231 replies to this topic

[Almond Brown]

Hotthedd, on 09 April 2015 - 08:26 AM, said:

By that you mean "Lights will be less able to back-hug an assault and put 8 SPLs in a dime-sized hole on their Rear CT."

Remember that it would be the same for ALL players, that same light would be less likely to be one-shot as well.

In all seriousness here. A Light Mech at optimal SPL range, even running full out, that couldn't put a dime-sized hole on the Rear CT of an Assault Mech, due to CoF Maths, would be a very valid reason to not/never include it.

Edited by Almond Brown, 09 April 2015 - 09:06 AM.

[BourbonFaucet]

Joseph Mallan, on 09 April 2015 - 08:36 AM, said:

It determines if you know how to shoot and actually hit what you are aiming at.

As to what CoF would solve. Pin point Alphas. Of course Lasers could be exempt cause laser accurate you know. The less weapons you fire the more accurate your fire.

If we ever get cone of fire, I had an idea for lasers, actually. Lasers would "drag" their beams back towards the center of the crosshair during their duration. In other words, the initial beam spreads within the cone based on movement, and then, while firing, the end of the beam moves towards the crosshair.

Pulse lasers could move faster twoards the center to help simulate that accuracy bonus from tabletop!

[Almond Brown]

Mystere, on 09 April 2015 - 08:59 AM, said:

Oh really? See below:

OK, you got me. As Joe goes, so we all shall go.

Joseph Mallan, on 09 April 2015 - 08:59 AM, said:

Pretty accurate isn't accurate.

I have read that if it gets the job done, it is plenty accurate enough.

[Joseph Mallan]

Techorse, on 09 April 2015 - 09:07 AM, said:

If we ever get cone of fire, I had an idea for lasers, actually. Lasers would "drag" their beams back towards the center of the crosshair during their duration. In other words, the initial beam spreads within the cone based on movement, and then, while firing, the end of the beam moves towards the crosshair.

Pulse lasers could move faster twoards the center to help simulate that accuracy bonus from tabletop!

Not only sensible, but the burn pattern would look really cool!

[Almond Brown]

Joseph Mallan, on 09 April 2015 - 09:03 AM, said:

Laser accurate? There may or may not be a small amount of inaccuracy in the mechanics aiming the laser.

Well not every gun barrel is perfect either, but with use, and knowledge of said flaw, can be compensated for.

Are your Cars headlight aligned properly Joe? You paid to have them properly aligned right. Did you check them after leaving the garage? You're sure they are properly aligned right?

So for MWO, if we are going there, then I need to be able to own my own Techs in MWO and pay top dollar for Top Techs which would negate any mechanical inaccuracies, they are good at what they do, and thus kill my enemy better than those who cheap out and hire poor Techs.

Edited by Almond Brown, 09 April 2015 - 09:21 AM.

[BourbonFaucet]

Joseph Mallan, on 09 April 2015 - 09:12 AM, said:

Not only sensible, but the burn pattern would look really cool!

It would leave a "slash" on targets provided the initial beam still hit the enemy.

Now that I think about it though, if we have COF negating some of the firepower, it might be necessary to modify the heat system a bit so that if we're going to scratch more than kill, we aren't shutting down as often as we are now.

[Joseph Mallan]

Almond Brown, on 09 April 2015 - 09:18 AM, said:

Well not every gun barrel is perfect either, but with use, and knowledge of said flaw, can be compensated for.

Are your Cars headlight aligned properly Joe? You paid to have them properly aligned right. Did you check them after leaving the garage? Your sure they are properly aligned right?

So for MWO, if we are going there, then I need to be able to own my own Techs in MWO and pay top dollar for Top Techs which would negate any mechanical inaccuracies, they are good at what they do, and thus kill my enemy better than those who cheap out and hire poor Techs.

CnC Machines are Homed between parts, and still have a R&R (In this case Repeat ability) within so many thousandths/Microns. Not perfect but close.

Techorse, on 09 April 2015 - 09:19 AM, said:

It would leave a "slash" on targets provided the initial beam still hit the enemy.

Now that I think about it though, if we have COF negating some of the firepower, it might be necessary to modify the heat system a bit so that if we're going to scratch more than kill, we aren't shutting down as often as we are now.

depending on the number of lasers, I would think it would look like a sunburst.

[Appogee]

Night Thastus, on 04 April 2015 - 05:27 AM, said:

There is a far easier solution, one that I and several others will repeat until it is goddamn implemented:
Follow the lore

1: Drop the heat cap (it's currently around 2 to 3 times higher than in lore)
2: Remove ghost heat entirelly
3: Add high penalties for running hot (ghost blips on radar, ammo cooking off and exploding, myomer and actuators slowing down/locking up/etc)

Bam. Entire problem solved like that. It's lore friendly, removes the need for invisible heat, and stops people from alpha-striking because doing so makes your life a nightmare in older games.

Brilliant solution. Far better than ghost heat etc.

[Joseph Mallan]

Almond Brown, on 09 April 2015 - 09:11 AM, said:

OK, you got me. As Joe goes, so we all shall go.



I have read that if it gets the job done, it is plenty accurate enough.

just not as accurate as these guys with Skillz think.

[Almond Brown]

Techorse, on 09 April 2015 - 09:07 AM, said:

If we ever get cone of fire, I had an idea for lasers, actually. Lasers would "drag" their beams back towards the center of the crosshair during their duration. In other words, the initial beam spreads within the cone based on movement, and then, while firing, the end of the beam moves towards the crosshair.

Pulse lasers could move faster towards the center to help simulate that accuracy bonus from tabletop!

So you would provide Laser's with an base inaccuracy just so they have to drag themselves back to center? I can't see introducing a flaw to a weapon just so it can self correct as being a very particularly smart game element addition.

With Laser as is, the drag affect is always there if the target is moving at all. Depending on the range to target, the panels we shoot at CT/RT/LT/RA/LA (+ back) are so big even dragging a Laser as much as 2 meters, both vertically or horizontally, in many cases, still leaves the beam on the "target".

How BIG is this CoF going to have to be? One Big Cone that has a radius such that a Mech (based on weight class, always fits inside it? Or a Start small Cone and vary its size based on multiple criteria? Movement of Self and or Target/Current Heat level/Range to Target/# and type of weapons selected perhaps?

Might as well go K.I.S.S. and give each weapon family a Penetration value and call it a day ffs.

[Almond Brown]

Joseph Mallan, on 09 April 2015 - 09:22 AM, said:

CnC Machines are Homed between parts, and still have a R&R (In this case Repeat ability) within so many thousandths/Microns. Not perfect but close.

Indeed. Tolerances are simply acceptable limits as doing "perfect" is very difficult.

Shooting at an Atlas's CT has quite a tall and wide tolerance built in for Laser based fire, don't you think.

[Joseph Mallan]

Almond Brown, on 09 April 2015 - 09:35 AM, said:

Indeed. Tolerances are simply acceptable limits as doing "perfect" is very difficult.

Shooting at an Atlas's CT has quite a tall and wide tolerance built in for Laser based fire, don't you think.

For lasers yes... Ballistics different story.

[DaZur]

Know what I find flipping hilarious?

We can have a discussion with PPD/high-alpha damage and HSR and and HitReg all in the same discussion...

How can PPD be a global issue if HR and HSR are an equally damning issue?

Either we're taking too much damage or not enough.... Which is it?

[Gyrok]

I think this would be a bad idea. GH is already bad enough...changing that mechanic to be an arbitrarily undefinable entity that works like voodoo or some other intangible unexplainable formula will only make the game more complicated.

If you want more DPS builds and less pinpoint, then ask for IS ballistics to get the clan ballistic treatment.

[Barantor]

Almond Brown, on 09 April 2015 - 09:31 AM, said:

How BIG is this CoF going to have to be? One Big Cone that has a radius such that a Mech (based on weight class, always fits inside it? Or a Start small Cone and vary its size based on multiple criteria? Movement of Self and or Target/Current Heat level/Range to Target/# and type of weapons selected perhaps?

Might as well go K.I.S.S. and give each weapon family a Penetration value and call it a day ffs.

Cone size should be based on movement. Basically it is simulating the act of bringing all the guns into convergence so if you are firing without letting the computer calculate it all it is still in the process and the cone would be larger.

I would think that under 50m you could hit an assault even if you blasted around a corner, but maybe not exactly the spot you wanted (might hit CT instead of that RT).

Some weapons could have different cones than others, perhaps based on type and size. Something with a larger range scale like a gauss and ppc might need a bit more time to shrink the cone on the move or when moving your torso, whereas a small laser and machine gun would have very little cone.

This would mean that 'sniper' style shots would take longer instead of being an instant hit. Medium to close range would have a lot more guaranteed hitting going on and LRMs and LBX would find a bit more use as the cone would close in fairly easy since the spread is so great anyway.

On the subject of LRMs, you could have the spread be massive if the lock is not kept very long and then become more concentrated the longer it is held. It could go faster with artemis, direct fire and narc/tag.

This is a very big change to the system, but it could even have the quirk system be kept as perhaps a mech that uses PPCs has it's cone shrink faster if using those weapons.

[Joseph Mallan]

Barantor, on 09 April 2015 - 09:53 AM, said:

Cone size should be based on movement.

And number of weapons fired simo.

[Dino Might]

Almond Brown, on 09 April 2015 - 08:43 AM, said:

Yup, as we HUMANS apply what little we know and understand about Physics on our one little planet called Earth, with our nice 1G atmosphere versus the entire population of planets of the I.S. 1000 years from now.

We may still have much to learn little Padawan.

I really hope you don't think gravity behaves differently when you step off the surface of the earth. Gmm/r^2 is universal.
So are the other things we have been talking about. A hydrogen-1 atom here will be the same as a hydrogen-1 atom on the planet Supra-Gambi-Platon 57625.

This dismissal of things we have proven mathematically and demonstrated scientifically astounds me. We aren't pretending to go to Never Never Land where you can fly if you believe hard enough. We are pretending to go to other real places where the fundamental laws of the universe exist and behave the same way.

Quote

[color=#959595]Now lets do relative distances traveled to get a true sense of accuracy then Joe. Those missiles travel up to what, 30-40 miles, or are they Cruise Missiles, then many 100's of miles. So we take 50 miles and do Maths and voila. The result? A pretty freaking accurate shot over said distance.[/color]

[color=#959595]It is all relative really. An Ac5 is not as accurate at max. optimal range versus a moving target as when the target is a mere 250m out and standing still.[/color]

[color=#959595]An A1-Abrams has no need for 2 Main guns. It can kill its comparative adversaries (enemy tanks) with just one, and do so from relatively safe distances. As always has been the case, a Tanks worst enemy is ground based troops. Thus the addition of the machine gun(s). [/color]
[color=#959595]

[/color]

Seriously? A tanks worst enemy is an aircraft. Show me an infantry platoon as effective at killing tanks as an A-10C.

Your cruise missile has guidance systems and control surfaces, so the 5.5 meter radius over 100s of miles calculated in a ballistic sense is not a correct or useful assessment of accuracy. You cannot compare a cruise missile to a purely ballistic round or a beam of photons, which have no ability to alter their trajectory (self-correct) in flight. Your fundamental misunderstanding of basic scientific concepts and resulting oversimplification of anything engineering is borderline obscene when you come on here trumpeting everyone else's supposed ignorance.

Edited by Dino Might, 09 April 2015 - 10:08 AM.

[Metus regem]

Dino Might, on 09 April 2015 - 10:08 AM, said:

Seriously? A tanks worst enemy is an aircraft. Show me an infantry platoon as effective at killing tanks as an A-10C.

In or out of a city?

On that note, my time in AH-64D's I popped a few tanks too...

[KraftySOT]

Almond Brown, on 09 April 2015 - 09:05 AM, said:

In all seriousness here. A Light Mech at optimal SPL range, even running full out, that couldn't put a dime-sized hole on the Rear CT of an Assault Mech, due to CoF Maths, would be a very valid reason to not/never include it.

He could if he stops or slows while shooting. You know. Like how you Quick Scope in CoD.

You people are so terrible when you perpetuate these BS lies.

[KraftySOT]

Metus regem, on 09 April 2015 - 10:13 AM, said:

In or out of a city?

On that note, my time in AH-64D's I popped a few tanks too...

Id like to point out, that throught history, infantry, and other tanks, have destroyed far more tanks than aircraft.

Aircraft dont really destroy tanks, they do today, in the middle of open terrain, with a huge technological differential between the two opposing forces...

But at the height of airpower, you stopped tanks with aircraft, by bombing bridges, rail heads, supply depots, roads, and trucks. A tank with no fuel, is a tank that is nothing more than a pillbox. In the age of maneuver warfare, a pillbox might as well not even exist.

Even today, youll find more smoking T-72s on a battlefield, killed by RPGs.

Tanks do one thing. Break through lines. Thats it. If you have no lines. You dont need tanks. Infantry have no problem dealing with tanks, they have a problem dealing with Schwerpunkts. Combined arms focal points at a single weak point in a line. Thats what a tank does.

Case in point, everyones favorite killer of tanks from the air...Hans Rudel. He made most of his tank kills, in the first few weeks of Barbarossa, bombing tanks that were sitting in rows, unfueled and uncrewed, as german ground forces poured over White Russia.

After that initial wtfpwnage, he spent the rest of the war, killing trucks, and horses. All those poor horses.

And that battleship Marat.

Edited by KraftySOT, 09 April 2015 - 10:26 AM.