7 replies to this topic

[Steel Claws]

I find it rather odd that while the devs are trying to move the physics of the game closer to real life, a piece of software can change how quickly a projectile cuts through the air and how far a laser can also travel. In a sense, how can you justify that a piece of software can alter physics? The other advantages are quite enough to make them worth the tonnage but should they change physics as well.

[Ironwithin]

It's not real life, it never will be, it is not meant to be, It is a game. Don't drag reality into something so beautiful.
If you do at least don't be selective about it:
-Giant Robots are stupid and never ever worth the trouble in reality, no matter what century/millenium.
-Higher caliber guns have longer ranges than smaller caliber ones
-etc etc
Battletech as a whole is just one giant mess of "un-realism". Don't even think about it and enjoy the big stompy robots shooting eachother.

[Sniper09121986]

Target computers were used to help pilots aim. In game, such a functionality would end up as a legal AimBot, so they implemented a solution that benefits players accordingly but does not remove the requirement of knowing how to aim. I see it as a sound compromise between canon and physics on one hand and the nature of multiplayer computer game on the other hand.

[Mark of Caine]

And to add to Sniper's comment, the fact that a clan pilot has to sacrifice available limited tonnage to fit a TC in, the slight buff to the mounted weapons is a decent compensation for that tonnage and crit slots used up.

[Malcolm Decker]

Targeting computers past Mk 1 or maybe Mk2 just aren't worth the tonnage right now. The zoom perks seem pretty negligible in practice since going from 2x to 2.2x isn't a big deal at 1-2 kilometer distances. Also, the velocity and laser bonuses aren't worth the tons that could be spent on additional heatsinks. I really want these modules to have a purpose but they are going to need to bring something more unique to the table.

I think a solution worth considering is giving larger targeting computers (Mk. 5+) the ability to make CERPPC deal their full 15 damage to a single location with no splash. This would be a lore-friendly and balanced way to make them a viable option for clan heavies and assaults.

No need to worry about making long-range pinpoint meta worse either since the extra weight and critical space of a large targeting computer basically balances itself. PPC boats can better focus their damage but they will have to carry fewer total weapons and heatsinks. A PPC/Gauss meta build would be forced to drop a PPC in order to accomodate the extra weight of a TC keeping the total alpha damage about the same or less. As it is now just about any build would be better off forgoing a heavy targeting computer for more weapons, heatsinks, ammo, ams, etc.

[Navid A1]

I still think that providing a 20m long (which could scale with higher TCs) target trajectory, without providing a "shoot here" box would have been a good touch. You would still need to aim yourself... without having to guess the relative target speed.

TC also could have been a dynamic single piece equipment. One should not benefit from MK1 when he has tons of direct fire weapons. This way, experienced pilots would overlooked the TC for additional lighter ammo/DHS... while the trajectory feature can remain an incentive which will force some people to sacrifice one or more direct fire FLD weapons (which are normally heavier than lasers) to get it.

[Mark of Caine]

@Navid .. Karl Berg actually replied to this very item you just mentioned, concerning a leading reticle for targeting computers, and why they can't do it.

To sum up, seeing as several weapons have different weapon speeds, as well as some being DoT and other FLD, each flavour of weapon would need its separate leading reticle. Therefore, if you had medium lasers, a Guass, a PPC and an AC 10, all with different ranges and weapon projectile speeds, you would have 4 different leading reticles.

So imagine the clutter and confusion, as well as having to put your own reticle on the correct one to fire the appropriate weapon. It would end up being a nightmare, and unplayable.

[Navid A1]

Caine2112, on 03 July 2014 - 11:07 AM, said:

@Navid .. Karl Berg actually replied to this very item you just mentioned, concerning a leading reticle for targeting computers, and why they can't do it.

To sum up, seeing as several weapons have different weapon speeds, as well as some being DoT and other FLD, each flavour of weapon would need its separate leading reticle. Therefore, if you had medium lasers, a Guass, a PPC and an AC 10, all with different ranges and weapon projectile speeds, you would have 4 different leading reticles.

So imagine the clutter and confusion, as well as having to put your own reticle on the correct one to fire the appropriate weapon. It would end up being a nightmare, and unplayable.

I think i clearly said that my suggestion does not include lead reticles...!

Navid A1, on 03 July 2014 - 10:49 AM, said:

...., without providing a "shoot here" box would have been a good touch. You would still need to aim yourself... ...

He has described the difficulties of implementing a (multiple) leading reticle(s).

my suggestion was 20 m (scalable) predicted target trajectory. No reticle. it means that the TC can draw a 20 m (scalabe) line which the enemy mech will travel relative to your viewpoint based on its speed and your speed. It does not have anything to do with your load-out.
You yourself still have to lead your shots (for your different weapons... no leading reticles for you)... but with the help of the TC's predicted movement trajectory, you would only need to lead along a single vector


to top it up... they could have enabled the TC to calculate ballistics and bullet drops... like tiny dots for your ballistics under the main reticle showing the expected impact point (if the bullet is not interrupted mid-air).

Edited by Navid A1, 03 July 2014 - 03:57 PM.