112 replies to this topic

[Tweaks]

topgun505, on 01 November 2011 - 02:14 PM, said:

Getting rid of magic pinpoint convergence would help in reducing legging (that's another multi-page thread already).

But honestly it never made much sense to begin with. On most mechs you have some weapons that are fixed and some that aren't. Take the Wolfhound, for example. 3 Mediums in the chest which must be set to a certain convergence (or just dead ahead, a convergence of 0) ... meanwhile the arm mounted laser is free to move about. Under certain circumstances they will converge, and others not. And that's the best case scenario (all weapons are energy based and thus suffer no environmental effects like gravity drop).

Then there is different weapon types to take into consideration. Gravity drop of ballistic weapons ... not to mention it is fully possible to have multiple ballistic weapons of various sizes and thus different tragectories.

Perhaps you should only have a set of crosshairs appear only when you have a single category/size or weapon selected to fire (all AC5s, or all lasers, for example). If you have multiple weapon types then you get a circular aiming point where most weapons will impact somewhere within that circle.

Shrugs. In ages past they kept it with one crosshair due to pc processing power and simplicity. It will be interesting if they stick to that.

I like this. Except I would add something such as ghost crosshairs with arrows pointing the direction you need to turn or tilt your torso towards to align it with the crosshair for slow moving weapons. For example, if you have a huge AC-20 mounted to the left arm, and the cannon can only move within a certain range (i.e. 45 degrees or so) and you aim in the upper right corner of your viewport, then the ghost crosshair would move in that direction while the canon moves and stop when it can't move anymore with an arrow pointing to the upper-right corner. You would then have to center your viewport on the target (get within the 45 degrees range of the AC-20) for the AC-20 to be able to hit the target. The crosshair would then turn green (or blip in approval) and narrow to indicate precision level. The more you wait, the better the accuracy (always using accuracy stat of most innacurate weapon in the group).

Does this make sense?

Edited by Tweaks, 02 November 2011 - 05:03 AM.

[Nasty McBadman]

I really like the idea of multiple reticles converging on the main reticle/aim point. Maybe even different styled reticles so one can easily determine what weapons are pointing in a given direction or how close the weapon is to being able to hit the aiming point. This could give great importance to targeting computer upgrades. This opens many avenues to ECM and things like PPC effects.

[Yeach]

How practical (and hit calculations) is having 12 or more reticles in this game? Say 12 MLaser Nova.
Could tie up alot of resources just for calcuating hits.

[TheForce]

Yeach, on 02 November 2011 - 05:30 AM, said:

How practical (and hit calculations) is having 12 or more reticles in this game? Say 12 MLaser Nova.
Could tie up alot of resources just for calcuating hits.

Ya this would be too tough for player too.

[Owl Cutter]

I have been thinking a lot recently about something closely related, after hearing about the "Inner Sphere News" Twitter feed. It is essential that the system is skill-based, but also essential that four Medium Lasers do not break limbs and core scouts like an AC/20 does since that added capability is what you pay for with all that tonnage and ammo dependency.

I am fine with cones of fire like scatterguns, at least for some weapons, and maybe some auto-aim for pulse lasers, but big punch weapons (especially long-ranged ones) must be very precise or people will just find them frustrating to use. My favourite solution so far is firing delays for bigger weapons; you can still snipe with them, but it takes a lot of skill and practice with the feel of the weapon since you have to account for both the variable delay of travel time and the fixed delay of the firing cycle. It could also allow properly ballistic sniper weapons to compete with beams on a more even footing; tracehit would come at a cost of more firing delay.

This is also my favoured explanation for both the low accuracy of fire in Battletech and the way banks of small weapons are a viable alternative to singular massive weapons; a massive beam weapon or autocannon might take significant time to do its thing, even just from standby to firing. When group-firing a bank of weapons, for example, it could rapidly discharge them in sequence kinda like one burst fire weapon; explain it as limited ability to handle power, recoil and waste heat loads. That would take care of the damage grouping problem just fine, since the AC/20 would always hit one location but a spray of smaller weapons would have independent chances to hit just like on the tabletop. More importantly, it would provide this mechanic while still being totally skill-based since better gunners would be able to handle burst fire better; a bit of deviation from the board game, but it's already necessary that every shot can be an aimed shot so I'm fine with that.

edit: It would also be a much better solution than awkward convergence or shotgun cones for lightweight 'mechs, since their small weapons would at least have the benefit of highly accurate fire. It would also give them more efficiency since shorter bursts from smaller banks would be more accurate, which may be a fair substitute for the movement modifiers game on the tabletop.

Edited by Owl Cutter, 02 November 2011 - 06:12 AM.

[Reoh]

Canonically the targeting system electronics weren't amazing. Just because you point and clicked there didn't mean everything hit on target. This meant the spray of fire would not necessraily all hit the same spot. That was why AC20 / Gauss / ERPPC were so nice, it all hit together while a spread of med lasers could get lucky but would probably splash around a bit before really hurting after a few volleys. For game balance I think that it's important the game isn't a magic point and click interface and that something is done to spread grouped fire about like in the core rulesets.

[Owl Cutter]

Damage grouping is precisely why I want group fire to be changed to burst fire; it breaks up groups without random cones, and player skill can be used to mitigate the effect.

As for harmonisation, I would be fine with it being dynamic and automatic since canonically, smaller weapon mounts have some independent articulation and electronic rangefinders are already no big investment. I would actually prefer a system of configurable settings based on ranges, with arms, legs and head having their own aimpoint groups that wobble when moving, and a HUD indicator for when weapons are able and unable to articulate to shoot into your aimpoint, but that seems highly unlikely for a commercial game, even a "simulation" one.

[BlackHornet]

Quote

But honestly it never made much sense to begin with. On most mechs you have some weapons that are fixed and some that aren't. Take the Wolfhound, for example. 3 Mediums in the chest which must be set to a certain convergence (or just dead ahead, a convergence of 0) ...

Not at all. Look at the hull machine gun on practically any tank, they use a ball or some other floating mount to allow the gun to change it's angle. Missile launchers may be fixed but that's hardly a concern for a *smart* weapon that is targetable or homing after launch.
So that leaves mortars (indirect) and rocket launchers (direct) as about the only fixed *dumb* weapons.

[infinite xaer0]

if you have multiple instances of the same weapon mounted in your torso, those weapons should converge at the maximum effective range of the weapon. Arm mounted weapons should be able to converge at any range.

[WerewolfX]

World of tanks has this down pat. The faster you go the more inaccurate you are should work the same here.

[Mister Blastman]

From past mistakes made in MW 3 and MW 4... I would strongly urge AGAINST pin-point convergence. This is what made the owens/scats with ersmalls in MW 3 and Madcats etc with erllas so deadly. Remove the convergence and they would have been completely different games. There needs to be some spread and the _only_ weapons that DO pinpoint converge are the ones on the ARMS.

Hence, you get a bonus for carrying on the arms. You also get a penalty--i.e. easy to blow off. Makes the stakes much higher. Torso weapons should not converge much at all.

[Vance Diamond]

What about a compromise in relation to the pilot's weapon-fire mode.

For example- when firing grouped weapons- you have the wide cone effect similar to a highly inaccurate LMG in Call of Duty or the damage spread seen in the table-top.

But when you fire your weapons one by one, they are a noticeably more accurate- never pin-point sure you are going to hit, but World of Tanks style.

With an adequate global cool down between every shot- choosing between group and single fire becomes a tactical decision. It also eliminates much of the "hardcore" convergence business that sounds like something out of EVE Online while still achieving the same goal.

Edited by Vance Diamond, 02 November 2011 - 08:28 AM.

[TheForce]

Vance Diamond, on 02 November 2011 - 08:27 AM, said:

What about a compromise in relation to the pilot's weapon-fire mode.

For example- when firing grouped weapons- you have the wide cone effect similar to a highly inaccurate LMG in Call of Duty or the damage spread seen in the table-top.

But when you fire your weapons one by one, they are a noticeably more accurate- never pin-point sure you are going to hit, but World of Tanks style.

With an adequate global cool down between every shot- choosing between group and single fire becomes a tactical decision. It also eliminates much of the "hardcore" convergence business that sounds like something out of EVE Online while still achieving the same goal.

Grouped Fire = Random damage distribution like btech.
Single Fire = pin point accuracy.

I like...good times

[Mister Blastman]

Vance Diamond, on 02 November 2011 - 08:27 AM, said:

Call of Duty

Please... NEVER ever mention those words on here again. This is Mechwarrior, not a stupid corridor shooter. Real men play Quake or Team Fortress 2, btw.

[Vance Diamond]

That's why I offered an equally viable table-top btek analogy, too.

Trying to cover the bases, yes?

[Killian]

theforce, on 02 November 2011 - 08:31 AM, said:

Grouped Fire = Random damage distribution like btech.
Single Fire = pin point accuracy.

I like...good times

Sorry, macro users will break single fire accuracy bonuses. As they can program my mouse to click as many times as I want. I would simply set a macro on the mouse to fire X times in a row and tweak the timing to be as fast as the game can recognize. Players have done this in first person shooters for a while now. Before that they would bind fire to the mouse wheel so that they could just scroll really fast and fire with each register of the mouse wheel.

People even did this back in MPBT days when they were trying to deal with this same problem.

[wanderer]

I'm a firm believer in "cone of fire", with movement (ESPECIALLY jumping) and impacts, and pilot/sensor damage widening that cone, while character skills, standing still, and targeting computers narrowing that cone. And I think target movement should ALSO increase that cone size. Fire at something going at 250kph jumping through the air, it should be a miracle if you blow their head off.

Magic super-precision aiming doesn't even exist in Battletech barring targeting computers (which still have a huge penalty to hit) or shutdown/immobile targets. IMHO, anything that prevents it here is a win in my book.

[Mister Blastman]

killian, on 02 November 2011 - 08:51 AM, said:

program my mouse

It'd be a great day if they announce that people will be forced to use a joystick/throttle/pedals and track IR in Mechwarrior Online. (I admit though even if this were the case people could still program their HOTAS's to do stuff like that with the mouse).

And, by the way, using macros on a mouse or game are just a lame way to compensate for a lack of skill.

[Vance Diamond]

See: global cool down.

That should stop the rotary auto-cannon effect in its tracks.

Unless, of course, you are firing a rotary auto-cannon.

Edited by Vance Diamond, 02 November 2011 - 08:56 AM.

[Killian]

Just to weigh in, I've always thought the "cone of fire" concept was a good representation of the tabletop ruleset.

As you move from standing, to walking, to running, to jumping your chance of hitting your target goes down. Tack in target movement and terrain effects and that simulates tracking with your torso and being behind cover.

Tie in the fact that in the table top game you roll individually for each weapon being fired, both for damage and location, and you are essentially firing in a cone.

How many times have you fired when you needed an 11 or 12 and managed to land one of the shots? How many times have you missed on a 3 or 4? Chance always has been a factor in Battletech, I'd like to see that represented more in Mechwarrior.