113 replies to this topic

[LordKnightFandragon]

MauttyKoray, on 15 January 2015 - 03:00 PM, said:

On a dual barreled battleship turret you still have 2 barrels that can NEVER hit the same spot. You'll get 2 shots that stay the same distance apart from one another as the barrels. The arms' weapons act like this, being able to position around and utlimately can both fire at the same target, however the weapons on a single arm can never hit the same exact spot in a straight firing weapon (ballistics, lasers, etc, thought SRMs spread and ultimately could). The mech's body weapons can be thought of like a giant turret in that respect, it can turn and angle to adjust, however the weapons (again, other than spreads like SRMs) cannot pinpoint onto a single spot, they will be spread out.

I really like this post and wish PGI would do something along these line. The mech's computer is supposed to automatically adjust to assist in aiming the different weapons, however you can't make a static weapon barrel bend magically to converge weapons that way.


Mech shooters like Hawken already exist. This game however is Mechwarrior, based on Battletech, and has always held a semi-simulation experience. I would much prefer this game not to have derpy pinpoint precision when it does not exist, promoting BAD gameplay and ultimately the game to finally die when enough people get fed up and leave. I'd rather the balance move toward TRUE Mech gameplay instead of this FPS mech shooter garbage that's been creeping its way in with the F2P twitch shooter crowd who more often than not don't even financially assist this game in its running cost.

For sure.

[Reno Blade]

The explanation was good.
The concept might be flawed because of the reticule.

using the concept of your movement sway:

there should be 3 reticules swaying while moving for torso and each arm as you depicted.
Faster movement and twisting would sway more.
Heat would reduce the speed the reticule would move.

Also the arm reticule could extend to that side only (and leaving torso and opposite side's arm stay) while twisting and aiming to that side.

Convergence then could be used to reduce the swaying strength by a % for the skill.
Example of multi-reticule convergence:

[LordKnightFandragon]

Reno Blade, on 15 January 2015 - 03:02 PM, said:

The explanation was good.
The concept might be flawed because of the reticule.

using the concept of your movement sway:

there should be 3 reticules swaying while moving for torso and each arm as you depicted.
Faster movement and twisting would sway more.
Heat would reduce the speed the reticule would move.

Also the arm reticule could extend to that side only (and leaving torso and opposite side's arm stay) while twisting and aiming to that side.

Convergence then could be used to reduce the swaying strength by a % for the skill.
Example of multi-reticule convergence:

OMG, that would be so damn confusing to keep track of in the heat of battle......

[Felicitatem Parco]

Dynamic convergence was removed from the game because it required the Host State Rewind system to make checks every time you put a reticule on target (to verify if the target was really there when you aimed at it, and so to give your weapons permission to converge). This created huge amount of network traffic, and so they took it out and replaced it with instant client-side convergence.

The idea presented by the OP would be great, HOWEVER you would need a custom reticule for every Mech Variant based on their hard point layout because each weapon would need their own crosshairs. Also, the reticule would also have to be dynamic based on load out.

[Khobai]

Quote

Mech shooters like Hawken already exist. This game however is Mechwarrior, based on Battletech, and has always held a semi-simulation experience. I would much prefer this game not to have derpy pinpoint precision when it does not exist, promoting BAD gameplay and ultimately the game to finally die when enough people get fed up and leave. I'd rather the balance move toward TRUE Mech gameplay instead of this FPS mech shooter garbage that's been creeping its way in with the F2P twitch shooter crowd who more often than not don't even financially assist this game in its running cost.

1) Where does it say in the battletech rulebook that weapons cant pivot? You reached that assumption on your own with zero evidence to back it up. Furthermore pivoting weapons are the norm on all modern military vehicles so it makes perfect sense to assume battlemechs also have pivoting weapons. Battletech may take place during veritable dark age, but the technology is still far more advanced than what we have today.

EDIT: To further reinforce that mechs do indeed have pivoting weapons: torso mounted weapons in battletech fire in a cone in front of the mech (you can even fire two different torso weapons at two different targets). If torso mounted weapons couldnt pivot then they would only be able to fire in a straight line rather than in a cone and you wouldnt be able to fire at two different targets. Its obviously the weapons themselves pivoting too, rather than torso twisting, because torso twisting is done as an entirely seperate action.

2) I understand pinpoint damage is a problem. But the solution needs to be both intuitive and elegant. Your solution is neither of those things. It adds unnecessary complexity and steepens the learning curve for a game that already struggles with finding new players.

3) If pinpoint damage is your main concern, I already presented an alternative solution to balancing pinpoint damage which wont upset existing players or discourage new players.

Edited by Khobai, 15 January 2015 - 03:30 PM.

[Metus regem]

LordKnightFandragon, on 15 January 2015 - 03:04 PM, said:

OMG, that would be so damn confusing to keep track of in the heat of battle......

And it would really show whom is skilled and whom is not, wouldn't it?

[LordKnightFandragon]

Khobai, on 15 January 2015 - 03:13 PM, said:

1) Where does it say in the battletech rulebook that weapons cant pivot? You reached that assumption on your own with zero evidence to back it up. Furthermore pivoting weapons are the norm on all modern military vehicles so it makes perfect sense to assume battlemechs also have pivoting weapons.

2) I understand pinpoint damage is a problem. But the solution needs to be both intuitive and elegant. Your solution is neither of those things. It adds unnecessary complexity and steepens the learning curve for a game that already struggles with finding new players.

3) If pinpoint damage is your main concern, I already presented an alternative solution to balancing pinpoint damage which wont upset existing players or discourage new players.

I still vote for a LBX effect and deviation based on the number of weapons fired. We are all already used to shooters with some degree of deviation and MWO already has many spread weapons. So group firing like 4 lasers and having them spread like an LBX at 200m wouldnt be that hard to adopt. Only thing that would need to happen is there is a set amount of deviation when you fire,

1 weapon, 0 deviation
2 weapons: 5%
3 weapons: 20%
4 Weapons: 40%
5+ weapons: 65% deviation and they basically go all the hell over the place.

Then we could go further to add in a COF bloom not unlike most shooters, where sustained fire blooms you out even further.

like we have deviation reset of like 15% per second, but each shot increases bloom by like 3%...idk...something like that.

Something to give us deviation, something to discourage mass group firing, something to kinda force people to slow their firing down a bit. I get its a Mech, its all stabilized and crap, but isnt it the pilot that kinda links with the mech and helps to keep it balanced? Under the stress of high heat, it would throw you off, kinda make you less accurate overall.


As for a torso weapon pivoting, if it does, its very little, prolly something like a StuG...

[Khobai]

Quote

I still vote for a LBX effect and deviation based on the number of weapons fired.

This is another possible solution. Its intuitive because its similar to recoil throwing off your aim in other shooters. Its a game mechanic that new players would already be familiar with.

[LordKnightFandragon]

Khobai, on 15 January 2015 - 03:26 PM, said:

This is another possible solution. Its intuitive because its similar to recoil throwing off your aim in other shooters. Its a game mechanic that new players would already be familiar with.

And likely, the easiest to implement.

[terrycloth]

I'm pretty sure 'ghost convergence' would be hated even more than ghost heat. Especially if you made it purely based on the number of weapons without accounting for the size.

Also, penalizing rapid fire and sustained fire is the opposite of what you want to do -- the problem builds aren't the dakka builds which already spray fire everywhere.

Edited by terrycloth, 15 January 2015 - 03:31 PM.

[Alistair Winter]

Reno Blade, on 15 January 2015 - 03:02 PM, said:

The explanation was good.
The concept might be flawed because of the reticule.

using the concept of your movement sway:

there should be 3 reticules swaying while moving for torso and each arm as you depicted.
Faster movement and twisting would sway more.
Heat would reduce the speed the reticule would move.

Also the arm reticule could extend to that side only (and leaving torso and opposite side's arm stay) while twisting and aiming to that side.

Convergence then could be used to reduce the swaying strength by a % for the skill.
Example of multi-reticule convergence:

Holy **** this is so awesomesauce!

I really wish this game was harder to play and more complex. One of the things that made me fall in love with MW2 when I was a kid, was the fact that it required a lot of multitasking to play right. Targeting, torso twisting, you had so many buttons to push. It felt like actually piloting a warmachine. And now that I've served in the army as a tank gunner, I still wish I had buttons to push, targetting computers to tinker with, night vision parameters to adjust. I wish the HUD had more information, I wish I had to do more thinking when playing this game.

But for the most part, all you need is WASD, Space and Mouse 1 and 2. Same as Quake and TF2. Point and click. Instant convergence. And they won't even let me have collisions, knockdown or repair & rearm

[LordKnightFandragon]

Alistair Winter, on 15 January 2015 - 03:43 PM, said:

Holy **** this is so awesomesauce!

I really wish this game was harder to play and more complex. One of the things that made me fall in love with MW2 when I was a kid, was the fact that it required a lot of multitasking to play right. Targeting, torso twisting, you had so many buttons to push. It felt like actually piloting a warmachine. And now that I've served in the army as a tank gunner, I still wish I had buttons to push, targetting computers to tinker with, night vision parameters to adjust. I wish the HUD had more information, I wish I had to do more thinking when playing this game.

But for the most part, all you need is WASD, Space and Mouse 1 and 2. Same as Quake and TF2. Point and click. Instant convergence. And they won't even let me have collisions, knockdown or repair & rearm

Cool, you were a tank gunner...nice

So, do tell, is Warthunder even close to right having HE be the ideal tank killer? And What effect does a Sabot shot have on a tank and what does it do to the inside of the tank to kill it? Warthunder has it where Kinetic energy is largely useless cuz they say it passes through harmlessly and does not explode......

And while Tanks have alot of buttons to push, im pretty sure they only have the 1 reticule...you switch to the Coax when you need to.....

Edited by LordKnightFandragon, 15 January 2015 - 03:50 PM.

[Khobai]

lets make MWO more like QWOPs

have a mouse for each arm reticle

a steering wheel for your torso reticle

and pedals for walking

[Big Tin Man]

The entire basis of this is that torso weapons are not gimballed. That is a bold assumption.

I've been an advocate for a Halo style crosshair bloom that would expand and contract based on what the mech is doing (chain firing, moving, running, hot, cold, etc). Make everything have a cone of fire, but it can vary in size. Simple solution.

Edited by Big Tin Man, 15 January 2015 - 03:52 PM.

[Lily from animove]

ok, question: how woul d this system help preventing the dual gauss? it looks a lot like dualgaus would be the new meta because mechs like Hunch 4p or Nova suddenly get completely useless because they drag their firepower by many guns instead the big ones.

So does the topic above actually truly solve the issue, or does it only solve the issue on a few mechs?

[LordKnightFandragon]

Big Tin Man, on 15 January 2015 - 03:51 PM, said:

The entire basis of this is that torso weapons are not gimballed.

I've been an advocate for a Halo style crosshair bloom that would expand and contract based on what the mech is doing (chain firing, moving, running, hot, cold, etc). Make everything have a cone of fire, but it can vary in size. Simple solution.

I wouldnt want anything much bigger then LBX spread. Much more then that and it becomes to lame. Cuz no, firing alot should not suddenly cause your bullets to come out of the barrel and take a hard 180 degree turn downward and land at ur feet cuz CoF bloom....it should be a moderate bloom to the direct front of ur mech, basically a circle like LBX spread in game now. Prolly a little more spread then what we have, but somewhere in there would be ideal.

[Khobai]

Quote

The entire basis of this is that torso weapons are not gimballed.

battletech supports that idea that torso weapons are gimballed though. in battletech torso weapons fire in a cone not a straight line. torso weapons can also fire at different targets in the same attack phase. how do you explain that? its not torso movement, because torso twisting is done as an entirely seperate phase.

[Onlystolen]

This will all be counter attacked and shot down by PGI with "Its a limitation of the cry engine"

Although i would love to see this in game.

Edited by Onlystolen, 15 January 2015 - 03:56 PM.

[LordKnightFandragon]

Lily from animove, on 15 January 2015 - 03:53 PM, said:

ok, question: how woul d this system help preventing the dual gauss? it looks a lot like dualgaus would be the new meta because mechs like Hunch 4p or Nova suddenly get completely useless because they drag their firepower by many guns instead the big ones.

So does the topic above actually truly solve the issue, or does it only solve the issue on a few mechs?

The OP's suggestion? Prolly wouldnt solve all our issues, but it would prolly be a better step then leaving it the way we have it and just hoping one day everyone just goes along with this mostly fubar system.

Onlystolen, on 15 January 2015 - 03:55 PM, said:

This will all be counter attacked and shot down by PGI with "Its a limitation of the cry engine"

Although i would love to see this in game.

Cry engine seems to be quite limited then...

[Alistair Winter]

LordKnightFandragon, on 15 January 2015 - 03:49 PM, said:

Cool, you were a tank gunner...nice
So, do tell, is Warthunder even close to right having HE be the ideal tank killer? And What effect does a Sabot shot have on a tank and what does it do to the inside of the tank to kill it? Warthunder has it where Kinetic energy is largely useless cuz they say it passes through harmlessly and does not explode......

Strange. Don't russians make that game? Would have thought russians understand a thing or two about tanks. I've barely played Warthunder, so I can't say too much about the game. But everyone who understands anything about tanks and cannons know that armour piercing discarding sabot rounds (APDS) are the weapon of choice against tanks. Slide one of those just where the turret meets the hull and watch the tank go boom.

LordKnightFandragon, on 15 January 2015 - 03:49 PM, said:

And while Tanks have alot of buttons to push, im pretty sure they only have the 1 reticule...you switch to the Coax when you need to.....

They also only have two guns mounted on one turret, for the most part. A battlemech effectively has two shoulder-mounted "turrets" (i.e. the arms) with any number of weapons, in addition to hull-mounted weapons, which are less common on tanks since WW2.

But more importantly, a tank's reticule doesn't necessarily show where you're going to hit. They need to be calibrated depending on weather conditions and the warping of the barrel. A barrel is rarely perfectly straight, and firing your cannon a lot will change its shape due to temperature. In this regard, the targeting system in MWO is more advanced, because it predicts where the shot will land, down to a nanometer.

Several reticules would be necessary unless you had perfect gyro-stabilization on every weapon. And in MWO, we don't even have the ability to keep the torso moving in the same direction independent of the body, as a modern tank does. We have no weapon stabilization. If you walk over a pebble, it throws your whole aim off. In this regard, MWO mechs are kind of like WW2 tanks.

Edited by Alistair Winter, 15 January 2015 - 04:13 PM.