pyrocomp, on 02 November 2014 - 01:51 PM, said:
SuckyJack, this is yet another way around pinpoint alphas, but really fall into the idea 'convergence or no convergence'. The first question was perfect or non-perfect convergence affected by shooting/weapon type.
E.g. you aim at mech center on short range - all weapons fire at CT, at mid range all will again go on CT, on long range this will spread on the CT and STs. With modules/XP spent on long range you still have all to CT, but more time for weapons to converge or fire one-by-one provided each weapon aim recticle (and it's not fixed in time).
If you are arguing for a form of CoF then I will deny the idea outright. When you put randomness into play you turn the skill ceiling into means of mitigating that random factor. I've played a good number of games that used CoF on precision weapons or along side pinpoint weapons and the effect is rather horrible.
Assuming there is no technical limitations I still don't like the idea of using weapon offsets that depend on distance between you and your target in the manner you have described. What you have described is setting the game to aim a certain length away from the center of your crosshair that changes based on the range and weapon you are using. Why I disagree is that it is an extremely messy system in terms of programming logic that is trying to mimic what using a static convergence will do while further enabling long range weapons to better function at closer ranges while harming short range weapons at long ranges further. You are changing the firing lines instantly yet forcing the game to not aim where you are aiming in an artificial system.
Changing said firing lines to always be the same and instead use the simple matter that the point of origin for firing on a battlemech currently in game isn't coming from your viewpoint but rather the point where weapons are mounted. Doing this sets it so that short ranged weapons continue to have a tight grouping at short ranges while long range weapons become more unwieldy at short ranges.
This is simple and reliable because the firing line for any torso mounted weapon would be exactly the same every single time you fired it. Every torso mounted weapon would hit perfectly with the crosshair at that weapon's optimum range. It achieves the same result as changing the firing lines to be offset from the crosshair depending on range in a much simpler fashion with fewer instances for bugs to occur or Hit Reg errors to crop up.
By having the majority of the weapon points not have instant convergence we place more emphasis on skills outside of aiming. Learning to aim to adjust for the offset and timing weapons correctly becomes deeper but so does mech building and positioning. We give more value to low slung arms with lower arm actuators as they would still have this instant convergence. We give more differences between variants and chassis we expand the value of hardpoints beyond their height and what can be mounted in them.
Fixing convergence to optimum range values in the side torsos and arms without a lower arm actuator is simple to program, adds far more depth to the gameplay in more than one area and cuts down on pinpoint front loaded alphas either by making positioning required for it, giving intuitive mechanics that will spread damage or having to stagger shots to adjust for the offset for the different locations the weapons are mounted in. Mech profiles become that much more important.
Mechwarrior Buddah, on 02 November 2014 - 02:34 PM, said:
Also; the WWII airplanes ppl like to compare mechs with with these arguments didnt tend to have computers a thousand years into the future that would adjust the gimbals on the weapons to adjust their engagement range BUUUUUT
They shouldnt be instant either
pyrocomp, on 02 November 2014 - 02:41 PM, said:
But that the BT. There is a mind-bending statement that this technology was lost (yep, across many novels). More to it, there was even mention, that you had to manually tweak something in those ACs to make them shoot where intended if you switched to location with different gravity. I don't think I can explain that from present day logic and technology, but keeping in mind that I in my smartphone have more calculative power than NASA had sending man on moon... really, 30-40-50 years back this was a picture one had about computers, their availability and their size. Are you not buffled reading about present day technology in novels written in 60s? Noone predicted we will have this level of computation power.
Actually, no. The vast majority of the weapons mounted in a mech are mounted inside the mech. Using gimbals increases the space that must be assigned to that weapon dependent on the degrees the weapon is intended to move as you must account for swing before and after the pivot point. Weapons mounted in gimbals and turrets occupy significantly more space for their size than weapons fixed to the hull.
Battlemechs have arms for a reason.
Edited by SuckyJack, 02 November 2014 - 02:50 PM.
5
