143 replies to this topic

[Threat Doc]

I disbelieve what you say, because you do not understand the uniqueness you deny. This is why game systems, in general, typically don't move forward, because no one's willing to try different things. That is sad.

However, since you're adamant to remain in that denial, I will say nothing more to you on this subject.

[Pht]

Mackman said:

Short answer: I would have left the moment I died because the RNG gods decided it was time for my shots to miss.

I'm presuming based upon your earlier definition that when you post "rng" you mean any device which generates hit percentages based upon any factors.

You claim to be happy with how MWO plays atm... even thought in it you can miss because of factors that function as RNGs (as you've defined "random" + the normal sense of number generator).

You can miss because the arms reticule didn't swing fast enough, or the torso reticule didn't catch up, or the weapons velocity wasn't fast enough. These are factors outside of your control that are functioning exactly like an RNG; they simply use a different mechanic while producing the very same end effect.

I suspect that you might retort that this only happens in MWO as it is because "you've made a mistake," and these things only happen because of your bad choices and/or a lack of skill with your controller ... which is fine to say.

Where this breaks down - and has been breaking down completely - is every time you've made posts having the meaning that, given the way the OP has it, you miss in the OP system not because of "bad choices" and/or a lack of skill with the controller, but because of the dreaded "RNG/Random" effect.

This breaks down because you've persisted in applying the definition of a "perfect shot" from the MWO (& fps mechanic in general) - when this definition quite clearly doesn't fit; the choices that are "perfect" in MWO are not the choices that are "perfect" as the OP would have them. Both games would require you to use exactly the same amount and type of physical skill with the controller. Furthermore, if a player makes stupid choices in the OP system, they consistently get bad results - just as consistently as they do in MWO as it is now.

Doing an apples to oranges comparison of two things and rejecting the oranges for not being like the apples is silly.

----
A perfect shot, as the OP would have it, drives the cumulative to-hit (the "does it hit the overall target") number down to a 2; this means a 100% hit rate. All of your weapons hit. Furthermore, you'd be using, versus a mobile target, the "called shot" hit-location mechanic, which means you would have to make the right choices in order to overcome the +3 a called shot incurs because you're shooting at a smaller cross-section of the target. Overcoming this is not impossible, but it does take more than a few good choices (quite a few vs a very smart and skilled opponent) to do - it can be done.

This means you'd likely be aiming at the cockpit, activating the called-shot combat mechanic, so instead of your shots clustering at center of mass and having only a 1 out of 36 chance of hitting the cockpit, you have a 1 out of 6 chance of hitting the cockpit - which is of FAR greater effect, because the cockpit would be back to it's TT numbers vs the TT damage numbers - that's only 9 points on the exterior of the cockpit, and the other armor and internal structure numbers would be at least halved vs the damage to them as well.

Also, those who choose to exercise good choices towards making this "perfect shot" OFF the virtual battlefield in the Mechlab would, for example, load on at least six pulse lasers, which knock 2 off of your to-hit. Or use a cluster weapon, like a cluster LBX round, and knock 1 off of the to hit, while driving up their chances of getting that cockpit hit on a called shot because as a cluster type weapon, it would plaster the entire facing you're shooting at. If you have access to an advanced targeting computer, it'll probably be heavy and large, definitely expensive, but the -1 it gives is well worth it in the pursuit of the "perfect shot."

Versus anyone stupid enough to stand still, your to-hit would be reduced by 1. Versus an immobile target (a target that CAN'T move), instead of the called shot, you'd use the aimed shot - driving your hit percentage up from 1 of 6 to 1 of 4 - and you'd also knock FOUR (4) off of the cumulative to-hit. This would, for instance, work really well if you had a mate in a flamer-'Mech who manages to tip your target into a heat-induced shut-down; a viable skill and human-choice based team tactic.
----

As for the complaint about the OP removing human skill as the primary factor; simply look at the above example - the only way to, first, knock down that +3 off of the to hit is to make good choices; don't overheat, don't try this while running, don't use weapons at their maximum listed ranges, don't shoot at a target that's evading you or in decent cover, don't fire weapons types not really suited for the cause; do make good choices in the Mechlab to enhance your chances... and you'd STILL have to use all the exact same controller skills as you do right now. If you *don't* make these correct choices, your to-hit can easily be driven up to a to-hit of 8 to12, a range of horrible chances to virtually impossible chances to hit or 13 and over, actually impossible to hit - and only because you made the wrong choices - or your opponent made extremely GOOD choices and exercised a lot of piloting skill with their controller.

The only complaint you've posted that isn't self-refuting so far is that you don't like that it would give the direct ("physical") control of the weapons to the 'Mech, and that too is fine, as a simple dislike...

...until you tried to elevate your dislike into a necessary component of an MW video game, or this video game in particular. Saying as you have, that not having the "Mech layer" between you and the weapons is a necessary thing... in a game that is about doing combat in a 'Mech from a setting, which by it's own definition requires that layer to be present, is nonsense.

I suspect that even you wouldn't attempt to argue that the 'Mech isn't the "thing" in direct physical control of the aiming of the weapons; and we know for a fact that the "Mech layer" in the fictional setting is present and must be accounted for by human skill and choices in that setting.

Quote

Longer Answer: PGI wants this to be a competitive game, and there would be no quicker way to kill that than to implement the system proposed here.

... and this is true simply because you've stated it? If not, than why should we accept this as true?

Why should we believe you, when we can know that you, as a human being, are incapable of possessing the knowledge necessary in order for you to validly make this statement?

Quote

League of Legends, the largest (and still growing!) competitive game in the world has been systematically eliminating random elements from their game ever since I've been playing it (3+ years, now).

Are all swans white, because all of the ones you and the people you know of or have read of have observed are white?

Quote

This system goes against PGI's stated aims for the game, their balancing actions thus far, and the playerbase they're trying to appeal to. You can disagree with any or all of these things, but those are the criteria for what the game "should" be.

In order for you to validly make this statement you'd have to say that the word "MechWarrior" has NO meaning at all.

Your exact standard, validly used to support a conclusion I'm betting you won't agree with:

What if PGI had, for some unknown reason, decided that a "MechWarrior" video game should be a slightly different version of farmville? And PGI than stated that this was their aim for the game, and they balanced it to be that sort of game, and that was the playerbase they were appealing to? ... and they still persisted in calling it a "MechWarrior" video game?

If you think they would, in this example, be wrong to call their game a "mechwarrior" video game, you must reject your own form/type of reasoning: for this example uses your own reasoning.

If, however, there is some content that MUST be fulfilled in order to make a MechWarrior video game, than there are standards which must be met. This is simply the nature of working with an already established setting of any type.

Edited by Pht, 09 August 2013 - 02:18 PM.

[Pht]

Kay - my comment on the CoF not being rewarding is not beause i don't think that it theoretically wouldn't work.

It's because I don't think it's humanly possible to implement it robustly enough to work in a mech game: http://mwomercs.com/forums/topic/122169-forget-heat-penalties-a-comprehensive-balance-solution-to-alphas-convergence-poptarts-boats-and-clans/page__view__findpost__p__2552669

The ruleset required to make a CoF implementation behave properly would be an obscenely large tangle.


Yes, I DID say that you wouldn't have direct control of the weapons. I simply mean that you don't have direct physical control of the aim of the weapons, nor any sort of magical direct control of their aim.

It's the 'Mech that actually directly controls the weapons. The pilot is in direct control of the 'Mech.


[quote name=''Kay Wolf' post='2630557']All MechWarrior's in the tabletop begin with a 4 for Gunnery Skill. Switching that over to a percentage system' date=' it would be like starting them with an 8, instead, or a nominal Gunnery of 66.7%, and then calculating bonuses and penalties. I have outlined all of this in another post long buried, most certainly, concerning the bonuses, and it's a system that could work. [/quote']

It's not even necessary to port over this number. In fact, it would be WRONG to port over the pilot's gunnery numbers, or any numbers that represent pilot skills.

The reason for this is very simple - as far as gunnery numbers, we can do EVERYTHING physically "gunnery" that a MechWarrior does in the setting. In fact, we can even do it with the same type of control peripheral; a joystick.

The MechWarrior video game is "all about" US controlling the 'Mechs, as much as our computers will allow us to. Not the in-game avatar.

[quote name=''Kay Wolf']The things Pht is recommending are longer games than are presently taking place' date=' the appropriate use of 'Mechs in their various forms and movement styles, and the ability to truly think your way through. I'll guarantee you right now there's not one FPS runt out there that could stand up in a game that actually stuck to the whole of the tabletop rules. [/quote']

There's no need to knock the FPS crowd, even if MW shouldn't be an FPS. There are plenty of impudent jerks in the MW crowd too.

[quote name='Kay Wolf' timestamp='1375841538' post='2630653']
It's funny how they work just like Human muscles, only on a much grander and less-controlled scale, huh?[/quote]

Interesting, yes.

When you think about it, they're just electrical motors, so when they heat up, they become more resistive, meaning sluggish, and because the heat is never applied to the bundles equally, the myomers actually start to twitch oddly.

Overheating a 'Mech is almost like giving it miniature epileptic fits - I can't imagine how complex the programming must be in order to compensate for this.

In fact, I suspect that this effect is the major one that the AES system compensates for.

[quote]How is the 'Mech performing... even though you're comfortably ensconced in your command couch, you are a single person relying on your computer to help you perform calculations for any number of weapon systems, not a single crew-served weapon as on the M1 tank. The computer you have is not EVEN as advanced as the M1 tank's computer, because that is LosTech you're dealing with, and it's old, rusty, and can't be readily fixed by your techs,...[/quote]

Um, actually. It's more advanced than the one in the m1; in function, certainly in software complexity, possibly in hardware too.

Check the computers section here:

http://mwomercs.com/forums/topic/4616-battlemech-technology-an-education

The SW's did knock things back a LOT, but I think we don't realize just how amazing some of the "normal" stuff of even the SW ages is, or just how far advanced the first Star-league was. For goodness sakes, they weren't just terraforming planets, they were removing their atmospheres and giving them earth-like atmospheres.

Regardless, we know that the 'Mechs, while utterly capable of getting pretty much any weapon to hit an overall 'Mech sized target at pretty much any range, aren't quite so good at getting them all converged perfectly under the reticule.

[quote] Now, how do you coordinate two or more weapons, even with a computer's help, to converge properly on a target? It takes time, and that's what Pht is trying to describe to you in the OP, and throughout this thread. It can be done, but it takes time.

I'm probably just talking to myself at this point, but I hope the comparison's actually help?
[/quote]

Actually, the pilot doesn't directly control the convergence at all. The 'Mech is what directly controls the convergence, by physically aiming each of the individual weapons, according to it's cacluations as to how best to get them to hit what the pilot is aiming at with his reticule.

If the pilot is trying to get better convergence, he has to take into account that his 'Mech is going to have a harder time getting all of it's weapons to hit a smaller target. So the pilot, by the use of what he DOES directly control, would put his 'Mech, by his choices, in a position to make the shot easier, and by his skill with the reticule would be dictating what sections of the target would be getting hit.

In terms of the OP, you'd put yourself into a position where the +3 is no longer an issue, so your shots would concentrate more tightly... and remember, this is with the TT armor values vs the TT weapons damage values. Not the currently doubled armor and doubled internal structure numbers - the effect would be greater.

[quote name='Kay Wolf' post='2630910']I want my positions to be understood, here...

1) I apologize about so many posts in a row, but I would find something I could think to respond to immediately with a great response, or I could have multi-quoted and lost the thread of what I was trying to say.

2) No one likes to be ignored, no one likes to be insulted, whether by other players or the developers, and ignoring the veterans of this game was just another iron-handed slap in the face to people who've supported this game universe and brought it, eventually, to PGIs doorstep. PGI and IGP owe the veterans of this game, the hundreds of thousands of dollars BattleTech brought into the various game companies that have had it, that made it a viable IP in the first place, and made it a potentially huge cash cow for both companies involved, and we were bloody ignored. Will I purchase Sarah's 'Mech, will I likely continue to play in the future? Yes to both; in fact, if you look in my signature block, you'll find a link there to my current plans for Armageddon Unlimited, next year. I do this because of extraordinary talents like Hayden, Flying Debris, and a lot of the staff at PGI and IGP, not because of the ****-poor decisions made by TPTB. Thank you very little.

3) I don't believe Pht's modifiers system, in essence separating the Pilot and BattleMech into two separate entities through the use of modifiers, rather than using a Cone of Fire/Destruction system, will be any easier to implement, but a system where the two are separate and modifiers are applied in the most natural way possible SHOULD be done. Having reticule shake due to jumping is a start, but it's not enough.

4) Customization between matches in a persistent world is a quick way to kill a game, so I hope PGI downgrades incoming cash to the point where MechWarrior's are forced to learn how to fight with their extant weapon systems and a setup that allows for modifiers on the back-end to have a true tactical and strategic effect.

5) I have now been working on this thread for four hours, I believe, and it's time for me to go do something else. Have a good night, expect no response from me until tomorrow.

~Colonel Kay Wolf, Armageddon Unlimited [/quote]

1) - You'd have been limited to 10 block quotes by the forum anyways. One has to be creative to get around that rather pointless restriction.

2) - I don't think IGP&PGI "owe" anyone a particular implementation of the MW video game series. I do think it's bordering on rude, though, to not seriously consider supporting those who formed the originating basis that started this whole ball rolling in the first place... and as you have pointed out, have still supported it, with a game that really represents the lore. I do find it annoying that the major content that SHOULD be in an MW video game has yet to have been implemented, when it's been staring us all in the face for thirty years.

It might also be wise for the DEVs to consider that the "whales" of the pen and paper end of the universe would most likely become the "whales" of the MWO F2P universe. After all, they've already proven their monetary devotion to the setting, for going on 30 years in many cases. If that doesn't fit the F2P model...

3) - I don't think it would be as hard as some think to put in a "does it hit" and than a "what does it hit" mechanic. Especially when this sort of thing is quite possibly already in the game for cluster type weapons - racast for hit, some other mechanic for damage spreading.

4) - I don't mind the customization so much, I just wanted a few more limits on it (see mechalb sig link). That discussion, however, is for another thread!

[Mackman]

Pht, on 09 August 2013 - 02:17 PM, said:

I suspect that you might retort that [missing] only happens in MWO as it is because "you've made a mistake," and these things only happen because of your bad choices and/or a lack of skill with your controller ... which is fine to say.

Where this breaks down - and has been breaking down completely - is every time you've made posts having the meaning that, given the way the OP has it, you miss in the OP system not because of "bad choices" and/or a lack of skill with the controller, but because of the dreaded "RNG/Random" effect.

This breaks down because you've persisted in applying the definition of a "perfect shot" from the MWO (& fps mechanic in general) - when this definition quite clearly doesn't fit; the choices that are "perfect" in MWO are not the choices that are "perfect" as the OP would have them. Both games would require you to use exactly the same amount and type of physical skill with the controller. Furthermore, if a player makes stupid choices in the OP system, they consistently get bad results - just as consistently as they do in MWO as it is now.

Doing an apples to oranges comparison of two things and rejecting the oranges for not being like the apples is silly.

It's not silly at all, if your basis for rejecting it is "thinking oranges are a crappy fruit for making apple sauce."

In many situations in a battle, you will be forced to make sub-optimum choices. You will not be able to set up situations where you can bring that much certainty to the table. You will be forced to either remain inactive and lose through inaction, or commit to a sub-optimal strategy.

That happens. And pretending it doesn't is dishonest in the extreme. And when that happens, when it's two damaged mechs facing off, turning a corner and seeing one another, it's not going to matter who's more "skilled".

It's just going to matter who gets better randomly generated numbers when they fire.

The person who, by superior skill, aligns their reticule first, might weigh their options perfectly and decide (let's assume correctly) that their statistically best chance for success lies in waiting for a 75% chance of hitting the enemy's red CT.

In the meantime, the person who aligns their reticule second would recognize the same thing, and decide (again, let's assume correctly) that their only chance for survival is firing when there's still only a 30% chance to hit the enemy's red CT.

Who wins the match?

You don't know, do you?

Because it's decided by RNG.

You can say that the first person would probably win... but the mere fact that it's "probably" and not "certainly" would absolutely kill MWO as a competitive game. Think of the first time a high-level tournament match is lost because the person who statistically should have won loses because of crappy RNG roles by his mech.

I know, I know, you'll say he should have done this, and should have done that... but the nature of a match means there will always be "shoulds" at every single decision point. But nobody wants to see a person who made the best decision he could in the moment, lose through no fault of his own. And nobody wants to be that person either.

[Pht]

Mackman, on 09 August 2013 - 03:18 PM, said:

It's not silly at all, if your basis for rejecting it is "thinking oranges are a crappy fruit for making apple sauce."

That you've managed a neat retort doesn't make your false comparison valid.

Quote

In many situations in a battle, you will be forced to make sub-optimum choices. You will not be able to set up situations where you can bring that much certainty to the table. You will be forced to either remain inactive and lose through inaction, or commit to a sub-optimal strategy

The exact same complaint applies to MWO.

Quote

That happens. And pretending it doesn't is dishonest in the extreme.

Pretending that I've somehow pretended that it doesn't happen when I haven't is what's extremely dishonest.

Quote

And when that happens, when it's two damaged mechs facing off, turning a corner and seeing one another, it's not going to matter who's more "skilled".

It's just going to matter who gets better randomly generated numbers when they fire.

No. It won't. Even with two damaged and overheating 'mechs, a player in the OP can always make a better choice than the other guy and aim at something easier for his 'mech to hit.

Unless, of course, you manage to whip up a situation in which both players are somehow forced into perfectly equal bad situations; at which point, even in MWO it comes down to luck.

Quote

The person who, by superior skill, aligns their reticule first, might weigh their options perfectly and decide (let's assume correctly) that their statistically best chance for success lies in waiting for a 75% chance of hitting the enemy's red CT.

In the meantime, the person who aligns their reticule second would recognize the same thing, and decide (again, let's assume correctly) that their only chance for survival is firing when there's still only a 30% chance to hit the enemy's red CT.

Who wins the match?

You don't know, do you?

Because it's decided by RNG.

Interesting. Now you're apparently equivocating and using a different definition of "random" than you gave before. Hit-percentages are ... PREDICTABLE, and you agreed that you were using the word "random" as a synonym for hit-percentages. It's a simple math equation - do a simple addition, look at the hit table, run your math, get your answer.

Also, you've managed to contradict yourself. You said that the other person makes the correct decision. Than you said the outcome isn't knowable.

You can't have your cake and eat it too.

If he weighed his decision correctly, he knows, as you've posted, he'll succeed. Than you say it's impossible to know.

Besides this, you've still failed to use the OP (and the OP as you first quoted it is linked, so you can view it and even still use it).

If you actually picked a set of situations that the OP addresses, and actually gave them; everyone could see if your assumption is correct. You could actually prove your point.

Quote

You can say that the first person would probably win... but the mere fact that it's "probably" and not "certainly" would absolutely kill MWO as a competitive game. Think of the first time a high-level tournament match is lost because the person who statistically should have won loses because of crappy RNG roles by his mech.

... and again, doing apples to oranges.

You're saying he "should have" won; you're presuming a set of situations; and you're applying standards for "the right choices" from something other than the OP.

Quote

I know, I know, you'll say he should have done this, and should have done that... but the nature of a match means there will always be "shoulds" at every single decision point.

You mean like, how a player of MWO should have clicked when the target's ct was under his reticule? Or how they should have not walked slowly out in front of another player? Again, with a complaint that applies to MWO in the exact form as you're applying it to what I've posted.

Quote

But nobody wants to see a person who made the best decision he could in the moment, ...

WHAT best decision? The best decision in MWO for any given situation? Or the best decision in the OP for any given situation?

Which do you want? To have your cake? Or to eat it?


... I bet you CAN'T take the content from the op, make a sane situation, and show how it would make someone who made "the best decision in the OP system lose because of randomness"

Pick a set of to-hits modifiers.

Pick a hit-location table.

And demonstrate how what you're saying is more than lcds on a screen. This is one of the reasons I actually listed them; so people could actually do the underlying math for any given situation.

Edited by Pht, 09 August 2013 - 05:32 PM.

[James The Fox Dixon]

I endorse the original post.

[Pht]

LoL.

Now that's how to do a concise post!

[James The Fox Dixon]

Pht, on 09 August 2013 - 06:00 PM, said:

LoL.

Now that's how to do a concise post!

What could I say that would add to what you already said? LOL Nothing since you covered it so well.

[Brilig]

Ok so essentially a real time V.A.T.S targeting mechanic. Computer gives each weapon a % chance to hit a location on a mech based on a variety of factors. Player holds crosshairs over desired target location. Player pulls the trigger when chance to hit desired location becomes acceptable.

Questions:

From what I understand if you target a section of a mech, and miss. You still have a chance to hit the mech, just not in that location. Is that correct? Also how does the game determine where the round goes when you miss the desired section?

Would lasers keep their burn time? Or in order for this to work would they have to become pinpoint damage?

Edited by Brilig, 10 August 2013 - 02:49 AM.

[Threat Doc]

Brilig, I'm going to answer your pre-edit questions, because I believe they are equally relevant.

Brilig, on 10 August 2013 - 01:46 AM, said:

Questions:

For those of you who have played FallOut 3. Is the OP essentially describing a real time V.A.T.S system?

No, I think it's a good-deal more complex than that. And, if it were a real-time version, would it be such a bad thing?

Quote

Computer determines the chance to hit a given section based on a variety of factors. You choose the desired target location by holding your crosshairs over it. You pull the trigger when you think the targeting computer will have an acceptable chance to hit that location?

How would that be represented best, though? I think shifting reticule colors towards a solid solution would be good.

Quote

From what I understand if you target a section of a mech, and miss. You still have a chance to hit the mech, just not in that location. Is that correct? Also how does the game determine where the round goes when you miss the desired section?

First, yes you would still have a chance to hit the 'Mech, especially if Pht's to-hit tables concept is used, or the Cone of Fire. He and I have tried to explain how it works, but those too stubborn to care about anything other than point-and-click accuracy will not understand, no matter how many times it's explained. Sticking with what I understand Pht's model to be, the hit location would be determined by the hit location tables for all hits, not just hit-scan and poof, IF the developers want to stick by the actual tabletop rules 'AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE'.

Quote

Would lasers keep their burn time? Or in order for this to work would they have to become pinpoint damage?

The way lasers work in MWO, now, they would keep their burn time, though I'm of a mind that there are various types of lasers that work in different ways, so you could have point-of-impact damage, as well.

The point of this conversation, now two years old, was to try and get the developers to stick to what they said they would do, and not collapse to the screaming-nattering cacophony of the vocal minority of point-and-click accuracy twitchers. Though this conversation is now academic, it's been fun to see where it might go, and to see there are people so scared of a different means of doing things they will argue for the extant mess there seems to be in the game, now, no matter what. The way PGI does go, now that they've managed to chase away the vast majority of BattleTech AND MechWarrior veterans, will determine if I return to this game next July or not.

I am now done, here.

[Pht]

Brilig, on 10 August 2013 - 01:46 AM, said:

Ok so essentially a real time V.A.T.S targeting mechanic. Computer gives each weapon a % chance to hit a location on a mech based on a variety of factors. Player holds crosshairs over desired target location. Player pulls the trigger when chance to hit desired location becomes acceptable.

I don't have first-hand experience with VATS, but you seem to be headed in the right direction with what you've posted otherwise.

Quote

Questions:

From what I understand if you target a section of a mech, and miss. You still have a chance to hit the mech, just not in that location. Is that correct? Also how does the game determine where the round goes when you miss the desired section?

Would lasers keep their burn time? Or in order for this to work would they have to become pinpoint damage?

If the shot doesn't go exactly under the reticule, than it will hit somewhere around the reticule - the hit percentages across any side or section of the 'mech you're aiming at are usually in a bell curve configuration, with most shots centering around the center of the general section.

The called shots are somewhat different - for instance, the call high just puts your shots equally across the upper part of the 'mech.

Lasers would not become pinpoint (perfectly grouped under the reticule)... they would apply their damage to one given section of the target. How this would be rendered visually could be varied, as long as it made visual sense.

[blinkin]

Kay Wolf, on 06 August 2013 - 05:45 PM, said:

Perhaps, Blinkin, I have been able to help clarify some things. I seem to understand Pht's argument perfectly well, and my reading is that many others, the one's you claim are sharing your arguments, understand it well enough to be able to ask questions, make comparisons, and are actually seeking clarification, rather than what you're doing, which is to badget Pht over nothing. Having been deep into this entire thread, from the beginning, for the past hour or so, I think, you're the one who threw down the strawman, not Pht. He has tried to explain to you, in relatively calm, if somewhat derisive -from time-to-time- terms everything you've asked for, but you only seem to want to bait.

So, if you're not keen to understand, not keen to pick up MegaMek or the board game, not keen to perform your own research so you might understand not only what SHOULD separate this game from all previous first-person shooters, whether MechWarrior or not, but also what makes BattleTech unique from all other mecha combat games -especially since the word mecha is TABOO to veterans of this universe, they are 'Mechs or BattleMechs, Battlefield Mechanisms- then perhaps you should retire to reading the discussion rather than trying to derail it with your constant inane babbling about how this doesn't work, won't work, or is the most boring possible outcome for the game, when you're not even willing to try it to see if you MIGHT just like it.

i understand his system perfectly and i even managed to get him (Pht) to admit that my understanding of his system is accurate.

i have played plenty of games that put systems like this to good effect and are fun. Eve is an almost perfect example of a system just like this. i have read the OP several times all the way through. if you don't believe me then look back through at the quotes i made of the OP where i went through and highlighted specific words.

i don't really care what type of system players prefer. what i do care about is people like Pht purposefully misrepresenting their ideas and hiding their intentions. if you want dice rolls to replace the aiming reticle then just say so. i won't ever support it, but i will accept that we have fundamentally different view points. i also get annoyed when people like Pht say that we hate mechwarrior because we don't completely embrace his vision of it. he purposefully avoids the true nature of his system so that he can sell it to others who wouldn't normally buy in.

if you want to be in the Pht fan club then fine, but don't just read one post of mine and then claim you know more than me. people like you are the reason why there are so many out there who cringe any time table top rules are ever mentioned. i would like to integrate more of TT, but because of all of you TT purists out there that burn everyone else out, i have to work much harder to convince people that rules aren't necessarily bad because of where they came from.

@Pht: if it's not a random system then there should be no problems with completely removing dice from every aspect of it.

[Pht]

blinkin, on 18 August 2013 - 07:01 PM, said:

i understand his system perfectly and i even managed to get him (Pht) to admit that my understanding of his system is accurate.

No. You do not understand it.

I base this conclusion on the fact that you have been, so far, utterly incapable of representing it as it is posted, even though you say you disagree with it.

Nor have I said anywhere that your understanding of the system is accurate (there's a quote function - you could ... you know ... back your claims up quite easily).

Quote

i have played plenty of games that put systems like this to good effect and are fun. Eve is an almost perfect example of a system just like this.

Excluding the fact that eve removes all human skill, which is a huge difference from what I posted; which you're leaving out, yet again.

Quote

i don't really care what type of system players prefer. what i do care about is people like Pht purposefully misrepresenting their ideas and hiding their intentions.

Lies.

I have literally spent pages trying to make things very clear for you and others, just in this thread alone.

Your disagreeing with me is fine.

Your baseless slandering of me is not.

Quote

if you want dice rolls to replace the aiming reticle then just say so.

I don't.

I have repeatedly stated that where you place the reticle determines which hit-tables are used; that there are hit-tables that have significantly more concentrated fire (which, again, are chosen by human choices and skill) - this is NOT "dice rolls replacing the reticule," as it is the RETICULE that is the tool used to do the choosing.

Quote

i also get annoyed when people like Pht say that we hate mechwarrior because we don't completely embrace his vision of it.

Words and grammar have meanings. All I have done is to have pointed out the necessary meaning of the name of the game, and than backing that up with other facts. This is not worth getting mad over.

Quote

he purposefully avoids the true nature of his system so that he can sell it to others who wouldn't normally buy in.

Another lie. You're making a habit out of this.

Quote

@Pht: if it's not a random system then there should be no problems with completely removing dice from every aspect of it.

Given your near-habitual and demonstrable lies about me I'm prone to thinking that you're equivocating on what you mean by "random" and "dice," such that trying to interact with you about these things will be, by your own design, fruitless.

[Boyinleaves]

First of all, James said it best when he "Endorsed the orginal post". Having read the thing several times, all of the relevant points are made there, and can be understood by anyone with an open mind and an adequate grasp of the English language.

---

Here's a simple summary in my own words, please let me know if I don't get it; I would like to contribute to this discussion from a position of understanding.

The BattleTech rules are intended simulate a degree of controllable variability into the accuracy of weapons fire from one 'Mech to another.

The controllable variables are things like Heat, Movement, Size, Cover, Range and Targeting and Tracking, and they affect whether or not a weapon, when fired, is actually positioned properly to provide a precise firing solution; i.e. when the trigger is pressed, will the shot actually hit what the pilot intends. A perfect firing solution could also be described as Complete Weapons Convergence upon the Target Reticle. MWO already has this implemented, albeit nearly instantaneously.

If the pilot has adequately compensated for all of the controllable variables, the chance that the weapons will hit the enemy 'Mech is 100%. The chance that the weapons will hit the component that the pilot aimed at is also 100%.

If the pilot has only compensated for some of the controllable variables, the chance that the weapons will hit the enemy 'Mech is less than 100%. This means that some of the weapons fire will miss the enemy 'Mech completely. It also means that the weapons that do hit the 'Mech will probably not all hit the same component.

If the pilot has compensated for none of the controllable variables, it is quite possible that the chance that the weapons will hit the enemy 'Mech is close to, if not 0%. None of the weapons will hit, and if they do, they're not going to hit where the pilot wanted them to.

---

Please bear in mind that while Pht's OP does propose a system that utilises probability mechanics, he is in no way proposing to take away anyone's skill. In fact, it states that if a pilot is skilled and/or knowledgeable enough to compensate for all of the factors that can affect his shot, then the shot should go precisely where he intends.

Now, in BT, dice rolling is used to simulate the effects of the controllable variables upon the 'Mech's ability to hit with its weapons. The probabilities provided by the possible results most closely resemble the falloff half of a Bell curve, and in BT, when many of the variables are controlled for, 'Mechs are therefore highly accurate weapons platforms. If you don't understand what a Bell curve is, do yourself a favour and look it up; knowing this is probably essential to understanding his points and OP.

In a game that has been translated over into using devices capable of calculating several trillion computations every second, we no longer have to be limited to discrete, dice based probabilities to determine outcomes. In fact, we can use Bell or distribution curves to determine a more refined view of firing solution outcomes that a larger proportion of people are happy with. For example, if a pilot manages to compensate for a majority, or even just some of the variables at play, they may very well hit with their weapons a great deal of the time. The effect would be very similar to the outcome provided by a cone of fire mechanic, or the implmentation of time-based weapons convergence.

If you have ever played a game with a cone of fire mechanic, proabilities are what they are intended to simulate. Some do this better than others, and many are not truly random. In fact, in some first person shooters, bullet spread has been implemented in a way that appears random, but is in fact totally predictable, and is therefore able to be compensated for by experienced players.

MWO already has the ability to calculate Weapons Convergence, but it does so instantaneously, and therefore we have precisely accurate weapons fire. If Weapons Convergence were not instant, the effect would essentially be that weapons would spread across components and, potentially, miss. Rather than use a real-time tracking means of calculating convergence, Pht's method would simulate its effects into controllable probabilities.

Again, let me be absolutely clear: This system would not remove any of the aiming skill currently required in MWO, and would in fact require more.

Not only would better aiming be required to Track targets, pilots would also have to be far more aware of many other factors and variables when taking shots. Depending upon the implementation of each variable, situational awareness would become paramount, heat managment (if a graded system for this is ever implemented) would matter, positioning for cover would be vital, torso twisting would be far more effective, and so forth. There would be more variables that pilots would need to consider, often instinctively and at a moment's notice, and thus a greater degree of challenge would potentially be provided.

In fact, given enough time for a 'Mech's T&T to calculate a firing solution and appropriate weapon convergence, potentially any shot could hit with 100% accuracy. Even a nearly overheating 'Mech with damaged actuators could be able to hit with 100% accuracy, if the mechanics were implemented into MWO that way.

I can see a number of benefits that Pht's system would provide that would improve the thought that goes into piloting a 'Mech. There are also downsides, however. I will summarise everything I can think of here, and hopefully add to it if discussion continues.

Positives:
- Tactical positioning would be more useful
- Shots would typically be taken much more slowly, as players compensate for variables.
- Sniping would become organically more difficult without the need to directly nerf/buff weapon statistics
- Heat managment could be a consideration
- Target choice would be more important
- 'Mechs would more frequently lose components other than their CT or both legs
- Battles would last longer and be more attritive
- 'Mech size and therefore class could matter more, as would speed and maneuverability
- Weapons could be 'balanced' more easily
- It describes BT lore more closely
- The factors that affect controlled variability could be tweaked individually when needed. I.e., actual BT probabilities do not have to be used, but a Bell distribution is a good start. A computer game can use probabilites for the variable factors that change minimally, rather than being discrete, and range, heat, movement, size modifiers can all happen on a linear scale in a computer game.


Negatives:
- The system is probability based, and even though it would be possible to obtain a 100% chance to hit, any system that uses direct probability in any fashion is typically eschewed by 'competitive' gamers
- It's probably perceived to be more work, or a potential turnoff to players by PGI/IGP, and will probably never be considered.
- Chance/Randomness/Controlled variability is an upleasant concept to many people, and no matter how it is put to them, no amount of evidence or discussion will ever change the way they feel.

I will freely admit I have no knowledge about the makeup of PGI's playerbase, so I cannot make a judgement call as to whether implementing a system such as this is a good idea or not, but I can say that I personally love the concept, as I enjoy most games that allow for players to experience controlled variability. Indeed, I would like much, much more of it, even at the expense of 'balance'. The absence of it is precisely why I don't particularly enjoy games like LoL or Dota2, the results are typically a foregone conclusion. I can only hope that one day...one day the BT IP will fall into the hands of someone who does want to actually make a MW that's true to lore and has the backing to be able do so free of financial considerations, and that there's the playerbase to support it. Well, if I win the lottery tonight...

---

The divide between the people that want a system such as this, and those that want a system like we currenly have, I liken to the difference between a game like Chess, and one like Carcassonne.

Chess is a finite state system. There are no variables that are outside the control of the players. Each move has a finite number of options, and further moves can be extrapolated to the point at which matches between experienced players and lesser experienced ones can be a foregone conclusion.

Carcassonne is a slightly more open system. Each move a player makes has several sets of limitations, and the options are still finite, but further move options can either grow or diminish as players place tiles. Players have to consider how they approach the controllable variables in order to impact the game in their favour. While the core of the game allows involes a random selection of move options, the strategies involved that affect how these moves are made are based on player skill and knowledge, and affect how the game plays out. While it is a more 'chance' based system, in terms of what moves will ever be available to you, more experienced players are statistically more capable of winning no matter what the RNG throws at them.

Some people like closed systems, some like open ones. There are merits for both, though I prefer open ones, because I find that having to control for variability is fun for me. Being able to know (just about) everything in advance is boring.

E.g. I play around with builds almost constantly, usually from game to game. My last effort was a 733P with 2 PPCs, one Mlas, one TAG, one LRM10, 2 SRM 6s, and no jumpjets. In the current game, it's pretty much rubbish, but I can do enough in it to pull my weight. However, if I actually want to perform, I just jump in my 2PPC/Gauss Jag, and the results are pretty much a foregone conclusion. The game becomes a cakewalk. Unfortunately, it also becomes really boring, which is why I run most of my 33 'Mechs regularly.

TL;DR - Some things are a fun for some people, some things are fun for others. OP has merit; many people who say they've read the OP either haven't, or haven't understood it, but this doesn't mean that their preferences for a game without "RNG" are invalid. Some BT fans would simply like a MW game that reflects the lore of the universe we love.

Recommendations --- PGI, Please implement separate queues for people that want some of these features. I'll pay for it, whatever it takes...

[Pht]

Thanks boyinleaves.

I'll go through your post and try to give it a thorough reply.

[blinkin]

Boyinleaves, on 24 August 2013 - 03:08 PM, said:

First of all, James said it best when he "Endorsed the orginal post". Having read the thing several times, all of the relevant points are made there, and can be understood by anyone with an open mind and an adequate grasp of the English language.

---

Here's a simple summary in my own words, please let me know if I don't get it; I would like to contribute to this discussion from a position of understanding.

The BattleTech rules are intended simulate a degree of controllable variability into the accuracy of weapons fire from one 'Mech to another.

The controllable variables are things like Heat, Movement, Size, Cover, Range and Targeting and Tracking, and they affect whether or not a weapon, when fired, is actually positioned properly to provide a precise firing solution; i.e. when the trigger is pressed, will the shot actually hit what the pilot intends. A perfect firing solution could also be described as Complete Weapons Convergence upon the Target Reticle. MWO already has this implemented, albeit nearly instantaneously.

If the pilot has adequately compensated for all of the controllable variables, the chance that the weapons will hit the enemy 'Mech is 100%. The chance that the weapons will hit the component that the pilot aimed at is also 100%.

If the pilot has only compensated for some of the controllable variables, the chance that the weapons will hit the enemy 'Mech is less than 100%. This means that some of the weapons fire will miss the enemy 'Mech completely. It also means that the weapons that do hit the 'Mech will probably not all hit the same component.

If the pilot has compensated for none of the controllable variables, it is quite possible that the chance that the weapons will hit the enemy 'Mech is close to, if not 0%. None of the weapons will hit, and if they do, they're not going to hit where the pilot wanted them to.

---

Please bear in mind that while Pht's OP does propose a system that utilises probability mechanics, he is in no way proposing to take away anyone's skill. In fact, it states that if a pilot is skilled and/or knowledgeable enough to compensate for all of the factors that can affect his shot, then the shot should go precisely where he intends.

Now, in BT, dice rolling is used to simulate the effects of the controllable variables upon the 'Mech's ability to hit with its weapons. The probabilities provided by the possible results most closely resemble the falloff half of a Bell curve, and in BT, when many of the variables are controlled for, 'Mechs are therefore highly accurate weapons platforms. If you don't understand what a Bell curve is, do yourself a favour and look it up; knowing this is probably essential to understanding his points and OP.

In a game that has been translated over into using devices capable of calculating several trillion computations every second, we no longer have to be limited to discrete, dice based probabilities to determine outcomes. In fact, we can use Bell or distribution curves to determine a more refined view of firing solution outcomes that a larger proportion of people are happy with. For example, if a pilot manages to compensate for a majority, or even just some of the variables at play, they may very well hit with their weapons a great deal of the time. The effect would be very similar to the outcome provided by a cone of fire mechanic, or the implmentation of time-based weapons convergence.

If you have ever played a game with a cone of fire mechanic, proabilities are what they are intended to simulate. Some do this better than others, and many are not truly random. In fact, in some first person shooters, bullet spread has been implemented in a way that appears random, but is in fact totally predictable, and is therefore able to be compensated for by experienced players.

MWO already has the ability to calculate Weapons Convergence, but it does so instantaneously, and therefore we have precisely accurate weapons fire. If Weapons Convergence were not instant, the effect would essentially be that weapons would spread across components and, potentially, miss. Rather than use a real-time tracking means of calculating convergence, Pht's method would simulate its effects into controllable probabilities.

Again, let me be absolutely clear: This system would not remove any of the aiming skill currently required in MWO, and would in fact require more.

Not only would better aiming be required to Track targets, pilots would also have to be far more aware of many other factors and variables when taking shots. Depending upon the implementation of each variable, situational awareness would become paramount, heat managment (if a graded system for this is ever implemented) would matter, positioning for cover would be vital, torso twisting would be far more effective, and so forth. There would be more variables that pilots would need to consider, often instinctively and at a moment's notice, and thus a greater degree of challenge would potentially be provided.

In fact, given enough time for a 'Mech's T&T to calculate a firing solution and appropriate weapon convergence, potentially any shot could hit with 100% accuracy. Even a nearly overheating 'Mech with damaged actuators could be able to hit with 100% accuracy, if the mechanics were implemented into MWO that way.

I can see a number of benefits that Pht's system would provide that would improve the thought that goes into piloting a 'Mech. There are also downsides, however. I will summarise everything I can think of here, and hopefully add to it if discussion continues.

Positives:
- Tactical positioning would be more useful
- Shots would typically be taken much more slowly, as players compensate for variables.
- Sniping would become organically more difficult without the need to directly nerf/buff weapon statistics
- Heat managment could be a consideration
- Target choice would be more important
- 'Mechs would more frequently lose components other than their CT or both legs
- Battles would last longer and be more attritive
- 'Mech size and therefore class could matter more, as would speed and maneuverability
- Weapons could be 'balanced' more easily
- It describes BT lore more closely
- The factors that affect controlled variability could be tweaked individually when needed. I.e., actual BT probabilities do not have to be used, but a Bell distribution is a good start. A computer game can use probabilites for the variable factors that change minimally, rather than being discrete, and range, heat, movement, size modifiers can all happen on a linear scale in a computer game.


Negatives:
- The system is probability based, and even though it would be possible to obtain a 100% chance to hit, any system that uses direct probability in any fashion is typically eschewed by 'competitive' gamers
- It's probably perceived to be more work, or a potential turnoff to players by PGI/IGP, and will probably never be considered.
- Chance/Randomness/Controlled variability is an upleasant concept to many people, and no matter how it is put to them, no amount of evidence or discussion will ever change the way they feel.

I will freely admit I have no knowledge about the makeup of PGI's playerbase, so I cannot make a judgement call as to whether implementing a system such as this is a good idea or not, but I can say that I personally love the concept, as I enjoy most games that allow for players to experience controlled variability. Indeed, I would like much, much more of it, even at the expense of 'balance'. The absence of it is precisely why I don't particularly enjoy games like LoL or Dota2, the results are typically a foregone conclusion. I can only hope that one day...one day the BT IP will fall into the hands of someone who does want to actually make a MW that's true to lore and has the backing to be able do so free of financial considerations, and that there's the playerbase to support it. Well, if I win the lottery tonight...

---

The divide between the people that want a system such as this, and those that want a system like we currenly have, I liken to the difference between a game like Chess, and one like Carcassonne.

Chess is a finite state system. There are no variables that are outside the control of the players. Each move has a finite number of options, and further moves can be extrapolated to the point at which matches between experienced players and lesser experienced ones can be a foregone conclusion.

Carcassonne is a slightly more open system. Each move a player makes has several sets of limitations, and the options are still finite, but further move options can either grow or diminish as players place tiles. Players have to consider how they approach the controllable variables in order to impact the game in their favour. While the core of the game allows involes a random selection of move options, the strategies involved that affect how these moves are made are based on player skill and knowledge, and affect how the game plays out. While it is a more 'chance' based system, in terms of what moves will ever be available to you, more experienced players are statistically more capable of winning no matter what the RNG throws at them.

Some people like closed systems, some like open ones. There are merits for both, though I prefer open ones, because I find that having to control for variability is fun for me. Being able to know (just about) everything in advance is boring.

E.g. I play around with builds almost constantly, usually from game to game. My last effort was a 733P with 2 PPCs, one Mlas, one TAG, one LRM10, 2 SRM 6s, and no jumpjets. In the current game, it's pretty much rubbish, but I can do enough in it to pull my weight. However, if I actually want to perform, I just jump in my 2PPC/Gauss Jag, and the results are pretty much a foregone conclusion. The game becomes a cakewalk. Unfortunately, it also becomes really boring, which is why I run most of my 33 'Mechs regularly.

TL;DR - Some things are a fun for some people, some things are fun for others. OP has merit; many people who say they've read the OP either haven't, or haven't understood it, but this doesn't mean that their preferences for a game without "RNG" are invalid. Some BT fans would simply like a MW game that reflects the lore of the universe we love.

Recommendations --- PGI, Please implement separate queues for people that want some of these features. I'll pay for it, whatever it takes...

i think there are plenty of other ways that the heat system could be implemented beyond shackling it to the system Pht wants. i will have to reread his OP again because last time i read it (a couple weeks ago, i think he has adjusted a few things in direct response to my prodding) the player was little more than a target designator with the only option to effect aim being the "aim high" rule.

from everything i read (before) there was absolutely no option to guarantee a hit on a specific component (again the only option i saw to modify direct aim in any way was associated with the aim high rule and EVERYTHING was based on the hit location tables) and when other people have suggested this was similar to a cone of fire in any way he immediately jumped all over them (i do not believe i ever mentioned anything related to a cone of fire with respect to Pht's ideas)

i can respect players wanting a more random aspect to the game and thank you for respecting the fact that i want a more complicated environment that still allows for players to compensate for all of the variables. i am not saying that the system crafted by Pht is the worst idea to ever hit these forums. in fact i have stated a few times that it would solve several problems. my issue is with Pht trying to hide the true nature of his system within a bunch of fine print and getting angry at me when i shine some light on it.

if you would like some reference material (see next quote) is the version i read before (the only part missing is the opening paragraph which was a sales pitch that possessed nothing of substance. other than that the only alterations that have been made are with respect to font and in cases of font size it was only ever increased. all of this was done to point out my specific concerns with the system, and again this is the old version, the time stamp should explain the rest)

Pht, on 29 November 2011 - 04:43 PM, said:

Physically, the main skill is the use of a joystick to indicate and track the desired target that one wants their 'Mech to try and hit, and the ability to pull trigger(s) exactly when necessary without disturbing one's aim. The joystick controls a firing reticule which is displayed on the main HUD in the cockpit. BTU 'Mechs are, by design, not allowed to target or track anything with the reticule or choose to shoot any weapon! Minor physical skills consist of the use of mode switches and, for example, configuring Target Interlock Circuits on the fly.

The three most important Mental gunnery skills are:

Knowing how the internal heat levels in your 'Mech will affect it's ability to aim, knowing if your 'Mech can make the shot you're indicating to it, and if you think it can make the shot, how long to let your 'Mech's Targeting and Tracking (T&T) computers calculate lead (weapons convergence) in order to hit the target being indicated and tracked by you. The decision on when to shoot or not shoot and how long let your T&T work on "a fix" is affected by other factors, which a good MechWarrior will take into account.

These factors consist of:
Choosing what weapons should be fired based on their rated battlefield ranges in relation to the distance to the target;

Knowing how the varying environmental and terrain types your 'Mech or a target is in will affect your 'Mech's ability to make the shot;

Choosing when to shoot based upon the target's behavior, for example, waiting until the target is relatively "still" enough in relation to your 'Mech's firing arc so that your 'Mech has an easier time making the shot;

Choosing what sort of movement you will be engaging in while asking your 'Mech to make a shot, for example, standing still while shooting, or running and shooting;

Choosing what types of weapons to fire based on their differing performance parameters i.e. ACs vs Gauss weapons, or pulse lasers vs normal lasers;

Choosing what types of ammo to use for ammo using weapons i.e., when to use LBX Cluster rounds vs LBX AC rounds;

Choosing firing modes for some weapons, for example, attempting to fire normal AC's in rapid fire mode, or rate of fire for Rotary ACs;

Knowing when engaging in an advanced firing mode is worth the tradeoff it requires (for instance, bracing an arm requires you to be immobile; Called Shots are harder to connect with, etc);

Knowing how the damage your 'Mech has taken will affect it's ability to make a shot (weapons can be degraded by taking damage, weapons in damaged arms might not align properly).

In case it's not already obvious, the 'Mech handles the calculation of how far to "lead" a target in order to hit the target that the MechWarrior is indicating with the reticule on his HUD. It is impossible for the MechWarrior to do these calculations anywhere near as fast or as precisely as the 'Mech's computer does them, and especially for multiple weapons types at once. YES, a 'Mech CAN align/converge all of its weapons, torso mounted or otherwise.

It should also be obvious that we can "do" all of these things with our computer peripherals - so there is no need to use and assign a "pilot gunnery skill" modifier in order to use the TT combat system and stats, and there should not be any in-game modifiers for pilot gunnery skill.

----

On to the nuts and bolts of how to "do" WFR!

The basic concept is to look at each weapon's listed TT performance and translate that into, say, a database format for the VG "engine" to work with, and also to look at how capable 'Mechs are at using those weapons in the TT and put that into the database, and any "quirks" that any individual 'Mech might have. Said DB is used in conjunction with whatever mechanic the game has for resolving where the firing and fired upon 'Mechs are and what way they are facing, what they were doing at the time of the shot, and where the targeting reticule in the firing 'Mech is placed at the time when the firing happens in order to handle WFR.

Things to know: plus modifiers ( + ) indicate things or conditions that make targets harder to hit. Negative modifiers ( - ) make it easier to hit targets. All to-hit modifiers are cumulative, and the total to-hit modifier is the number that must be equaled or surpassed when rolling two six-sided dice (2d6). Small Roller: http://www.fnordista...mallroller.html is an excellent program for calculating the effect that these modifiers have. As a rule of thumb, trying to hit anything that requires you to roll more than a six on 2d6 is a bad idea; just about half of your shots will miss on a 7. Just a little bit under 75% of your shots will hit "on a 6." The 'Mech actually indicates the to-hit number directly on the hud - it does it as color coding on the reticule; usually red for "poor targeting" (high to-hit modifier) to gold for "best targeting" (low to-hit modifier); along with audible cues.

The basic combat mechanic is to add up all of the to-hit modifiers, and than attempt to roll a number equal or higher than the total to-hit modifier on 2d6 for every weapon fired. Once it is determined which shots actually hit, the hit-location table appropriate for the situation is used to determine exactly what parts of the target your 'Mech was able to hit. The Hit-location tables are discussed in detail further down.

Now, onto how capable 'Mechs are of hitting the target indicated with their weapons

This describes the abilities of the 'Mech to handle it's weapons under varying conditions.

TARGET

Is:
Standing still -1
prone -2 from adjacent 30 meters, +1 from further out
Immobile -4
skidding +2
A Battle Armor +1
Aerofighter @ 12 high +1
Aerofighter otherwise +3
Secondary in fwd arc +1
secondary in other arc +2
Jumping +1(additional to other mods)
Flying non-aero +1
Sprinting -1
Evading +1 to +3, dependent on it's pilot's skill.

Is at:
Minimum range (minimum)-(target range)+1 (only for weapons with a minimum range, like ppcs)
Short range +0 - 100% of the shots hit
medium range +2 - 100% of the shots hit
long range +4 - 91.67% or 11 out of 12 shots hit
Extreme range +6 - 72.22% or 13 out of 18 shots hit
LOS range +8 - 27.78% or 5 out of 18 shots hit

Again, please note that this range table describes the capabilities of the 'Mech to overcome range effects on shots, NOT MechWarrior gunnery skill!

Target movement/ Target has moved (x) number of hexes:
Immobile -4 (Immobile =target CAN NOT move)
0 hexes moved -1 0 meters (standing still)
1-2 hexes moved +0 30-60 meters (10.8 to 21.6 KM/h - 6.7 to 13.4 mph)
3-4 hexes moved +1 90-120m (32.4 to 43.2 KM/h - 20.1 to 26.8 mph)
5-6 hexes moved +2 150-180m (54.0 to 64.8 KM/h - 33.5 to 40.2 mph)
7-9 hexes moved +3 210-270m (75.6 to 97.2 KM/h - 46.9 to 60.3 mph)
10-17 hexes moved +4 300-510m (108.0 to 183.6 KM/h - 67.1 to 114.0 mph)
18-24 hexes moved +5 540-720m (194.4 to 259.2 KM/h - 120.7 to 161.0 mph)
25+ hexes moved +6 750m (270.0 KM/h - 167.7 mph and up)

Yes, there are "range gaps" here; but the raw math data here can be plotted on a graph, so these "range gaps" can be "filled in," and if necessary, the raw velocities can be used to determine to-hit numbers, if that is easier for the back-end of the video game. This is an example where the exact form of the TT rules might not be the best to use, but the math expressed can still be used to get good results.

Target is in:
light woods +1
heavy woods +2
ultra heavy woods +3 (woods too dense for 'Mechs or protomechs to move through)
light jungle +1
Heavy jungle +2
Ultra heavy jungle +3 (woods too dense for 'Mechs or protomechs to move through)
Heavy industrial zone +1
Light smoke +1
heavy smoke +2
EM interference +2 (-2 cluster table)

This particular list could go on to insanity - there are many terrain and environment types that affect targeting.

SELF

Damage Effects:
Sensor hit +2
Shoulder hit +4 for weapons in arm, disregard all other damaged actuators in arm
upper or lower arm actuator (each) +1 for weapons in arm
Varying effects based on the Extended Critical Damage rules from Tactical Operations, from a +1 to-hit modifier to varying effects such as even worse to-hit modifiers, weapons jamming, or less damage output. .

Heat Effects:
0-7 +0
8-12 +1
13-16 +2
17-23 +3
24-32 +4
33-40 +5
41-47 +6
48 and higher +7

Yes, heat is EVIL! It makes the 'Mech's myomers sluggish, jerky, and unpredictable; and does ugly things to weapons alignment motors... besides possibly destroying components at extremely high heat levels. Don't even ask how evil ammo explosions can be. This is why keeping track of your 'Mech's heat level is such an important gunnery skill!

Movement & other effects:
Stationary +0
walked +1
ran +2
jumped +3
prone +2 (does not apply to quads)
skidding +1
sprinted - impossible to shoot while sprinting

Snap shots: (A no waiting on the T&T to get a good "fix" on the target indicated type of shot, the shot occurs so quickly that the 'Mech cannot torso twist or swing arms to align weapons arcs not already pointed at target)
While standing still +2
While on the move +3
While Jumping +6

Careful aim -1 to -3 (allowing your T&T computers a longer time to get a good "fix"- does not work with pulse weapons, cluster LBX rounds, or rapid-fire weapons firing more than one salvo.)
Bracing -2 (this is when you brace one of your 'Mech's arms on a structure to steady it, modifier only applies to weapons in braced arm).

... and there are more that could be listed for the 'Mechs, but this is enough and than some for right now.

---

How well a 'Mech can converge (concentrate its weapons fire into any given area) a single or all of its weapons onto a target.

This is the thing that's really been messed up in MW video games. It seems developers have so far thought that the pilots are the major factor in how well a 'Mech can converge it's weapons - which is wrong. Getting every weapon to hit a single section of a targeted 'Mech is a HARDWARE thing in the BTUniverse. Namely, if you don't have an Advanced Targeting Computer, your 'Mech won't be able to get its weapon or weapons to hit exactly what section you're aiming at on mobile targets. The advanced TC will be discussed a bit further down. There ARE also a set of hit-location tables that DO represent raw Mechwarrior Gunnery skill - the Called Shot tables. Those are discussed too. Also if a target is immobile any 'Mech, with or without an advanced TC, will be able to get more of it's weapons to concentrate onto a single area of a targeted 'Mech; this is an Aimed Shot.

BESIDES the Called Shot hit location tables that represent the pilot's gunnery skill, these hit-location tables represent the combat performance of THE BATTLEMECH.

So let's have an example; I'll work this out for a shot to the center of mass of the front of a targeted 'Mech.

Remember, this is just expressing the ability of the 'Mech to converge one or all of its weapons onto the area of the targeted 'Mech that the pilot has indicated, not weapons or pilot performance; and this is only for shots that have ALREADY been determined to have hit the targeted 'Mech.

The Basic hit-location table
This first set represents keeping the the reticule on the center of mass ("chest") of the front of the target 'Mech:

There's a 13.89% or 5 out of 36 chance of hitting the right arm
There's a 13.89% or 5 out of 36 chance of hitting the left arm
There's a 11.11% or 1 out of 9 chance of hitting the right leg
There's a 11.11% or 1 out of 9 chance of hitting the left leg
There's a 13.89% or 5 out of 36 chance of hitting the right torso
There's a 13.89% or 5 out of 36 chance of hitting the left torso
There's a 16.67% or 1 out of 6 chance of hitting the center torso
There's a 2.78% or 1 out of 36 chance of hitting the cockpit

What do all these percentages mean in the game? Well, in the DB, they're just pure numbers in a math equation, but for the player it could be expressed visually in the game manual or in training missions in color coded zones across the target to show how shots will concentrate, depending on what you're aiming at, so people could get a feeling for the combat capability of their 'Mech; and this would go for every type of hit-location table.

Here's the table that gives the data that the above is derived from:



And here's the hit-location table for 'Mechs lying on the ground (or quad 'Mechs):



Called Shot hit-location tables

These are the tables that represent how well a 'Mech's pilot can get their 'Mech to get it to put it's weapons fire into a smaller area of a targeted 'Mech. There are two tables: Call high-low, and Call left-right. Attempting to make a Called Shot adds another +3 to the to-hit number that must be overcome. This means that less of your shots will hit, but those that do hit will concentrate into a smaller area.

In game play terms, you "activate" the called-shot hit-location tables by aiming at specific parts of your target. For example, to use the "aim high" Called Shot table, you'd aim at the target's cockpit, neck, or extreme upper torso.

Called high:
There's a 16.67% or 1 out of 6 chance of hitting the:
Left or right arm, Left, right, or center front torsos, or the cockpit.

(Yes, this means that if anyone tells you that if you that if you aim at his cockpit, you can hit his foot ... they're wrong.)

Called Low:
A 33.34% chance of hitting the right leg
A 33.34% chance of hitting the left leg
A 16.67% or 1 out of 6 chance of hitting the right torso
A 16.67% or 1 out of 6 chance of hitting the left torso

Here's the table for Called Shots aimed high/aimed low.



For Called Shots Left or Right:
You use the normal hit-tables, except you have a +3 modifier, and you use the column one section over from where you would normally aim... for instance, if you call a shot left against a target standing directly in front of you ("in your front arc"), facing you , you use the "left" column on the basic hit table.



This table is used for calling shots Left/Right against a mech with it's front facing directly at you or it's back facing directly at you.

If your target's left or right side is facing you, and you want to aim left/right you use the Advanced hit table, posted above (which gives you a chance to hit their rear torsos).

It should be very obvious by now that the hit-location tables are VERY important. In fact, there is good reason to use the tables we already have as a standard baseline to construct more hit-tables to account for some situations which crop up in the video game format.

Aimed Shots

An Aimed shot is the occasion when a 'Mech without an advanced Targeting Computer can actually target specific locations against a target. Without a TC Aimed shots are only possible versus immobile targets, and only direct fire weapons and non-cluster ammunition types are usable for this.

The to-hit modifier for an immobile target is -4 (-5 if you have a TC) if you try and target any part other than the cockpit; cockpit aimed shots have a +3 to-hit modifier (A TC does not affect the cockpit to-hit). After it is determined how many of your shots connect, all weapons that roll a 6, 7, or 8 on 2d6 hit the location you've chosen. If you don't roll a 6,7, or 8 you don't automatically hit the specific location you aimed for. Instead, you roll on the appropriate normal hit-location table (yes, this can result in hitting the section you targeted anyways).

A 'Mech is considered immobile if it is shut down, it's pilot is unconscious, if it is bracing an arm to try and make a hard shot, if it is hooked to a coolant truck, or is having it's ammo reloaded. Quad 'Mechs that have lost 3 or 4 legs are considered immobile. A bipedal 'Mech that has lost both legs and both arms is considered immobile. "Immobile" equates to a unit not being able to move on it's own at all.

The Advanced Targeting Computer

This bit of hardware is a game-changer. It is a HIGH reward for big tradeoffs piece of hardware. Besides subtracting 1 from virtually all to-hit modifiers (including those for Called Shots), it allows your 'Mech to actually target specific locations on a mobile target!

A TC consists of an advanced computer that is far more powerful than the standard BattleMech T&T suite - it is able to adjust for many more variables far more quickly. A TC is not just an advanced computer suite, it also employs recoil compensators, gyroscopic stabilizers, and other hardware attached to the various direct-fire weapons systems mounted in a 'Mech. These components help to overcome weapons drift, muzzle recoil on kinetic weapons, and any erratic targeting inputs induced by the MechWarrior. The size and weight of a TC is directly proportional to the weight of all 'Mech-scale heavy weapons it is connected to. Inner Sphere TC's equal the total weapons weight divided by four, clan TC's divide by 5, and both take up a number of criticals (internal spaces) equal to the calculated tonnage of the TC (rounding up at half tons). Yes, they can get VERY heavy and large quite quickly... no free lunches!

In gameplay, having a TC allows you to make an Aimed Shot (not to be confused with a Called Shot) against *mobile* targets. The differences between a normal Aimed Shot vs an Immobile target and an Aimed Shot against a mobile target using a TC is that there is a +3 to-hit modifier, and it is not possible to target the cockpit on a mobile target. Otherwise, all of the other rules for an Aimed Shot apply. If my wonky math is correct, that's about 1 out of 4 shots that "make" their to-hit number will hit what you've aimed at, on average, which doesn't sound like much, until you consider that the best odds you can normally get otherwise are 1 out of 6 vs the center torso, or to hit a leg, when calling a shot low (when virtually all there IS to hit is a leg!). In practice, TC aimed shots vs mobile targets are very useful for chiseling a specific part off.

Using a TC to make a shot vs a specific location in game requires turning this function on. With this function off, a 'Mech with a TC behaves just like a 'Mech without one, except you have the advantage of a -1 to-hit modifier for most direct fire weapons types in the vast majority of situations.

---

So, what are the bonuses building the video game combat system this way? For one, it's possible put the stuff into a DB in the form of rules, which means its possible to control and predict what's going to happen, and to predict how new rules in the DB will modify gameplay. It allows the Devs to control how the combat will function in game - misses and hits with weapons can be made to visually (and otherwise) miss in ways that "Make sense." It gives the flexibility to tweak values in small amounts in order to get things "just right." It would also allow the use of the penetrating hits/internal components damage system from the TT combat system, which, with the addition of the advanced "critical hit" and critical damage rules behaves in an intuitive and predictable manner, while discouraging mindless rushing without making the game into an insta-death festival.

On the end user side - us sitting at our PC's, the advantages are that what's seen on screen behaves in a manner that makes sense and allows us to suspend disbelief ; BattleMechs actually perform like BattleMechs from the novels and the lore; Gunnery skill with a mouse and a cool head are rewarded, as is fore-thought and training; knowledge of the 'Mechs becomes useful and important (doubly so if the 'Mech "Quirks" from Strategic Ops are used); Knowledge of the weapons systems becomes important; new players aren't scared off, and veteran players have more things to pursue besides repetitive grinding for MC and the like.

@Pht

Pht, on 28 July 2013 - 10:04 AM, said:

What you've done is the internet version of "fallacy of accent" - emphasizing words in a statement causing the so-modified statement to have a different meaning than the original. For example... (original statement) "drink ye all of this." (falsely accented statement) "drink ye all of this" The first means "drink all of this." The second means "all of you drink this." Exact same statements... mangled by accent. Sort of like the sign:

_{we are not selling} FREE BEER TODAY!

so then there is a direct negation associated with (i'll be forgiving here) most of the things i highlighted then?

i have taken several classes on argumentative logic and your ignorant use of random fallacies you heard on TV do not impress me.

(with respect to your attempt to work around having to explain yourself before) in this i am not asking you to accept my "fallacy" as legitimate truth i am asking you to clearly explain how i committed a fallacy when (as far as i can tell) none of the things i highlighted were ever negated in any way within the original quoted post.

Edited by blinkin, 26 August 2013 - 01:27 PM.

[blinkin]

so i read the new version and other than being more of a pretentious D-bag you haven't really changed anything of substance. i do like the direct sources with respect to battletech lore/canon, but i limited any specific references to such things because my knowledge on that front is limited and i do not own any of the battletech books myself.

my special math tool AKA my magic 8 ball tells me that i never used dice to solve math problems in school (all the way up to calculus and i don't remember any form of dice being required or even helping to solve a problem, they were sometimes used to demonstrate statistics though) and i am pretty sure most mathematicians never use dice to solve problems either.

and now we reach my home turf, programing. first off tracing a ray (even within a 3D environment) is incredibly easy and costs almost nothing to do. all line of sight testing is done with countless traced rays. this detection is why you cannot see the atlas behind the hill. the majority of the network load is likely the endless collision testing that must be done whenever a mech collides with or even comes near another collidable object (even every time the feet touch the ground). now lets look at what your system would do (bearing in mind that all of the ray tracing likely takes up around 1% of the entire network load, maybe 2% if every mech fired every weapon at the same time). so out of this 1% you say that your system would be more efficient? WRONG, to implement the little to-hit feedback on the cursor the system would need to constantly run ray traces to check for intervening modifiers and each ray would potentially be recording multiple collisions because it needs to first check if the forest nearby is in the line of fire (or potentially multiple other sources of modifiers) and then it also needs to check if it has line of sight on the mech. to put it simply this would be a debugging nightmare and apply a much heavier constant stream of server traffic.

now finally you say this rewards player skill, but last time i checked skilled players hit the exact component they wanted to in most cases and didn't have to deal with to-hit rolls or hit location tables. i don't like the idea of my mech actively gimping my ability to hit because it can't compensate for lead as well as i can. i can and have held a steady stream from 4 large lasers on a light mech that was going well over 100kph and performing a little aerial ballet at 500 meters with around 90% of the sustained beam hitting. in that situation your to-hit modifiers would probably tell me to F--- off. no thank you.

this will end pinpoint strikes (no doubt there) because you are stripping the players of their precision. when you limit the players ability to affect the game of course it will remove a portion of the imbalance. no debate there.

and as for your list of what the pilot does, i have already explained how most of those mechanics are in plenty of other solid first person shooters (a few are even well represented in world of tanks), some are already in the game just by it's very nature. the only one that i do not have a direct example of is heat penalties and i have seen plenty of solid suggestions on these forums as to how that could be implemented. in short none of the things require your system to operate, the only difference is (this is the part i love) that none of those systems revolve around dice rolls with to-hit modifiers or hit location tables.

if you want solid examples of pilot skill listed then here is a list of games that include those mechanics (heat modifiers being the only exception):

• the entire S.T.A.L.K.E.R. series (all 3 games) : weapon ranges, terrain/environment factors, target behavior, player movement, weapon performance, ammo selection, firing modes, equipment degradation (oh look all 3 of these games have EVERYTHING besides heat)
  
• ARMA2 : weapon ranges, terrain/ environment factors, target behavior, player movement, weapon performance, ammo selection, firing modes (not as good as stalker but still most of the listed mechanics)
  
• world of tanks : weapon ranges, terrain/environment factors, target behavior, player movement, weapon performance, ammo selection
  
• mario bros. series : terrain/environment factors, target behavior, player movement
  
• duck hunt : target behavior (in case this was too subtle a hint, target behavior is going to be a major factor in any game that involves aiming a weapon/attacking a target. you might as well have just added pulling the trigger to pilot skills as well)
  
• morrowind/oblivion/skyrim : weapon ranges, terrain/environment factors, target behavior, player movement, weapon performance, firing modes (there are several different attack forms with melee weapons), equipment degradation (not included in skyrim)
  
• zelda series (all of the ones i have played at least) : weapon ranges, terrain environment factors, target behavior, player movement, weapon performance, ammo selection (in a few cases, mostly the more modern titles in the series), equipment degradation (in a few very limited cases)

why don't you add pushing buttons and reading the HUD to your list of "skills" while you are at it. you have done just about everything else you could to inflate that list.

Edited by blinkin, 29 August 2013 - 01:26 AM.

[Karl Streiger]

blinkin, on 29 August 2013 - 01:20 AM, said:

• ARMA2 : weapon ranges, terrain/ environment factors, target behavior, player movement, weapon performance, ammo selection, firing modes (not as good as stalker but still most of the listed mechanics)

Ah - my loved game - althoug i never found so much time again like i wasted on its predecessor OFP (now ARMA Cold War Crisis)
But I believe basically the weapon "mod" didn't changed.

As far as i can remember each weapon - even each bullet - if you like had a value of dispersion - resulting in a "cone" - and damage drop off.

Best thing was you could with few more lines create complete different feeling - for example the G 11 - 3 burst fire with 2000rpm and automatic fire at reduced speed - with scripts even submunition was possible - and changing of ammunition was no problem eighter.

[Pht]

Boyinleaves, on 24 August 2013 - 03:08 PM, said:

Here's a simple summary in my own words, please let me know if I don't get it; I would like to contribute to this discussion from a position of understanding.

The BattleTech rules are intended simulate a degree of controllable variability into the accuracy of weapons fire from one 'Mech to another.

----

The controllable variables are things like Heat, Movement, Size, Cover, Range and Targeting and Tracking, and they affect whether or not a weapon, when fired, is actually positioned properly to provide a precise firing solution; i.e. when the trigger is pressed, will the shot actually hit what the pilot intends. A perfect firing solution could also be described as Complete Weapons Convergence upon the Target Reticle. MWO already has this implemented, albeit nearly instantaneously.

----

If the pilot has adequately compensated for all of the controllable variables, the chance that the weapons will hit the enemy 'Mech is 100%. The chance that the weapons will hit the component that the pilot aimed at is also 100%.

----

If the pilot has only compensated for some of the controllable variables, the chance that the weapons will hit the enemy 'Mech is less than 100%. This means that some of the weapons fire will miss the enemy 'Mech completely. It also means that the weapons that do hit the 'Mech will probably not all hit the same component.

If the pilot has compensated for none of the controllable variables, it is quite possible that the chance that the weapons will hit the enemy 'Mech is close to, if not 0%. None of the weapons will hit, and if they do, they're not going to hit where the pilot wanted them to.

"The BattleTech rules..." Actually, the basic rules are the "baseline" for every 'Mech in the universe; obviously it would be impractical to attempt to have every model/build of 'Mech be variable. That said, the strategic ops book has a section on "quirks" which does allow the 'Mechs to be much more like their descriptions in the novels and writing.

----

"Controllable Variables" I don't know exactly what you mean or are referring to by "size" The others you list seem to be spot-on.

"affect a weapon" - yes, each weapon has it's own aiming mechanics that allows it to be aimed - but it's the overall 'Mech targeting and tracking computer that is actually calculating how to hit what the pilot is aiming at with the reticule; and the T&T computer than controls the weapons to physically align them. I'm just pointing out that there's a whole computing/mechanical system, all tied together in the equation. It's easier to grasp when approached as a system, built of individual components. If you haven't seen it, this post: http://mwomercs.com/...y-an-education/ pretty comprehensively explains these systems. In fact, at this point I sort of think of this post and the one in the link just given as explanatory of each other.

"Perfect firing solution" - I suspect from some other parts of this post that it would be helpful to look at it as a two-part system, made up of, first - "does the overall target get hit," and than, after this, for all things that hit the overall target, "what specific part/parts of the target get hit." These would be the "to hit" and the "hit location" mechanics mentioned in the OP. I am mentioning these things because the definition of a "perfect firing solution" is a bit different in the BT setting than "everything hits the exact pixel under the reticule every time I do x-y-z."

Maybe useful language on the topic:

• "100% weapons lock" = all weapons supersede the cumulative to-hit and hit the overall target.
  
• "Minimum possible damage spread" = weapons fire for multiple weapons is concentrated as tightly as the 'Mech can possibly get it under any given situation.
  
• "The universe hates you" - after you've made the right choices in order to have all your weapons hit the overall target, AND when Murphy's law screws the other guy causing all of your weapons fire to hit the same armor panel. Exceedingly rare, but, in theory, it CAN happen - it will NOT happen, however, for lazy or unskilled players.

----

"chance that the weapons will hit the enemy 'Mech is 100%" - absolutely. Player skill with the reticule and player choices can achieve 100% weapons lock.

"chance that the weapons will hit the component ... 100%" - No.

Yes, you can *significantly* narrow the damage spread by using your skill and choices, but the hit-location mechanic/tables actually shows the ultimate ceiling of BattleMech performance, with the sole exception of the "the universe hates you" effect. These hit-location tables are how the relatively low armor values vs the relatively "high" weapons damage values are made to work together. Otherwise, you get exactly what we had in closed beta - almost insta-death "big head" gameplay (ah, fond memories of goldeneye on the nintendo ).

----

"Pilot ... compensate ... variables" - looks right. Basically, the maths of the controllable variables will always reward good player skill and choices; they will always punish bad choices - and lack of skill with the reticule ... you don't even stand a chance if you don't have any of that. The outliers in the maths all spring up from situations that make sense.

Quote

Please bear in mind that while Pht's OP does propose a system that utilises probability mechanics, he is in no way proposing to take away anyone's skill. In fact, it states that if a pilot is skilled and/or knowledgeable enough to compensate for all of the factors that can affect his shot, then the shot should go precisely where he intends.

----

Now, in BT, dice rolling is used to simulate the effects of the controllable variables upon the 'Mech's ability to hit with its weapons. The probabilities provided by the possible results most closely resemble the falloff half of a Bell curve, and in BT, when many of the variables are controlled for, 'Mechs are therefore highly accurate weapons platforms. If you don't understand what a Bell curve is, do yourself a favour and look it up; knowing this is probably essential to understanding his points and OP.

----

In a game that has been translated over into using devices capable of calculating several trillion computations every second, we no longer have to be limited to discrete, dice based probabilities to determine outcomes. In fact, we can use Bell or distribution curves to determine a more refined view of firing solution outcomes that a larger proportion of people are happy with. For example, if a pilot manages to compensate for a majority, or even just some of the variables at play, they may very well hit with their weapons a great deal of the time. The effect would be very similar to the outcome provided by a cone of fire mechanic, or the implmentation of time-based weapons convergence.

People do indeed seem to entertain the irrational idea that any hit-percentage factor MUST, by necessary consequence of being a hit-percentage, remove human skill and choices as the most important factor.

----

The Pilot's gunnery skill roll (this is a number added to the total to-hit modifier) is a roll that's specifically there to represent pilot skill - and this factor SHOULD NOT be in an MW video game - for the simple fact that we can do virtually everything with our computer and peripherals that a MW can do in their cockpit to control gunnery.

----

"bell curve" - it's not too hard if you don't know it. It just means that the weapons fire doesn't splatter around nonsensically. It clusters under the reticule, which is at the "top" of the curve. In fact, on the called shot hit-location tables, it's even better chances than a bell curve.

Basically, the majority of the math in the combat system simulates ... the BattleMech's part of the total aiming equation - something we haven't ever had.

----

"cone of fire" - I stay away from that language, simply because on this forum a lot of people's minds lock up tight and turn off when they read it - and also because this is actually NOT a cone of fire. Virtually every cone of fire setup I have seen has NEVER come near to the theoretical possibilities for the CoF, and because of this, they've given rise to bad gameplay that can quite often be unpredictable and nonsensical.

CoF is a pretty theory - but it is, IMO, humanly impossible to implement robustly for the MW genre. The functional reality of the CoF is pretty ugly.

"Hit a great deal of the time" - it's easy to hit the overall target the majority if the time - in fact, staggeringly easy. Just wait for a gold reticule (which you can get almost every time). What's HARD ... is when you take into account that ... the other guy is doing the exact same thing; so it becomes a game of trying to figure out how to get the gold reticule for yourself and force the other guy to have a red reticule.

Quote

MWO already has the ability to calculate Weapons Convergence, but it does so instantaneously, and therefore we have precisely accurate weapons fire. If Weapons Convergence were not instant, the effect would essentially be that weapons would spread across components and, potentially, miss. Rather than use a real-time tracking means of calculating convergence, Pht's method would simulate its effects into controllable probabilities.

----

Again, let me be absolutely clear: This system would not remove any of the aiming skill currently required in MWO, and would in fact require more.

Not only would better aiming be required to Track targets, pilots would also have to be far more aware of many other factors and variables when taking shots. Depending upon the implementation of each variable, situational awareness would become paramount, heat managment (if a graded system for this is ever implemented) would matter, positioning for cover would be vital, torso twisting would be far more effective, and so forth. There would be more variables that pilots would need to consider, often instinctively and at a moment's notice, and thus a greater degree of challenge would potentially be provided.

In fact, given enough time for a 'Mech's T&T to calculate a firing solution and appropriate weapon convergence, potentially any shot could hit with 100% accuracy. Even a nearly overheating 'Mech with damaged actuators could be able to hit with 100% accuracy, if the mechanics were implemented into MWO that way.

Just doing a slower convergence with the current system would be better, but it would still ultimately allow for pixel-perfect weapons hitting; or, in other words, have the 'Mechs be FAR more capable than they have ever been in the lore (and with the side effect of double armor and internals, weapons ROF tweaks, ghost heat, gauss desynching)

----

I actually don't think it would require more skill in physically manipulating the reticule. It would require the same amount. It would, however, require ... and reward ... human choices that aren't required now.

The best part is that these choices would be intuitive to the new players and easily learned. "Run fast, miss more. Run hot, miss more. Shoot at targets at max weapons range, miss more. To hit more, ... do the opposites." It's not rocket science.

Quote

I can see a number of benefits that Pht's system would provide that would improve the thought that goes into piloting a 'Mech. There are also downsides, however. I will summarise everything I can think of here, and hopefully add to it if discussion continues.

Positives:
- Tactical positioning would be more useful
- Shots would typically be taken much more slowly, as players compensate for variables.
- Sniping would become organically more difficult without the need to directly nerf/buff weapon statistics
- Heat managment could be a consideration
- Target choice would be more important
- 'Mechs would more frequently lose components other than their CT or both legs
- Battles would last longer and be more attritive
- 'Mech size and therefore class could matter more, as would speed and maneuverability
- Weapons could be 'balanced' more easily
- It describes BT lore more closely
- The factors that affect controlled variability could be tweaked individually when needed. I.e., actual BT probabilities do not have to be used, but a Bell distribution is a good start. A computer game can use probabilites for the variable factors that change minimally, rather than being discrete, and range, heat, movement, size modifiers can all happen on a linear scale in a computer game.


Negatives:
- The system is probability based, and even though it would be possible to obtain a 100% chance to hit, any system that uses direct probability in any fashion is typically eschewed by 'competitive' gamers
- It's probably perceived to be more work, or a potential turnoff to players by PGI/IGP, and will probably never be considered.
- Chance/Randomness/Controlled variability is an upleasant concept to many people, and no matter how it is put to them, no amount of evidence or discussion will ever change the way they feel.

Tactical positioning would be a LOT more useful; as you could exploit partial cover; woods cover would mean something more than "the tree might absorb the shot," heavy ElectroMagnetic Interference around certain map features would fuzz out sensors, ... and so on. A whole slew of factors open up for us AND the DEV team.

I don't think shots would be much slower, actually. I'd say the average 3015 Innersphere "low tech" 'Mech is capable of getting a weapons lock on an overall target at medium battlefield rated ranges in anywhere from 2-5 seconds - and said 'Mech would be able to do snap-shots, vs targets that are flitting between cover; I take this to mean the ability to get partial weapons lock in a second or less.

The flip side is that stupidity will be punishable, as allowing your 'Mech to chew on a weapons lock for 10-30 seconds can allow you to punish non-moving and slow moving targets at LOS and Extreme range - and if bracing were ever implemented, this can be done with some pretty vanilla BT tech.

I wouldn't say sniping would be difficult. It would, however, be more specialized, as a skill-set and as a set of choices in the mechlab; and it would have the appropriate Achilles’s heel for truly specialized snipers. Let someone get close to you, and ... well... you just shouldn't let that happen.

Heat management - if they used the OP, they could also pick up the internal damage/penetrating hits system, with the advanced rules added in that make that system a LOT more intuitive - this would mean they could actually DO the heat penalties, quite easily.

Battle length - actually, I wouldn't say "longer" - I would say that battle lengths would be more closely related to player choices and skills than they are now. For instance, the 12 man clump in 12v12s would become suicide - any AOE weapon would do horrible things to the "clump." With the penetrating/internal damage system the DEVS could also pick up the stuff about having ammo explosions of appropriate magnitude doing damage to surrounding 'Mechs, so ... shoot for the missile or ballistic boats in the "clump" and punish everyone for their predictability.

"actual BT probabilities" - once you go to controllable variables, there's very little reason to mess with them, especially considering their gameplay effects have been known since 1984. It gives you the blessings of working with *known* outcomes, instead of the "what unintended consequences will this fix for the last set of unintended consequences cause?" The REALLY cool part is that you can easily add any needed maths that crop up in the conversion to the VG format, like new hit-tables for 'Mechs without limbs, and new "from behind" hit tables with cockpits that shouldn't be hittable from behind until you core-out the 'Mech - and hit-tables that represent a target that's torso-twisted. Because you're in a format that can do these VERY simple maths in virtual real-time, these things can easily be added.

"Probability based ... competitive players" - I rather disagree. There are quite a few extremely competitive players playing every night in video game systems that are based around controllable variables. If anything, this would give the really devoted types MORE reasons to hang around - more reward for choices than there currently is now.

"more work ... turnoff"- I PM'ed David Bradley a week or two ago with an invite and a link to this thread, asking if he could discuss basically any part of the OP. Last I checked, he hasn't even read the PM. He would be the natural point of contact on this; his job description is that he's the guy that is involved with converting the TT stuff to the VG format. He's referred to as the rules lawyer in the group as well; and he apparently GM's their BT TT games. I just find it HARD to believe that putting simple addition (the to-hit) and simple hit probabilities (hit location) into the game would be too much work; especially considering that the server is probably already collecting almost all of the needed variables for determining the total to-hit number and the appropriate hit-location tables in real time. Geeze, I even found a thing on a BT web site to run all of these maths ... in a ti-86 calculator. I suspect this might even let them cut back on the number of raycasts/traces they have to do, and cut down on network traffic for weapons fire.

Yes, some people just don't like any controllable hit percentages at all. There's really nothing wrong with that - I just wish they'd quit acting like it's wrong to have said hit-percentages in an MW video game. I bet a lot of them would change their mind if they ever did get to play a MW video game that actually simulated the 'Mech part of the weapons aiming. In fact, Were things like the OP never discussed, and were rather just implemented, these people would probably be fooled into thinking there was a physics engine in play - and this is not because I think they're ignorant or easily fooled.

Quote

I will freely admit I have no knowledge about the makeup of PGI's playerbase, so I cannot make a judgement call as to whether implementing a system such as this is a good idea or not, but I can say that I personally love the concept, as I enjoy most games that allow for players to experience controlled variability. Indeed, I would like much, much more of it, even at the expense of 'balance'. The absence of it is precisely why I don't particularly enjoy games like LoL or Dota2, the results are typically a foregone conclusion. I can only hope that one day...one day the BT IP will fall into the hands of someone who does want to actually make a MW that's true to lore and has the backing to be able do so free of financial considerations, and that there's the playerbase to support it. Well, if I win the lottery tonight...

Amen, for the most part.

I do believe it would be a good thing, because most of the complaints I've seen would directly be addressed by this; and with intuitive and easily grasped gameplay results. There's a lot of talk about the "new player experience" - this would be far better than what we currently have and are looking to spiral into after release. Even with a good indicator for the "ghost heat," for example, it's still an added layer that has to be tracked - which would be fine, if it were an *intuitive* concept... but it's not.

Quote

The divide between the people that want a system such as this, and those that want a system like we currenly have, I liken to the difference between a game like Chess, and one like Carcassonne.

Chess is a finite state system. There are no variables that are outside the control of the players. Each move has a finite number of options, and further moves can be extrapolated to the point at which matches between experienced players and lesser experienced ones can be a foregone conclusion.

Carcassonne is a slightly more open system. Each move a player makes has several sets of limitations, and the options are still finite, but further move options can either grow or diminish as players place tiles. Players have to consider how they approach the controllable variables in order to impact the game in their favour. While the core of the game allows involes a random selection of move options, the strategies involved that affect how these moves are made are based on player skill and knowledge, and affect how the game plays out. While it is a more 'chance' based system, in terms of what moves will ever be available to you, more experienced players are statistically more capable of winning no matter what the RNG throws at them.

Some people like closed systems, some like open ones. There are merits for both, though I prefer open ones, because I find that having to control for variability is fun for me. Being able to know (just about) everything in advance is boring.

Probably a better example is ... checkers for a closed system, and othello for an open-ended system. Othello (or, say, pente, or chinese checkers) represent something that's EXTREMELY desired by game developers - simply grasped gameplay concepts/rules that give rise to a lot of "organic" variability in playing.

A system of game rules need not be complex or of great length to give rise to this variability. The BT TT game does it with literally three mechanics - line of site, to hit (simple addition), and hit-location (simple hit-percentages) - and the VG format EASILY overcomes the most complex of the three - calculating line of site.

Quote

TL;DR - Some things are a fun for some people, some things are fun for others. OP has merit; many people who say they've read the OP either haven't, or haven't understood it, but this doesn't mean that their preferences for a game without "RNG" are invalid. Some BT fans would simply like a MW game that reflects the lore of the universe we love.

Recommendations --- PGI, Please implement separate queues for people that want some of these features. I'll pay for it, whatever it takes...

Sure, there are those who actually understand controllable hit percentages and don't like them; simply as a concept. I have no bones with these people for this dislike.

There are also those who have a false idea about controllable hit percentages, and who condemn this false idea, and think it's what I (and others) want. These people seem to come in different flavors - from the innocently ignorant to the irrational close-minded propagandists who refuse to listen to logic.

Those whom I have serious problems with are the ones who either genuinely or falsely have this dislike, who also think it improper to use these hit-percentages to simulate the 'Mechs from the BT setting in an MW video game. Much of this contention is caused by the simple fact that those of us who want the BT setting 'Mechs simulated have no game options - and some of us have been waiting for twenty-nine years!

This is made all the more nuts when you take into consideration that there are MULTIPLE first-person real-time mech combat games that fulfill the desires of the crowd that doesn't like hit-percentages, either out or in development right now. Essentially, this boils down to, from some people in these parts, "it is right that we should be able have what we want - but it is wrong that you should be able have what you want - sucks to be you."

"separate queues" - that's one of the neat things about the OP system. It's intuitive and easily grasped in actual gameplay. You *wouldn't need* two queues (and thus need more development time to virtually make two games).

[Pht]

blinkin said:

...the player was little more than a target designator...

By your definition, our spec forces sniper teams, tank crews, and artillery men are nothing more than "target designators."

...with the only option to effect aim being the "aim high" rule.

"only" - Let's see, virtually every piloting decision, virtually every control input to the reticule via the mouse/joystick, virtually every choice ... affects the aim... and you only see "aim high." You wonder why I say that you don't understand.

You have missed that virtually everything that you do has an effect on your to-hit modifier and which hit table is used; and it is these things that are what you manipulate, by your direct control of the reticule and your choices, to "affect aim."

from everything i read (before) there was absolutely no option to guarantee a hit on a specific component (again the only option i saw to modify direct aim in any way was associated with the aim high rule and EVERYTHING was based on the hit location tables) and when other people have suggested this was similar to a cone of fire in any way he immediately jumped all over them (i do not believe i ever mentioned anything related to a cone of fire with respect to Pht's ideas)

Again "only" the "aim high."

my issue is with Pht trying to hide the true nature of his system within a bunch of fine print and getting angry at me when i shine some light on it.

I have not hidden anything. You have NO valid reasons for continuing to slander me with this outright lie.

if you would like some reference material (see next quote) is the version i read before (the only part missing is the opening paragraph which was a sales pitch that possessed nothing of substance. other than that the only alterations that have been made are with respect to font and in cases of font size it was only ever increased. all of this was done to point out my specific concerns with the system, and again this is the old version, the time stamp should explain the rest)

He doesn't need to read your version of the

no FREE BEER TODAY!

sign. The original article and the one you're referencing are LINKED at the very top of the post and can be opened and read in any web browser.


@Pht

i have taken several classes on argumentative logic and your ignorant use of random fallacies you heard on TV do not impress me.

You have no way of knowing if I even have a TV or access to one. This is a ******-pull on your part. For all you know, I could have read Aristotle's refutation of the fallacy of accent in "On Sophistical Refutations"

none of the things i highlighted were ever negated in any way within the original quoted post.

You clearly posted that your editing was meant to empasize (and thus de-emphasize the things not emphasized) - to change emphasis is to change meaning. If it didn't change meaning, it wouldn't be an emphasis - it would be a nothing. You clearly stated that you weren't doing "nothing."

PS. Which is it? I did everything to inflate the list, or there's only "aim high?"

Edited by Pht, 30 August 2013 - 11:02 AM.