143 replies to this topic

[Psydotek]

I've said it before and I'll say it again:

If you want accuracy you either get closer, reduce your movement speed, or hold your reticle on your target long enough for the targeting computer to cause the cone of fire to narrow.

I've been a proponent of firing cones since the beginning. I still am today.

[Pht]

Psydotek, on 10 January 2013 - 05:24 PM, said:

I've said it before and I'll say it again:

If you want accuracy you either get closer, reduce your movement speed, or hold your reticle on your target long enough for the targeting computer to cause the cone of fire to narrow.

I've been a proponent of firing cones since the beginning. I still am today.

Language quibble/question:

Accuracy = ability to get a single weapon to hit a desired point

Precision = ability to get multiple weapons to hit a desired point.

Which do you mean in your post?

----

You don't need the COF to have the behavior you're discussing. What I've proposed does this already and has decades of playtesting on top of it.

Edited by Pht, 10 January 2013 - 06:12 PM.

[Psydotek]

Pht, on 10 January 2013 - 06:11 PM, said:

Language quibble/question:

Accuracy = ability to get a single weapon to hit a desired point

Precision = ability to get multiple weapons to hit a desired point.

Which do you mean in your post?

Yes.

Either way, something needs to be done.

[Pht]

Eh .... how can you say "yes" to an either/or type question?

Or did you mean "yes" to the other part of my post?

[Xerxys]

Raeven, on 30 November 2011 - 12:15 PM, said:

Coding the innaccuracy of the weapons takes away one key feature that made all Mechwarrior games what they are. Your ability to aim a weapons is directly reflected in the game. It's your skill, not some arbitrary die roll, that determines whether you hit or not.

Does it have problems? Sure. Armor values are a little weak for pin point accuracy, especially regarding headshots and legs. Alpha strikes allows the combination of a bunch of otherwise weaker weapons to suddenly be as powerful as the almighty AC20.

These things can be mitigated.

Add armor. I particularly like the subsection armor idea that breaks down each to hit location and gives them all the same armor value as the single to hit location originally had.

Cones of Innaccuracy. Personaly, not my favorite, but I could live with it if they gave you the ability to slow down and focus your aim to pin point accuracy.

Weapon spread in alpha strikes. Where otherwise they would converge on the same point of aim, they would be spread slightly based on their location on the firing 'Mech.

Whatever method the devs come up with, if it is as awesome as their demo video, I'm sure we will all enjoy it (except for the engine explosion.. bleh).

But it's not you that's firing the weapon, aiming the weapons, or making the calculations. All of that is done my targeting computers and how fluid and fast the movements to align the weapons are. You're simply picking the target and holding the reticle over it so the targeting computer can collect and crunch the information and the more time you give it the more accurate your shot up to a certain point. The pilot skill is in keeping the reticle on the target so you get as accurate a shot as possible.

Too many people are looking at this as a simple first person shooter, but it's absolutely not. You're NOT the robot, you're just the pilot. This is the main point of these seemingly TT fanatics. It's not you out there holding a 7 ton PPC up and firing it. You're controlling the contraption that is holding it and your skill is in tracking the target.

To the guy who said that its a +1 to running and that you are running. It's a +2 and I think the guy that posted directly before you pretty much covered all of that.

[Xerxys]

Raeven, on 30 November 2011 - 12:15 PM, said:

Coding the innaccuracy of the weapons takes away one key feature that made all Mechwarrior games what they are. Your ability to aim a weapons is directly reflected in the game. It's your skill, not some arbitrary die roll, that determines whether you hit or not.

Does it have problems? Sure. Armor values are a little weak for pin point accuracy, especially regarding headshots and legs. Alpha strikes allows the combination of a bunch of otherwise weaker weapons to suddenly be as powerful as the almighty AC20.

These things can be mitigated.

Add armor. I particularly like the subsection armor idea that breaks down each to hit location and gives them all the same armor value as the single to hit location originally had.

Cones of Innaccuracy. Personaly, not my favorite, but I could live with it if they gave you the ability to slow down and focus your aim to pin point accuracy.

This would actually be closer to what they're talking about, but pinpoint accuracy is something that can't be achieved when you're talking about an entire weapon system. It will become much closer though.

Weapon spread in alpha strikes. Where otherwise they would converge on the same point of aim, they would be spread slightly based on their location on the firing 'Mech..

Whatever method the devs come up with, if it is as awesome as their demo video, I'm sure we will all enjoy it (except for the engine explosion.. bleh).

Actually it doesn't. It helps, but you're thinking too much that these weapon systems and the target computers they're attached to are flawless. Your skill is going to be in keeping the reticle over the target and learning the optimal time to pull the trigger as well as keeping to the smoothest terrain possible to avoid huge movements that's going to screw up your aim.

The natural inaccuracy of the weapon is going to account for this better. Is it going to be aggravating? Absolutely, but it's going to add to the realism and it's going to (as the OP stated) make for some epic battles in the long run. Not to mention that all those ******** pilot skills, that have absolutely nothing to do with piloting, could help alleviate a lot of the aggravation with skills that help with accuracy. They could even put in skills per weapon under this system, representing your growing familiarity with how the weapon actually functions.

PGI already doubled the armor and completely humped the balance of the rest of the game. It's why energy weapons run hot and all weapons systems seem OP.

The OPs suggestions already would add weapon spread over the target, alpha or otherwise.

Overall this is just the OPs way of showing that PGI was dead wrong when it said that TT could not be directly translated over. It may not keep 100% to TT, but it would have created an incredibly balanced game where minor tweaks would have been required.

[Karl Streiger]

Again i read luck... why is every body thinking that dice rolling has anything to do with luck?
I wished those guys take there luck and try to beat a TT nerd at the table - i'm pretty sure no luck will save them from beeing vaporized.

Nice to see, that the discussion is as old as this forum. Although i can't remember to have read this post initially.
Have you take a look to this?
http://mwomercs.com/...l-why-not-both/
Its similar.... because the pilot have still to point and lead the fire.
Although the weapon sread is fixed... firing 6 weapons at one will increase the to hit probability - so maybe a weapon will hit...firing single weapons will increase the precision of that shot

Edited by Karl Streiger, 26 March 2013 - 12:17 AM.

[Pht]

Xerxys, on 25 March 2013 - 11:41 PM, said:

But it's not you that's firing the weapon, aiming the weapons, or making the calculations.

You should be a bit more careful with your language ... the mechwarrior does indeed pull the trigger to fire the weapon; the mechwarrior does indeed control the reticule on the hud to indicate to the 'Mech where to aim - and while the MW doesn't do the convergence calculations (and indeed, could not do them), the MW does have to calculate whether or not his 'Mech can overcome the conditions it's under to make the shot.

I have learned the hard way that if you say it without explanation, people will scream "RNG," turn off their brains, turn on the emotionalism, and grab their pitchforks and torches.

Xerxys, on 25 March 2013 - 11:58 PM, said:

The natural inaccuracy of the weapon is going to account for this better.

.. If you re-read the OP you'll quickly see that the weapons in and of themselves are INSANELY accurate vs a mech sized target, even if you still don't get to pick your part, excluding a certain specific conditon.

What battlemechs aren't Uber at is getting those weapons to all hit the exact same armor panel; which is what gives the BT lore it's flavor and fun - if they were that accurate, the game would devolve into an insta-death game of who clicked first.

Quote

Not to mention that all those ******** pilot skills, that have absolutely nothing to do with piloting, could help alleviate a lot of the aggravation with skills that help with accuracy. They could even put in skills per weapon under this system, representing your growing familiarity with how the weapon actually functions.

I don't think it would be a good idea for them to put in ANY gunnery skills into the avatar skill tree, simply because ALL of the skills that a mech pilot uses to get a good shot ... can be done by us, at our computers.

Quote

Overall this is just the OPs way of showing that PGI was dead wrong when it said that TT could not be directly translated over. It may not keep 100% to TT, but it would have created an incredibly balanced game where minor tweaks would have been required.

It's not even really that I'm just trying to say that it's entirely possible - it's that, as far as we know, NOBODY has EVER even tried it, to even observe what happens.

All of the MW video games so far have not simulated the 'Mech's ability to handle it's weapons, and this has rendered them ... it pains me to say it ... MINO. MechWarrior In Name Only.

Karl Streiger, on 26 March 2013 - 12:16 AM, said:

Again i read luck... why is every body thinking that dice rolling has anything to do with luck?

Because people, it seems, know NOTHING about the actual combat system rules in the TT, and thus just attribute luck to it.

You are right, though - while luck has some place (everyone who's seen this knows it does) - it's all about knowhing the conditions occuring when you're going to take your shot, and how well your 'Mech can handle it's weapons to make that shot.

Saying that the TT is about Luck and total randomness is like saying that gambling is 100% about luck and randomness.

Quote

I wished those guys take there luck and try to beat a TT nerd at the table - i'm pretty sure no luck will save them from beeing vaporized.

It's not like it's hard to play a game of the TT these days - you don't even need another human to play it, and: http://megamek.info/downloads
Holds your hands and does all the remembering of rules for you.

I think it would do a LOT of people a ton of good if they would grab MM and take it for a spin.

Quote

Nice to see, that the discussion is as old as this forum. Although i can't remember to have read this post initially.
Have you take a look to this?
http://mwomercs.com/...l-why-not-both/
Its similar.... because the pilot have still to point and lead the fire.
Although the weapon sread is fixed... firing 6 weapons at one will increase the to hit probability - so maybe a weapon will hit...firing single weapons will increase the precision of that shot

It'd be a step up, but it shows some ignorance of how things actually happen in the lore in the 'mechs... mainly, that the player ALWAYS has to aim - the 'Mech is not allowed to choose an aimpoint nor to track any targets - this is verboten for them - they are simply too destructive.

I still don't see why it is that developers have uniformly gotten it wrong in regards to the use of the to-hit mechanic and hit-location tables... it's like they all thought/think that these mechanics all represent mechwarrior skill... when they DON'T. The only things in the TT combat mechanic that represent the 'Mechwarrior's skill are the piloting and gunnery skill modifiers, and the called shot hit-location tables.

Edited by Pht, 28 March 2013 - 04:56 PM.

[Elyam]

I applaud your efforts Pht, and you've correctly described the relationship between the mechwarrior and the mech in a better way than I have here in other posts.

This entire controversial subject is about BT's diminished-technology layer (a core component to the universe and its long success). ( http://mwomercs.com/...ce/page__st__80 )

[Pht]

Elyam, on 28 March 2013 - 07:51 PM, said:

This entire controversial subject is about BT's diminished-technology layer (a core component to the universe and its long success).

The truly ironic thing is that we don't have any weapons systems that could get as many weapons to hit a mech sized target as tightly as a BTU battlemech does.

People make the mistake of thinking that because we can get one direct fire weapon to hit with pretty good accuracy, that we could also than get multiples to hit with precision against that same single point that the single weapon hit.

We can't.

We don't have any direct fire weapons systems that can aim in real time and get multiple weapons to hit a single point, or even a relatively small area. This is one of the reasons, that, say, our ac-130 gunships use *high explosive ammunition* and obscene amounts of fire-output - to overcome this.

Besides that, the BTU isn't about "realism" - it's a space opera with a minimum of rubber science built for escapism.

[Echo6]

I like this. It would also make all the console children quit though.

[Pht]

Echo6, on 04 May 2013 - 09:46 AM, said:

I like this. It would also make all the console children quit though.

I highly doubt that it would.

The result would be gameplay that made intutive sense - wanna hit more? Move slower, run cooler, take a moment to let your 'Mech make the shot.

If you don't want to be hit, move fast, evade, and keep to cover.

If you just want to have fun and not think about strategy or tactics very much, just take one of the canon boats with a bunch of similar weapons, like the blackhawk, and either camp a choke point, or run in, blast the back armor, run out.

If you want to think about more strategy and tactics ... the world is your oyster, in this implementation.

Everyone can have fun at the level they want to play at.

[Belorion]

You guys are having a seriously slow conversation. 1 week to 2 months in between posts.

[Pht]

Belorion, on 06 May 2013 - 04:39 PM, said:

You guys are having a seriously slow conversation. 1 week to 2 months in between posts.

Hey, don't look at me. I reply as soon as I get a chance when there's a reply in this thread.

[DarkJaguar]

Pht,

First, I'd like to say, I thought -I- wrote books for posts.

Great write-up, a lot of good details here. We have complementary ideas as you've probably noticed by reading this post. I'm still compiling notes on your OP (it's pretty effing big) but I'd want you as a team member if PGI ever put together a balance focus group and I were on it.

[Pht]

DarkJaguar, on 12 July 2013 - 04:23 PM, said:

Pht,

First, I'd like to say, I thought -I- wrote books for posts.

I suppose I shouldn't tell you that I have shortened it.

Or if you really want a scare, try my right most sig link.

Basically, I got tired of all the repetition of "DICE! RNG! TT! TURN BASED! WON'T WORK!" and decided to commit the utter heresy of seeing if the TT combat mechanic and values would work (stripped of the stuff that represents the human skill of a mechwarrior) in real time. ... Come to find out, it does.

Quote

Great write-up, a lot of good details here. We have complementary ideas as you've probably noticed by reading this post. I'm still compiling notes on your OP (it's pretty effing big) but I'd want you as a team member if PGI ever put together a balance focus group and I were on it.

Thanks.

[piracetam]

Don't add any new systems. Just change numbers like damage, heat, health, etc, until the game approaches a balanced state. Let me repeat, because this is very important:

DON'T WASTE PRECIOUS DEVELOPMENT TIME TRYING TO BALANCE THE GAME BY ADDING NEW SYSTEMS. Balance them ONLY by tweaking numbers until CW is completely out, new game modes have been added, and the game is feature complete.

[Pht]

sdfvnre, on 16 July 2013 - 02:44 PM, said:

Don't add any new systems. Just change numbers like damage, heat, health, etc, until the game approaches a balanced state. Let me repeat, because this is very important: DON'T WASTE PRECIOUS DEVELOPMENT TIME TRYING TO BALANCE THE GAME BY ADDING NEW SYSTEMS. Balance them ONLY by tweaking numbers until CW is completely out, new game modes have been added, and the game is feature complete.

When the underlying combat system is broken, it cannot be fixed by constantly tweaking it's output.

They took the TT armor and weapons damage values, which were designed for a hit-percentage system to model battlemech combat performance, and put them into an FPS/Shooter mechanic, which is designed to model human performance with a single direct-fire weapon (and that not too well at times), thus applying far more damage to any given section of a target mech than their armor numbers were made for.

So they doubled the internal and external armor values. Which didn't fix it; but it did throw the weapons balance off, esp for the lower damage weapons.

So they buffed the ROF on the lower damage weapons, thus tossing off their balance to the other weapons ... and than the gaussapault, the srm raven, now the PPC stalker.

This flavor of the patch/day thing is because the combat mechanic is systemically broken at it's root. It's a frankenstein.

Edited by Pht, 17 July 2013 - 12:48 PM.

[blinkin]

ok i read through your targeting system. i gave it a fair shot. you might consider it fun, but i don't particularly like the idea of babysitting an aim bot. you basically describe the pilots job as deciding when to pull the trigger after the mech has done all of the interesting parts.

[Pht]

blinkin, on 17 July 2013 - 01:20 PM, said:

ok i read through your targeting system. i gave it a fair shot. you might consider it fun, but i don't particularly like the idea of babysitting an aim bot. you basically describe the pilots job as deciding when to pull the trigger after the mech has done all of the interesting parts.

Aimbots require less interaction. Otherwise, whatever you're calling an aimbot is not an aimbot.

The gunnery skills required that I listed means more interaction.

Your conclusion that it would make the 'mechs into aimbots is not only wrong, it's ironic, because actually having the 'mechs handle the weapons like they do in the lore would make for more interaction in gunnery and reward for player skill and thinking.