The amount of energy that it would take to make a laser melt through inches of armor plating at 400+ meters would be staggering, much more than what would be required to charge the capacitors (assumedly) power out Gauss rifles.
And the 200mm Autocannons that max out at 270 meters? The LRM missiles that max at 1000 meters?
Introduce recticle shake, the faster you are moving the more it shakes. Stand still, no shake and pinpoint accuracy, only issue is LRMs where it is an auto lock on.
My other idea is that weapons converge at max range only, ML converge at 270m after that they cross to their extreme range. One of these days I will do some illustrations, one of these days.
HSR already takes care of that though, as does torso twisting/enemy movement. And "a few meters" is far too large to be reasonable unless you're trying to take a shot across the map, in which case you're probably using a precision weapon like the Gauss Rifle or a long-barreled AC2.
The level of deviation is logically too small to be worth modeling at most of this game's engagement ranges, and the level of devation you and some of the people in this thread are asking for (missing whole mechs, or having the probable hit zone cover so much of the mech that targeting a component is an exercise in luck) is far too large to be justified by tiny things like thermal expansion or barrel tolerances.
A couple minutes of angle at several hundred meters may look like a large dispersal on a human-sized target, but when you're aiming at a house on legs it's nothing.
5 Mil shift from calculated point of impact for a shot on the move with heat is totally legitimate and probably slightly too precise given the lore, but at 1000m, this would be 5m deviation, which would be enough to miss a mech if your point of aim was an arm. With 6 different lasers each with their own deviation, it could be enough to make some of them hit a location other than just the CT. How would that make the game so much worse? In my opinion, it would make things better. No more 6 ERLL Stalker and 4 ERLL Hellbringer snipe wars on a CW map with both of them complaining the other one is OP. Maneuver and fire together would make more of an impact and skill would rule the day. Piloting, timing of shots, and aiming would all matter, rather than just "who has the fastest button click?"
I haven't played WoT, so you'll have to enlighten me on the method and magnitude of their CoF effects. It sounds like they do something different or more extreme than what we were suggesting. I'm not surprised there's a ton of griping, because here, the mere suggestion of a more realistic mechanic that adds to the game's depth while working to alleviate one of its flaws is met with hostility because understanding math is hard.
Dimento Graven, on 08 April 2015 - 03:28 PM, said:
And I also mentioned other 'mechs that can and do, dual wield gauss, other than the Crab and Direwhale:
Catapult
Cataphract
Jaeger
At least 5 builds can do it, and I still play my Jaeger when I'm in the mood...
Thing is these mechs are bound by the de-sync, they have at best 2x medium lasers other than the Gauss Rifles. The Dire Wolf and K Crab have a complete energy boat loadout as well as the 2xGauss so they are not affected by the de-sync if they don't or can't manage it. So at the most damaging level it becomes a special weapon for two mechs only. So the de-sync fails to balance anything.
Let's talk about how it's done in the real world briefly.
It is true that modern Main Battle Tanks can achieve impressive accuracy on-the-move with their stabilized main gun in this day and age. But they still have a significant circular error probability, even when stationary. And further the on-the-move accuracy they achieve is not via the strength of their stabilization per se but the fact the computer fires the main gun when it determines that the gun is ever-so-momentarily aligned with the gunner's sight. So how does this apply to a Battlemech?
1) Battlemechs move on legs. As a gunnery platform, even when walking on level terrain, a Battlemech is hardly ideal to deliver a perfectly stabilized, constant stream of photon or projectile fire. For every individual azimuth the mech would be bouncing slightly differently as far as aiming is concerned. Then, not only must the torso itself be kept in alignment with the gunner's sight, but the weaponry inside the torso and THEIR convergence as well. When running at full speed across rough terrain only a magical stabilization system could keep the torso along with several multi-ton weapons well aligned even some of the time.
2) A modern tank has only one weapon it is trying to stabilize with the gunner's sight. It can afford to delay the firing of that one weapon until the tank bounces the right way so that the turret is momentarily just right. With multiple weapons, each would have to have its own reference system and the gunner would have to either deal with some of the weapons being off target or let the computer chain-fire them as they fall on target.
3) Tolerances are not perfect, see prior posts discussing this ad nauseum
4) Rangefinding the target is not a perfect science either. Ranging errors would contribute greatly to a failed convergence of weaponry.
Edited by MechWarrior4184181, 08 April 2015 - 08:24 PM.
After reading through this thread, one thing I have noticed is that there are no answers. By that I mean there are literally no answers offered, it is just a rehash of people’s opinions of what MWO should and should not be (mixed liberallywith off-topic comments).
Everyone is willing to describe what is "wrong": focused fire from alphas kills mechs too rapidly, making MWO less fun. We'll call this "Fact1".
Some people (GroupA) like Fact1 because it caters to their vision of MWO: a shooter. They want high personal kill counts, mainly attributable to their "skill".
Other people (GroupB) do not like Fact1 because it does not cater to their vision of MWO: a strategic team-oriented armor simulation.
The issue is: MWO has always tried to be both.
A balance must be maintained between the two visions in order to appeal to the largest body of players. In short, convergence is required to in order appeal to GroupA, and the ability to survive in order to contribute strategically for the team is also required to appease GroupB.
Originally, the designers elected to double the armour on a mech from the TT values because mechs were dying too fast on the battlefield. We have lived with that for quite some time. As a community, we hardly think about this original change anymore.
What I offer as a solution is this: Instead of re-writing the convergence/targeting of weapons to mitigate Fact1 (which would be difficult, time-consuming, and distasteful to GroupA), simply increase the armour values further to promote more survivability. This simple change would allow for more strategic contributions by most players due to living longer, but the contributions of those able to concentrate fire would still be quite valuable.
A refinement to this suggestion might be:
Light: no change to existing armour values
Medium: 1.33 * existing armour values
Heavy: 1.66 * existing armour values
Assault: 2 * existing armour values
This would promote two paths to strategic contribution in MWO: speed or armour. Presently, survivability (and the ability to contribute strategically) is based clearly on speed in MWO -- armour contributes little. Slow mechs are typically food for their smaller, lighter, faster counterparts. By increasing the survivability of the beefier mechs, they could contribute more by wading into the fray, soaking up damage, and laying down the mighty hurt -- much like the genre describes (GroupB appeased). However, the contribution of pinpoint alphas would still take its toll. An ace gunner could still pick apart a larger mech with adroit movement and accurate fire (GroupA appeased). Presently, beefier mechs don’t do any of the things mentioned because they are not really significantly more robust than their lighter cousins. With the proposed change, they would be.
As a result of this change, convergence becomes less of an issue – either you are small and fast and the enemy rarely hits you, or you are big and beefy and you can take it.
Anyway, thoughts?
You got the "like" for your concise and accurate appraisal of the thread in general, though I almost took it back when I read your idea. Lights are already made of tissue paper, and increasing TTK on other mechs by adding EVEN MOAR ARMORE sort of seems like it would result in a never-ending circular trend of "buff weapons; buff armor; buff weapons; buff armor" etc.
I actually agree with the idea for heat penalties, though I don't want to go quote-hunting at this late hour over it. I honestly wouldn't be against a complete overhaul of the game in an experiment to see what would happen if they just set everything to match TT+canon flavor effects on the test server. It probably would have problems all its own, but at least it would definitely be interesting. Imagine, ACs that shoot in massive bursts identified as cassettes instead of bullets, heat penalties for consistently overheating over a ten second period, and weapon tracking that causes PPCs to work nearer than min range, just at a penalty to hit due to the barrel size. It'd be an entirely different game, I think.
On the topic of the thread though, instant convergence is hardly the worst offender in reducing TTK, just an easily reparable one, since delayed convergence WAS a thing in the game for a time, and I imagine that they don't just permanently delete old code for no reason. Heck, there is even a skill for improving the delay on it. That thing is just an XP sink that you have to pay into to get double basics right now.
TheCobra, on 08 April 2015 - 11:00 AM, said:
Just add more time to convergence. Although it is not instant, it is very very fast! This is coming from a player that uses mostly pin point damage mechs, most of the time with lasers. It should take about 2~3 seconds to fully align your weapons on the same point. (And it would make a certain tier II skill have an actual use in game.)
Edit: Also as a convergence lock button, that allows you to converge on a moving mech and keep that same convergence when leading, adding an extra layer of depht to the combat.
Ah, you beat me to it, but I didn't feel like rewriting a bunch of stuff. For your later idea, why not just make that value for whatever target you have locked? Saves the need for an extra button that way, and gives people a reason to press that pesky r key.
Deimir, on 08 April 2015 - 12:53 PM, said:
One thing I always wanted to test as a 'fix' for the convergence thing, would be to make all torso/head mounted weapons converge based on their optimal range. So if you fire an unmodified Medium Laser at a target that is 270m away, you'll get pinpoint accuracy. If they are closer or further that that, you have to adjust your aim accordingly to get the beam on a particular spot. Firing an alpha of mixed range weapons at someone that pops out of cover near you is going to pepper them with damage, while aiming and firing each weapon type in turn allows you to focus fire on a particular spot. Arm weapons could continue to function as they do now, since (in theory at least) they are more vulnerable to destruction, and it makes sense for the arms to pivot and aim themselves.
Keep in mind this is just my own weird idea, I have no clue whether it would even be functional.
Yeah, I mentioned this earlier, and someone else probably has far before I got to it.
Dino Might, on 08 April 2015 - 12:59 PM, said:
*Fancy Maths*
But seriously, I like where you are going with this.
Dimento Graven, on 08 April 2015 - 01:39 PM, said:
An assumption that can generally be agreed upon is that 'mechs are in fact precisely manufactured and maintained machines, with enough feed back going to the targeting computer to detect when gimbal 15 is off by that milliradian and automatically compensate.
Actually, that assumption is not something that can generally be agreed upon according to Battletech canon. *shrug*
Dimento Graven, on 08 April 2015 - 01:39 PM, said:
My suggestion is based off of 30+ years of preceding versions of this game and the various TT equivalents where heat was more than an "all or nothing" proposition as it is now.
You strategized HOW you would play, HOW you would stagger your fire, WHEN you would alpha, and the risk v. reward of the heat scale was one of the primary considerations.
That's been taken out of the game and as a result we have endless builds with endless players doing nothing but alpha'ing every time they fire. That's not "realistic" when it comes to the history of the BT universe.
Truth here. Heat system could definitely use some serious revision. However, that's not the topic of this thread, nor does it change the fact that instant convergence is a touch unrealistic from both a canon and real-world viewpoint.
I also seem to recall you writing in an earlier post about applying reticule shake to mechs that run hot. I kind of like this idea, but would like to see it taken farther. Why not substitute reticule shake for any condition affecting your mech that would give a to-hit penalty in BT? They already have it in place (sort of) for jumping, we could add movement to the list (at a graduated curve, no less) having actuators or sensors damaged via critical hit, and as you mentioned, heat. How ridiculously cool would that be? Criticals that matter. HAH!
Though I think for this it might be a bit better to simply apply the cone of fire for each weapon system and not shake the reticule. It's not like your targeting computer is going to be able to tell you how far off of aligned your floppy, actuator-less arm is at the moment without some kind of crazy complicated internal sensor network constantly monitoring your mech's systems. Like an advanced battle damage detection system of some manner.
edit: Please forgive my disorganization and glean what you can from this. It got late when I wasn't looking.
MechWarrior4184181, on 08 April 2015 - 08:23 PM, said:
Let's talk about how it's done in the real world briefly.
It is true that modern Main Battle Tanks can achieve impressive accuracy on-the-move with their stabilized main gun in this day and age. But they still have a significant circular error probability, even when stationary. And further the on-the-move accuracy they achieve is not via the strength of their stabilization per se but the fact the computer fires the main gun when it determines that the gun is ever-so-momentarily aligned with the gunner's sight. So how does this apply to a Battlemech?
1) Battlemechs move on legs. As a gunnery platform, even when walking on level terrain, a Battlemech is hardly ideal to deliver a perfectly stabilized, constant stream of photon or projectile fire. For every individual azimuth the mech would be bouncing slightly differently as far as aiming is concerned. Then, not only must the torso itself be kept in alignment with the gunner's sight, but the weaponry inside the torso and THEIR convergence as well. When running at full speed across rough terrain only a magical stabilization system could keep the torso along with several multi-ton weapons well aligned even some of the time.
2) A modern tank has only one weapon it is trying to stabilize with the gunner's sight. It can afford to delay the firing of that one weapon until the tank bounces the right way so that the turret is momentarily just right. With multiple weapons, each would have to have its own reference system and the gunner would have to either deal with some of the weapons being off target or let the computer chain-fire them as they fall on target.
3) Tolerances are not perfect, see prior posts discussing this ad nauseum
4) Rangefinding the target is not a perfect science either. Ranging errors would contribute greatly to a failed convergence of weaponry.
Answer = 1037 years in the future! An believe me, I am well aware of tolerances in the real world. The only thing we need to determine accuracy is physics.
Answer = 1037 years in the future! An believe me, I am well aware of tolerances in the real world. The only thing we need to determine accuracy is physics.
A future based on the 1980's. Computers are very very primitive. But this is all irrelevant, the reason for changing convergence is not lore accuracy - it's to improve game play.
An assumption that can generally be agreed upon is that 'mechs are in fact precisely manufactured and maintained machines, with enough feed back going to the targeting computer to detect when gimbal 15 is off by that milliradian and automatically compensate.
Ha ha ha ha ha ha. thats the best nonsence i've ever read about the BattleTech universe.
Thanks Dimento Graven there's not much to laugh about in these forums, but that is priceless
Ha ha ha ha ha ha. thats the best nonsence i've ever read about the BattleTech universe.
Thanks Dimento Graven there's not much to laugh about in these forums, but that is priceless
Pretty much. BT computers, at least the ones on mechs (not sure about ships), are basically DOS boxes and the mechs themselves are not new. They are mostly family heirlooms passed down the line from generation to generation. Shot up, patched, blown apart, repaired, busted and salvaged over and over and over again.
I guess it's harder to really comprehend how primitive the digital systems are supposed to be for people in our modern era. This is from a decade when one commercial personal computer design could get so hot that the chips unseated from the motherboard and the legitimate tech support endorsed fix was to "Pick up the machine and drop it" to reseat the chips.
Pretty much. BT computers, at least the ones on mechs (not sure about ships), are basically DOS boxes and the mechs themselves are not new. They are mostly family heirlooms passed down the line from generation to generation. Shot up, patched, blown apart, repaired, busted and salvaged over and over and over again.
Pretty much. BT computers, at least the ones on mechs (not sure about ships), are basically DOS boxes and the mechs themselves are not new. They are mostly family heirlooms passed down the line from generation to generation. Shot up, patched, blown apart, repaired, busted and salvaged over and over and over again.
This argument is a waste of time since kamikaze actions arn't a military strategy with such "highvalue" Technology, beside it was an ambush attack, while the mech was in repair to make it 100% ready for next combat. R&R system was taken out of the game - therefore we now fight like houseforces which get fully operational mechs without malfunction for every battle.
The conclusion that lights up at first with: "Shut up, patched, blown apart, repaired, busted and salvaged over and over and over again." is a fallacy. The techs do all to make the Mech nearly 100% ready. Parts which were damaged get repaired, and destroyed components get replaced, otherwise the technique does not work! Every mil-plattform is based on interchangeable parts to avoid failfunction. This concept is a product of series production even if they are small series. You can argue that a mech in combat have failfuinctions because of damaged parts, but not before. If the mech is not usable, because of any problems, it don't get wasted in a battle. Surrendering before the mech take main damage so it is not repairable was common - fight into a foreseeable death was not a option.
Yes BT is future fiction of the past, but who read the this SiFi with the eyes of now, have to figure in the progress, otherwise it isn't the future but a parallel universe future. And the second one does not be cohesive, since the timeline starts with the now, and not a "if past - like travel back in time and changing the history/having an alternate history as a startpoint, what would have lead to a parallel future".
"Do The Majority Of Players Want To Get Rid Of Convergence?" - The most players i would guess are used to reliable aiming. We have enough rng in the game - spread of Shrot range missle/LBX which are only viable in low distance fights e.g. brawl or LRMs which can be undermined by using cover - with relative velocity of two moving objects things with damage over time get unreliable too. Since most weapons are this type, beside of gauss, which needs to be charged and released in the right moment or PPCs and IS-AC what are in most cases rather slow projectile speed it is lottery too do point blank damage without spread on moving objects.
Yes BT is future fiction of the past, but who read the this SiFi with the eyes of now, have to figure in the progress, otherwise it isn't the future but a parallel universe future. And the second one does not be cohesive, since the timeline starts with the now, and not a "if past - like travel back in time and changing the history/having an alternate history as a startpoint, what would have lead to a parallel future".
Battletech doesn't have to keep up with the times, the Universe is established and the game is based on that lore. That lore says these giant walking tanks have primitive computers and that primitive level of technology is a key component in how these machines are supposed to be balanced and functioning. The further you deviate from this the less of a BT game it becomes, eventually there becomes little point in even being called Mechwarrior. If MWO wanted to leap a thousand years in the future of the BT universe (like say how Knights of the Old Republic leapt 5,000 years into Star Wars past) then they can start making up their own tech and making things more advanced. But the point of MWO is that it was supposed to be based on the actual time line of the BT universe circa 3049 and advance slowly from there. Remove the tech limitations and you remove any real reason for this.
It's bad enough that they changed the radar system and targeting systems. We aren't supposed to have magic red boxes that automatically show the entire team the enemy, not without dedicating tonnage and space to a targeting computer. Changes like this are why weapons are the only focus of mech design in MWO, there's little else to dedicate space to. There's so few times when you really have to make a hard decision between another laser or x piece of gear, the game would be better if that happened more often.
Quote
"Do The Majority Of Players Want To Get Rid Of Convergence?" - The most players i would guess are used to reliable aiming. We have enough rng in the game - spread of Shrot range missle/LBX which are only viable in low distance fights e.g. brawl or LRMs which can be undermined by using cover - with relative velocity of two moving objects things with damage over time get unreliable too. Since most weapons are this type, beside of gauss, which needs to be charged and released in the right moment or PPCs and IS-AC what are in most cases rather slow projectile speed it is lottery too do point blank damage without spread on moving objects.
This retort needs to go away. I haven't seen anyone suggesting any kind of RNG, at all. We don't want shots going to random locations, we want the terminus of weapons fire to be broken up so not everything is a pinpoint scalpel. I'll paste my previous post on this since you may have missed it:
Quote
A change to convergence would increase the skill required to aim, not decrease it. We aren't talking about making every shot go in a random direction, all shots should proceed to a predictable terminus - meaning you can aim just fine, but you can't just fire everything you have at once and expect it all to end up in the same place. With this model you have to make a decision as to whether you want huge burst from your alpha, or the precision targeting from one or two weapon groups. This choice doesn't currently exist in MWO, Alpha is the only answer to the question 95% of the time and as such it greatly reduces the amount of skill and thought involved in aiming.
For an in game example. Say you take a Pulse boat (any, doesn't matter which), you engage say an AC/20 Hunchback. In the current set up, you fire everything you have at the Hunch, your heat spikes but it all likelyhood at least 80% of your alpha lands on that Hunch and very likely removes it's armor (or comes very close) in one burst.
With the convergence change I would like to see, this scenario would play out differently. If you decided to Alpha, some of your pulse shots would hit the CT, the opposite ST and the Hunch (some may even miss depending on the exact point you aim for and angle of fire), in the end you may have delivered around 60% of your Alpha damage (just spitballing numbers) onto the Hunch compartment.
However, maybe you could decide you want to land everything on that Hunch: So instead of Alpha striking - you fire weapon group A, then aim for and fire Weapon Group B, Then aim for and fire Weapon Group C and so on. It takes longer to get all of your damage on target, you will have to twist between shots or weave into cover to avoid the AC/20, but if your aim is good enough you will land 100% of your damage on the Hunch, no randomness involved.
This has the resulting effect of greatly minimizing burst damage (making it situational, as it should be), increasing general TTK and making Pilot skill matter more. It also means the fight will reward the smarter player, who chooses both his target and his weapon usage correctly. You could still run into situations where Alpha is the right answer, either a hit and run scenario or maybe the Hunch is already armor stripped and you think you can pop it with an Alpha Strike. These are the situations Alpha's were intended to be used in, but with perfect universal pinpoint accuracy it simply removes almost any thought from attack choice, you Alpha until your heat threshold says you cant.
Battletech doesn't have to keep up with the times, the Universe is established and the game is based on that lore. That lore says these giant walking tanks have primitive computers and that primitive level of technology is a key component in how these machines are supposed to be balanced and functioning. The further you deviate from this the less of a BT game it becomes, eventually there becomes little point in even being called Mechwarrior. If MWO wanted to leap a thousand years in the future of the BT universe (like say how Knights of the Old Republic leapt 5,000 years into Star Wars past) then they can start making up their own tech and making things more advanced. But the point of MWO is that it was supposed to be based on the actual time line of the BT universe circa 3049 and advance slowly from there. Remove the tech limitations and you remove any real reason for this.
Funfact is that even the past of a BT universe that has slow progress has over 1000 years to evolve. Since we had a progress in semi conductors within three dacades it is hard to suggest a future that does not achive it within 1000 years. Also looking back from the 80's there was a noticable progress in computers and technic (not that public known or aware) but in military+educational institution's going on. Speaking of Targeting computers - this is not a "own new tech" it is just advanced tech. http://en.wikipedia....i/Moore%27s_law was announced 165 and final in 1975. Even if the BT Creators didn't know it, it is just a part of the past the BT universe progressed out of.
Quxudica, on 09 April 2015 - 02:01 AM, said:
It's bad enough that they changed the radar system and targeting systems. We aren't supposed to have magic red boxes that automatically show the entire team the enemy, not without dedicating tonnage and space to a targeting computer. Changes like this are why weapons are the only focus of mech design in MWO, there's little else to dedicate space to. There's so few times when you really have to make a hard decision between another laser or x piece of gear, the game would be better if that happened more often.
To be honest we are playing a computer game, and it shows us this: "have magic red boxes that automatically show the entire team the enemy" - so this little box with a half m³ and a weight of ~10kg is aviable to show it. Beside reality i'm ok with costs for it in slots and even tonnes to equip if it would make you happy. But anyway it would be equiped, because it is a system you wanna have. So in the end, you say i wanna equip it my self i will take a slot and a 1t for it out of my slots is like it is integrated within the used slots of the mech and therefore the weight of the mech is adjusted anyway.
Quxudica, on 09 April 2015 - 02:01 AM, said:
This retort needs to go away. I haven't seen anyone suggesting any kind of RNG, at all. We don't want shots going to random locations, we want the terminus of weapons fire to be broken up so not everything is a pinpoint scalpel. I'll paste my previous post on this since you may have missed it:
No it doesn't. if you have like 4 laser beams you charge with the enemy and they contract on the target in diffrent speed because some are light and others are heavy lasers you don't get a convergence until you do not move your aim anymore and the enemy target standing still, this however will have rng in it if you have two moving objects because of relative speed and diffrent readjustment speeds of diffrent weapon systems form diffrent angels. - We have direct and indirect autofocus in cameras this system is not high tech. And it is wan't back then (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autofocus). So nopp focus systems were around and arn't a brake up to the BT universe. The trackingsystems are accurate back then and now. So they will be in a fictional future. - All what you wanna have is making something that is actually working perfectly fine to not work in the future, because you are in a mindset that everything would be insta popcorn. I do not think so and i'm fine with what we have. And for me it is over all absolutly plaussible for a future even if the past of this futre has began back in the 80's.
If you wanna break boating weapons with same type of behavior like lasers - ghost heat did this. however it is lackluster since people now play around it the heat penality as long as they could. Big alphas like up or above 100 are only manageable with diffrent weapon systems including a diffrent range of velocity so a diffrent time till impact occure and spread. Getting alpha'd is only a problem for not moving players who hold hand with the enemy. You can not alpha with srms + laser + balistics a target what is moving while you are moving on a normal combat range. Only in close range you could do this with non moving objects, and if the enemy like to be a stone he have to face the consequences.
Second problem is, clan mechs don't support ballistics beside of gauss and lrms are lakeluster. The option of viable dmage you are responsible for is only achiveable with lasers and in small range SRM-A -> this lead to one side is need for a special playstyle, and the rest adapt too it with also taking lasers and SRMs with occacional ACs on IS side since they are pinpoint. If you wanna have less alpha and less pinpoint, the game needs change in this weapon section, so diffent weapon system for diffrent range with diffrent velocity is part of the loadout and the alpha therefore on a "normal combat range" will spread if both players (you and the enemy) are moving.
I think a lot of people forget that although BattleTech is a future fiction writen in the past and could not know how we of the present would veiw it, they did give us a point of reference in telling us how we should look at it.
Quote
CENTURIES OF WAR
In the resulting power vacuum, the rulers of the realms now called the Successor States fought endless, brutal wars, each seeking to re-establish the Star League under his own leadership. In three hundred years of conflict, the Successor Lords accomplished little save to blast humankind virtually back to the Stone Age. By the time the third of the so-called Succession Wars ended, humanity had lost nearly every technological advance that the Star League had made possible; only stringent restrictions on destroying JumpShips, DropShips, BattleMechs and other irreplaceable technologies of war allowed interstellar combat to continue. As the Successor States battered each other senseless, the fighting ground down to endless border skirmishes in which no combatant gained significant advantage.
As the Inner Sphere warred, so did the descendants of the SLDF. Within two decades of planetfall, the men and women who had followed Kerensky in order to preserve the ideals of the Star League had betrayed those ideals and degenerated into vicious, fratricidal conflict. Determined to salvage something from the wreckage of his father’s dream,
Between 3025 and 3050 there have been great leaps of discoveries but the scientists and techs are only just figuring out how all this ancient tech works. Saying they've had plenty of time to catch up is just argumentative as the books, lore and everything BattleTech says they haven't.
sure, they have to make compromises translating this into a computer game.
I would play game this if damage system was a direct translation of the tabletop calculations, with lasers fireing off in all directions because i rolled a 2. I don't want to play a one shot one kill 'Robo -CoD' game and that is where this game is headed.
So how about a compromise:
Quote
Instead of each weapon being gimballed have them fixed in each location, but set up by your tech crew to converge at either the weapons optimal range or a mech bay chosen range.
So if you fire one weapon it goes to the cross hairs the second will fire at its pre-setup path, or fire them chained to give the mech time to adjust the aim for the next weapon.
Of course if you can get the distance just right you can still get your alpha.
You can modify this, torsos and arms are independent so they could converge independently so that at any range you could get 3 weapons to converge, any others would be pre-set.
With this method most weapons fired together would probably hit the target just not at the same point, if you fire an ERLL and a SPL one would probably miss.
18
Ed Steele, on 08 April 2015 - 05:41 PM, said:
