiers come in for infantry/battle armor infantry units units and protomechs (harder to hit) and for super-heavy 'mechs, and above that for dropships and buildings (easier to hit).

In the case of a light mech doing 150 kph - that 'mech, ...

(besides it's pilot having to have the skill to put the reticule where he wants it versus fast moving targets - and keep it there - )

..will take a downgrade to it's ability to hit any target. Those attempting to target said light mech that is doing 150 kph will take about double that hit... but remember, this is with ALL THINGS otherwise being equal, and not counting the light mech having a far lower damage potential.

Now, if you want to give me some more variables to more accurately represent an actual in game situation that's normally encountered, I can work out the combat capabilities of the 'mechs in more detail for you.

Quote

Hit tables do not translate effectively to a game where movements are made by the millisecond, by mechs that vary this much in size.

Yes, they do. In fact, the 1989 mechwarrior video game did it. In milliseconds. On 1989 hardware. Heck, a TI-82 calculator can run the entire game.

It's a simple math choice that current hardware probably wouldn't even notice.

Quote

(Ergo pilot skill must dictate shots,...

False dichotomy.

We are BOTH advocating for pilot-skill dictated shots. I am advocating that player skill with the controller and player choices dictate which HLTs and to-hit's get used - outcomes based upon player choices and skill.

I am simply adding a layer - the 'mechs combat capabilities - that you have not.

Quote

lest the tiny mechs reign supreme simply by breaking the Hit Table mechanic.)

I presume you made this false assumption due to simply not knowing the TT combat system specifics ...?

Quote

(And in case you are thinking that locking the target will give you the required Hit Table for it- MWO ECM would like to have a word.)

MWO ecm doesn't behave like the lore ECM, as far as concerns the combat system. In the lore, ecm doesn't stop your 'mech from being able to lock onto a target.

[Livewyr]

Pht, on 06 July 2014 - 11:17 AM, said:

Wow, for once it's actual questions. Thank you.

"Redirect itself in the middle of a shot like burst acs lasers, or missiles"

Burst ACs use the cluster hit tables or alternatively, each "damage packet" of ac fire is individually put through the table.

Missiles use the cluster hit tables.

Lasers - the TT doesn't go that fine grained due to time constraints; and thus the lasers are balanced for only "raking across" a single panel, where as often in the novels they can rake across several panels. If you wanted them to perform like they do in the novels, you could put them through the hit-table for multiple times representing fractions of their damage; and buff their damage a bit and add heat, or just leave them at the compromise the tt has.

"side profile of a spider..."

HLT's don't represent this. This would be represented by "can the 'mech even make the shot" part of the combat system in the TT.

This instance you bring up is specifically represented in the "quirks" section of the advanced TT rules. For instance, 'mechs with extremely thin profiles are harder to hit "in that profile." There are very few that have this "quirk." The spider is not one of them, if memory serves.



First, the HLT's aren't the whole of the combat system that should be ported over; I never claimed that they were.

Second, 'Mech combat capabilities are such that they don't have really noticeable problems hitting the majority of moving targets, all other things being equal.

Size modifiers come in for infantry/battle armor infantry units units and protomechs (harder to hit) and for super-heavy 'mechs, and above that for dropships and buildings (easier to hit).

In the case of a light mech doing 150 kph - that 'mech, ...

(besides it's pilot having to have the skill to put the reticule where he wants it versus fast moving targets - and keep it there - )

..will take a downgrade to it's ability to hit any target. Those attempting to target said light mech that is doing 150 kph will take about double that hit... but remember, this is with ALL THINGS otherwise being equal, and not counting the light mech having a far lower damage potential.

Now, if you want to give me some more variables to more accurately represent an actual in game situation that's normally encountered, I can work out the combat capabilities of the 'mechs in more detail for you.



Yes, they do. In fact, the 1989 mechwarrior video game did it. In milliseconds. On 1989 hardware. Heck, a TI-82 calculator can run the entire game.

It's a simple math choice that current hardware probably wouldn't even notice.



False dichotomy.

We are BOTH advocating for pilot-skill dictated shots. I am advocating that player skill with the controller and player choices dictate which HLTs and to-hit's get used - outcomes based upon player choices and skill.

I am simply adding a layer - the 'mechs combat capabilities - that you have not.



I presume you made this false assumption due to simply not knowing the TT combat system specifics ...?



MWO ecm doesn't behave like the lore ECM, as far as concerns the combat system. In the lore, ecm doesn't stop your 'mech from being able to lock onto a target.

Since what I am reading does not seem to answer my questions.. (And Yes, I know MWO ECM does not fit Lore/BT/TT, that is why I called it MWO ECM instead of Guardian- but sadly I think it is here to stay.)

Could you tell me how you would implement the firing system in MWO?
One that would:
Be able to maintain a damage spread on an Assault mech & a damage spread on a light mech.. while being able to *hit* both. (And in the case of both- being able to hit profile shots.) The size of a Spider is vastly different than the size of an Atlas. (What is Whole Mech for a Spider, is CT for an Atlas)

[Nikkoru]

ztac, on 05 July 2014 - 09:25 AM, said:

All I can say on this topic is that the game is itself is just following the same old cycle , may as well be a Korean playing an mmo that has you doing a fantastical amount of grinding! gets boring after a while.

Ugh, I just had an Aion flashback....

...brrrr....

[Coolant]

Once again, a thread where the OP misuses the term meta gaming:

from Wikipedia:
Metagaming is any strategy, action or method used in a game which transcends a prescribed ruleset, uses external factors to affect the game, or goes beyond the supposed limits or environment set by the game. Another definition refers to the game universe outside of the game itself.
In simple terms, it is the use of out-of-game information or resources to affect one's in-game decisions.

Doesn't apply to your post...

[stjobe]

Coolant, on 06 July 2014 - 01:17 PM, said:

Once again, a thread where the OP misuses the term meta gaming:

from Wikipedia:
Metagaming is any strategy, action or method used in a game which transcends a prescribed ruleset, uses external factors to affect the game, or goes beyond the supposed limits or environment set by the game. Another definition refers to the game universe outside of the game itself.
In simple terms, it is the use of out-of-game information or resources to affect one's in-game decisions.

Doesn't apply to your post...

Keep reading that page...

Quote

Recently the term metagame has come to be used by PC Gaming shoutcasters to describe an emergent methodology that is a subset of the basic strategy necessary to play the game at a high level. The definitions of this term are varied but can include "pre-game" theory, behavior prediction, or "ad hoc strategy" depending on the game being played. An example of this would be in StarCraft where a player's previous matches with the same opponent have given them insight into that player's playstyle and may cause them to make certain decisions which would otherwise seem inferior. Another example would be in the multiplayer online battle arena genre or Warcraft III: The Frozen Throne, where the metagame refers to the current playstyle and hero choices being favored by high level teams in recent competitive play. In EVE Online, the metagame refers to the styles of fitting, engagement tactics and fleet doctrines used by the playerbase on small and large scales, where knowledge of the types of NPC and Player encounters that are likely to be found influences the fleet composition directly.