143 replies to this topic

[Pht]

blinkin said:

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.

The sources in the post are comrehensive as far as the foundation of battlmech combat on the topic. You don't need the books.

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.

So you admit that dice function as a statisical math tool.

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.

Real-time ray tracing is extremely expensive in computing power (not network load):

http://www.codinghor...raytracing.html

http://www.cs.utah.e...of_ray_tracing/

http://www.extremete...gaming-graphics

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...

There is no need for multiple traces to implement the quality of lock reticule. You only need one to touch a target; the target itself would already be sending all the info to the server for the server to know what modifiers exist between it and you... and the ability to determine if your ports are unobstructed; which the game is already doing; instead of, as I suspect it is doing now, a raytrace for each port when you fire your weapons, which would not be necessary.

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

Again with the having your cake and eating it to - you are trying to use something other than the OP as if it were a part of the OP. Your "most cases" are from something else.

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.

So, in other words, you don't want the 'mechs to perform like they do in the novels, in the fluff text, or the TT game? ... and you wonder why I state that some people simply don't like the idea of a game which has battlemechs from the BT setting, instead of larger and slower quake 3 avatars. You have just directly stated that you don't like how the battlemechs perform in combat.

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.

"probably tell" - you could do the math, you know. it's all there

Large lasers in the OP and TT system are rated at 15 hexes - 450 meters effective combat long range; so the range modifier is +6 for extreme range (the bracket just past long) - the weapon was never meant to operate at this range - +4 for the target going 100 kph, +1 for jumping; that's +11 total; 8.33% hitting.

This is an extreme situation in the BT setting. If you don't like this; that's fine. But I'm going to say that if you really don't like not being able to use weapons past their rated long range versus highly mobile targets, you don't care for how the setting works.

That said; move up to 300 meters, and your hit rate goes down to +7 or 58.33% hitting - wait till he's on the ground and it's +6 or 72.22% hitting at 300 meters; and you'll be shooting with more damage vs less armor and a chance to do internal damage.

this will end pinpoint strikes (no doubt there) because you are stripping the players of their precision.

Red herring. Look, if you don't like a game in which the battlemechs behave like they do in the novels and lore and the TT game - as you have now repeatedly indicated - that's fine. Don't act like it's wrong for someone to like something simply you don't like it, especially in this case, when the OP is a proper representation of how the 'mechs in the lore work. That said; I think you're over-reacting and unwilling to give it a chance for merely personal reasons.

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...

How "other solid FPS games" do something is of purely secondary importance.

...(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,...

I have not posted that the OP is "the only way" that the battlemech can be made to take part in the aiming/combat eqation. In fact, I didn't address that at all.

However, right now, I'll say something new: it would be the best way to have the 'mechs perform in combat like they do in the setting.

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.

Whooptie-do.

you have done just about everything else you could to inflate that list.

So, you know "everything I could do" to "inflate" that list? Even though you've never even met me?

[Suberoa Zinnerman]

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

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.

Having put a fair amount of time into EVE - over 20m skillpoints before I achieved bittervet status () - I certainly wouldn't classify EVE as a particularly fun game in terms of its actual combat mechanics, which basically boil down to 'press F1 if you're in range and your angular velocity isn't too high'.

[Boyinleaves]

Apology for multiple post in advance; are we limited in the number of quote tags that we can use per post? I have double checked several times and have no errors, so I'm guessing this?

Pht, on 30 August 2013 - 09:43 AM, said:

"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.

I would love some of these.

Pht, on 30 August 2013 - 09:43 AM, said:

"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.

Just the physical size/dimensions of the target.

Pht, on 30 August 2013 - 09:43 AM, said:

"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.

Sorry, the way I put it didn't really make it clear that I understood the T&T to be affected by all the other variables. I was probably thinking along the lines of improving one's odds with a Targeting Computer when I wrote that.

Pht, on 30 August 2013 - 09:43 AM, said:

"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."

True.

Pht, on 30 August 2013 - 09:43 AM, said:

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.

The universe frequently hates me... Great definitions.

Pht, on 30 August 2013 - 09:43 AM, said:

"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 ).

Well, I think I have probably misinterpreted some things here. I just went back and read the rules on Aimed shots, which was what I was thinking of, and they are different to how I used to run them, so perhaps I was brought up on some House rules or something. Even an Aimed shot only has an aggregate 53.71% chance of hitting the Centre Torso, as opposed to some other component, if that's where you aim it. That's actually a lot lower than I thought it would be.

Also, we alpha strike in instantaneous time in MWO far more than we ever would in TT, so this is an issue. In the situation given above, firing one weapon at at time should hit precisely where the pilot wants it to. Firing several at the same time may introduce recoil effects, which are not really even a consideration in the TT game rules as far as I'm aware, given that it is subsumed into many other factors that affect 'to hit' rolls. Recoil could (and I think should) be a factor as far as alpha striking is concerned, particularly if you're going to mount something ridiculously out of proportion like an Super Crusher Heavy AC20 on a Raven.

Pht, on 30 August 2013 - 09:43 AM, said:

"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.

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.

Yes, many people cannot into percentages, just look at how well Casinos do.

Pht, on 30 August 2013 - 09:43 AM, said:

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.

Absolutely.

Pht, on 30 August 2013 - 09:43 AM, said:

"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.

Great explanation; KISS. Just will make a quick aside - It's not a difficult concept at all, but if someone hasn't put any effort into trying to understand it, even a quick, simple explanation may not do it. Someone who hasn't ever studied probability mathematics is going to fail to grasp the implications of clustering and distribution, and possibly therefore come to the conclusion that potentially missing 2% of the time is a lot, and base their opinions upon this. I'm comfortable with Bell based distribution mechanics, because I've used them and seen them in action in many games. Other people don't have the familiarity, or the mathematical background to understand them on a conceptual level.

Pht, on 30 August 2013 - 09:43 AM, said:

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.

Yah, and I would really like to, too.

Pht, on 30 August 2013 - 09:43 AM, said:

"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.

I agree, and apologies for the nomenclature faux pas. Weapons convergence from a multi-vector platform is completely different to a simultated recoil-based distribution of firing vectors. Its only similarity to what you're suggesting is that it is also a system that spreads out hit locations, which is all I was trying to say.

Note to self - be careful with words that have strong negative emotions attached to them. Stop forgetting that people actually want to rationalise and attempt to understand things before judging them.

Pht, on 30 August 2013 - 09:43 AM, said:

"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.

Which actually would make tactical positioning far more fun and useful, I reckon.

Pht, on 30 August 2013 - 09:43 AM, said:

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)

Pixel perfect weapons convergence is not necessarily a bad thing, if it is implemented in conjunction with sensible and appropriate game mechanics that limit it in predictable fashion. Remember, we have all of these other issues because the systems have not been implemented in isolation, and every decision made with regards to game balance has had a series of unintended consequences, which have been fixed with haphazard, sometimes irrational, and frequently opaque means.

Pixel-perfect weapon convergence should be extremely difficult to achieve, if possible at all, and would be possible only under exceptional circumstances, and then only with specifically accurate weapons (lasers), and only when fired in isolation, as any recoil from ballistics and missiles should put vectors out in real time.

Of course, it doesn't accurately reflect the lore, so there is that concern. As far as a gameplay mechanic goes though, there is plenty that they could do with it to make it work.

I am not sure that I would personally advocate for numbers for component hits that are as seeming low as TTs for a real time game, but if something like your system is implemented, they are most assuredly the place to start. Then again, if it's possible to alpha strike with Aimed Shot like accuracy and component hits in real time, you could potentially put half a dozen weapons on a 'Mech at once, each with a 50%+ chance of hitting the targeted component, so you're likely to get at least 3 hits in the place you want. It also improves the efficacy of cluster munitions or spread weapons, too.

Pht, on 30 August 2013 - 09:43 AM, said:

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.

I may be imagining something quite different to you here in terms of tracking with the reticle, but your points about having say 1 second to achieve a gold reticule and a targeting solution make me think that I certainly was. However, even a second of tracking a specific location on a 'Mech can be extremely difficult to achieve. I guess that's a good thing though, and would play well into making Lights viable even at TT armour values.

Depends on how it is implemented I guess. Lore doesn't really go into specific time frames for achieving these results does it?

Pht, on 30 August 2013 - 09:43 AM, said:

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.

Yes please.

Pht, on 30 August 2013 - 09:43 AM, said:

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.

As I said above, I'm probably imagining something completely different to you here. Depends on the implementation of the tracking mechanic.

Pht, on 30 August 2013 - 09:43 AM, said:

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.

This is exactly what should happen.

Pht, on 30 August 2013 - 09:43 AM, said:

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.

Yes please, though again, what's in my head...

Pht, on 30 August 2013 - 09:43 AM, said:

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.

Yes please.

Pht, on 30 August 2013 - 09:43 AM, said:

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.

I was thinking along the lines of hopefully making 'Mechs take far more component damage than they currently do, and end up liming around without arms for several minutes, before taking a dirt nap. Ideally, I would like to see 'Mechs be more survivable, and the damage spread be increased. Hopefully this could lead to some situations where matches take longer, and components suffer from attrition.

Pht, on 30 August 2013 - 09:43 AM, said:

"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.

Totally agree; I was suggesting that given that we have computing power now, hit (and though I was unclear about it, possibly component hit) probabilities can be distributed on a linear scale, rather than according to discrete values. For example, movement does not have to deduct -1 or -2 from a dice roll anymore (which could mean anything from a 2% to an 8% difference to hit, depending on the other factors), but can be altered according to a linear scale based on throttle percentage. A linear scale could also be implemented for hit locations, based on the amount of torso twist that an opponent is displaying, for example.

Pht, on 30 August 2013 - 09:43 AM, said:

"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.

I hope you are correct. I have not had the same experience, unfortunately.

Pht, on 30 August 2013 - 09:43 AM, said:

"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.

I wish a lot of people would actually look at facts as facts, and opinions as opinions, and try and comprehend the difference between intrinsic/extrinsic value, and truth/relativity. I will probably continue to wish for this for the rest of my life. Hope you have some luck with David.

Pht, on 30 August 2013 - 09:43 AM, said:

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.

Yup.

Pht, on 30 August 2013 - 09:43 AM, said:

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.

Good example of simplicity in a game, but no, Othello is still a closed system, and has no controllable variables apart from your opponents choices. There is no unpredictability in Othello whatsover, and moves can be extrapolated to completion from any position. This is the point I was trying to make. Carcassone, and for that matter, any game in which you roll dice, even Monopoly, are open systems, because the results are unpredictable.

Pht, on 30 August 2013 - 09:43 AM, said:

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.

Too right.

Pht, on 30 August 2013 - 09:43 AM, said:

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).

C'est la vie, brother, unfortunately. I would vote with my wallet, and be happy to spend quite a bit to see this, or some other convergence solution implemented in MWO. Hopefully one day they'll decide to run a PP for BT fans who want to see some sim-like features implemented in MWO, even if they're only available in private matches.


Thanks for the clarifications, I appreciate a lot better now what you were getting at, but it took a while to absorb. Also like having to put my thoughts down in words in a rational manner, good practice.

[Boyinleaves]

Sorry if that is really difficult to read, I tried to bold my text after posting too, and it wouldn't let me save it because of the quote tags. Live and learn, I guess. Will have a go at fixing it when I have some time.

[Pht]

Suberoa Zinnerman, on 30 August 2013 - 12:52 PM, said:

Having put a fair amount of time into EVE - over 20m skillpoints before I achieved bittervet status ( ) - I certainly wouldn't classify EVE as a particularly fun game in terms of its actual combat mechanics, which basically boil down to 'press F1 if you're in range and your angular velocity isn't too high'.

This has exactly what bearing on this discussion?

In eve the player's skills with the mouse controlling an aiming reticule and ship piloting take NO part in the game. You'd have to do a robin-hood men in tights carrot circumcision on the OP to reduce it to the EVE aiming system.

[Pht]

Boyinleaves, on 30 August 2013 - 03:37 PM, said:

Sorry if that is really difficult to read, I tried to bold my text after posting too, and it wouldn't let me save it because of the quote tags. Live and learn, I guess. Will have a go at fixing it when I have some time.

These forums limit you to TEN block-quotes per post, and you have to wait TEN minutes to drop another post and not have it go into your previous post and thus go over the block-quote limit. I've asked to have the limit upped multiple times.


This is why I use large quotes and seperate them using

----

and than indicate in my reply by using the same thing.

It's a pointless restriction that doesn't stop detailed long posts.

I don't think I'll have too hard of a time with your reply.

[Pht]

Boyinleaves, on 30 August 2013 - 03:33 PM, said:

I would love some of these.

----

Just the physical size/dimensions of the target.

----

Sorry, the way I put it didn't really make it clear that I understood the T&T to be affected by all the other variables. I was probably thinking along the lines of improving one's odds with a Targeting Computer when I wrote that.

----

Well, I think I have probably misinterpreted some things here. I just went back and read the rules on Aimed shots, which was what I was thinking of, and they are different to how I used to run them, so perhaps I was brought up on some House rules or something. Even an Aimed shot only has an aggregate 53.71% chance of hitting the Centre Torso, as opposed to some other component, if that's where you aim it. That's actually a lot lower than I thought it would be.

Also, we alpha strike in instantaneous time in MWO far more than we ever would in TT, so this is an issue. In the situation given above, firing one weapon at at time should hit precisely where the pilot wants it to. Firing several at the same time may introduce recoil effects, which are not really even a consideration in the TT game rules as far as I'm aware, given that it is subsumed into many other factors that affect 'to hit' rolls. Recoil could (and I think should) be a factor as far as alpha striking is concerned, particularly if you're going to mount something ridiculously out of proportion like an Super Crusher Heavy AC20 on a Raven.

I've heard some comments in the NGNG podcasts about adding quirks. Don't know exactly how they're going to do it.

----

Ok. I guess this means you meant at what range/angle you engage the target at

----

Np. I'm just trying to make it as clear and comprehensive for the non-BT obsessed as possible.

----

The information gets a bit dense in that section. I had to do quite a few revisions of the post before I ever put it online.

My math (I rather suck at math) says about 44.45% for the aimed shots stuff - I just added the percentages for rolling a 6, 7, or 8. Things that miss that roll get re-rolled on the normal hit table, where, for instance, the CT is 19.45%.

Basically, there's the normal "aiming for center of mass" tables, the "called shot" tables and the "aimed shots" with and without an advanced targeting computer - from most spread to least spred is the order I've just listed them in.

They were seriously discussing adding in a time-lag on the weapons all converging. They haven't done it and I think they have decided not to.

Actually, in the BT setting, the average pilot can't get a single weapon to hit the exact part. In the current version of the BT rpg (a time of war) there is a skill that allows exactly this - but as a prerequisite, you have to be the equivalent of a 0 gunnery pilot (or darned close). I take this to mean you have to know your 'mech's capabilities very, VERY well in order to do this.

Recoil is actually not as much of a factor as people think it is. In fact, the first spoiler fold thread linked specifically discusses recoil and a 'mech's ability to handle such. Yeah, it causes shaking, but the 'mech can compensate for it VERY well the computers "know when and what is being fired" and have multiple systems to compensate for this recoil. 'Mechs will actually "lean into" a shot without the pilot having to tell it to do so.

Witness that only ONE weapons system causes an appreciable recoil affect on a 'mech - the heavy gauss... and only if you're moving when you fire it.

Quote

Great explanation; KISS. Just will make a quick aside - It's not a difficult concept at all, but if someone hasn't put any effort into trying to understand it, even a quick, simple explanation may not do it. Someone who hasn't ever studied probability mathematics is going to fail to grasp the implications of clustering and distribution, and possibly therefore come to the conclusion that potentially missing 2% of the time is a lot, and base their opinions upon this. I'm comfortable with Bell based distribution mechanics, because I've used them and seen them in action in many games. Other people don't have the familiarity, or the mathematical background to understand them on a conceptual level.

----


Yah, and I would really like to, too.

----

I agree, and apologies for the nomenclature faux pas. Weapons convergence from a multi-vector platform is completely different to a simultated recoil-based distribution of firing vectors. Its only similarity to what you're suggesting is that it is also a system that spreads out hit locations, which is all I was trying to say.

Note to self - be careful with words that have strong negative emotions attached to them. Stop forgetting that people actually want to rationalise and attempt to understand things before judging them.

----


Which actually would make tactical positioning far more fun and useful, I reckon.

... all that's needed is a picture of a targeted 'mech with colored zones and a legend key for what colors equals what zone.

----

Welcome to the club. At least I've "only" been waiting since 1999 or so.

----

I don't think you did anything wrong. You probably just haven't seen the absolute flaming over the mere mention of the word "CoF" that I have.

----

Oh, good lord, yes it would. You'd realize that you're really engaging someone else, not just their 'mech build and weapons loadout.

Quote

Pixel perfect weapons convergence is not necessarily a bad thing, if it is implemented in conjunction with sensible and appropriate game mechanics that limit it in predictable fashion. Remember, we have all of these other issues because the systems have not been implemented in isolation, and every decision made with regards to game balance has had a series of unintended consequences, which have been fixed with haphazard, sometimes irrational, and frequently opaque means.

Pixel-perfect weapon convergence should be extremely difficult to achieve, if possible at all, and would be possible only under exceptional circumstances, and then only with specifically accurate weapons (lasers), and only when fired in isolation, as any recoil from ballistics and missiles should put vectors out in real time.

Of course, it doesn't accurately reflect the lore, so there is that concern. As far as a gameplay mechanic goes though, there is plenty that they could do with it to make it work.

I am not sure that I would personally advocate for numbers for component hits that are as seeming low as TTs for a real time game, but if something like your system is implemented, they are most assuredly the place to start. Then again, if it's possible to alpha strike with Aimed Shot like accuracy and component hits in real time, you could potentially put half a dozen weapons on a 'Mech at once, each with a 50%+ chance of hitting the targeted component, so you're likely to get at least 3 hits in the place you want. It also improves the efficacy of cluster munitions or spread weapons, too.

----


I may be imagining something quite different to you here in terms of tracking with the reticle, but your points about having say 1 second to achieve a gold reticule and a targeting solution make me think that I certainly was. However, even a second of tracking a specific location on a 'Mech can be extremely difficult to achieve. I guess that's a good thing though, and would play well into making Lights viable even at TT armour values.

Depends on how it is implemented I guess. Lore doesn't really go into specific time frames for achieving these results does it?

Pixel perfect is a genuine problem when you're trying to use numbers designed to work in a system that limits the chances of EVERY weapon hitting this perfectly under the reticule to the most extreme "murphy's law, the universe HATES YOU" occurrences.

Basically, in theory, it can and does happen in the lore. It's so rare that most mechwarriors in the lore will only see it a handful of times in their entire lives... and OMG, does it suck to be the guy that had it happen to them.

"I am not sure ... component hits" ... I'm curious as to why, especially given the far lower armor numbers vs equal and maybe a bit higher damaging weapons. Personally, I'd LOVE to see a MW game in which the BattleMechs ALWAYS ... matter in combat performance. Remember, there are also always cluster weapons when you really, absolutely, have to hit a part. Using called shot with cluster LBX rounds all but assures you 100% you'll put shots onto any given component as long as it is facing you.

----

You have a point I think I have missed. You will indeed have to keep the reticule on the target for at least a second or so in order to get a decent lock. That would mean more skill with the reticule control than the current virtually instantaneous convergence time.

Thank you for pointing this out!

Quote

As I said above, I'm probably imagining something completely different to you here. Depends on the implementation of the tracking mechanic.

----

I was thinking along the lines of hopefully making 'Mechs take far more component damage than they currently do, and end up liming around without arms for several minutes, before taking a dirt nap. Ideally, I would like to see 'Mechs be more survivable, and the damage spread be increased. Hopefully this could lead to some situations where matches take longer, and components suffer from attrition.

----

Totally agree; I was suggesting that given that we have computing power now, hit (and though I was unclear about it, possibly component hit) probabilities can be distributed on a linear scale, rather than according to discrete values. For example, movement does not have to deduct -1 or -2 from a dice roll anymore (which could mean anything from a 2% to an 8% difference to hit, depending on the other factors), but can be altered according to a linear scale based on throttle percentage. A linear scale could also be implemented for hit locations, based on the amount of torso twist that an opponent is displaying, for example.

You're right - it does depend on the implementation. You're also right that the lore doesn't seem to give any hard numbers on lock-times. They will bear some gameplay testing. The only thing I would say for sure is that they take less than ten seconds. I'll further opine that they actually take a fraction of ten seconds. Thus the gameplay testing.

----

The advanced criticals damage rules in Tactical Operations actually add another roll to determine what kind of damage to any given component, from "gave it a haircut" to "threw it's aiming mechanism off" to the usual "blew the {Scrap} out of it." I'm betting this will make the 'mechs FAR more resistant to internal component damage. It will, I suspect, also allow the use of the critical chance modifiers per weapons damage output profile rules, thus allowing things like heavy gausses to behave like you think they should ... punch gaping holes.

----

Really the discrete values just describe a line on a graph. You can determine with mathematical precision "in between" points so that you can tweak the numbers up or down the graph line a tiny bit, if you want to. I just prefer the actual TT numbers because they are a known quantity - we already know many ways in which people have been working around them or attempting to for the last 29 years. This is far more desirable than "let's make some wholly new maths and hope we don't get massive unintended consequences" way of doing things.

Quote

I hope you are correct. I have not had the same experience, unfortunately.

----

Hope you have some luck with David.

----

Good example of simplicity in a game, but no, Othello is still a closed system, and has no controllable variables apart from your opponents choices. There is no unpredictability in Othello whatsover, and moves can be extrapolated to completion from any position. This is the point I was trying to make. Carcassone, and for that matter, any game in which you roll dice, even Monopoly, are open systems, because the results are unpredictable.

----

C'est la vie, brother, unfortunately. I would vote with my wallet, and be happy to spend quite a bit to see this, or some other convergence solution implemented in MWO. Hopefully one day they'll decide to run a PP for BT fans who want to see some sim-like features implemented in MWO, even if they're only available in private matches.

Thanks for the clarifications, I appreciate a lot better now what you were getting at, but it took a while to absorb. Also like having to put my thoughts down in words in a rational manner, good practice.

Thank goodness not all swans are white because all the one's you've seen are white, no?

----

You might PM him a link to this thread and a polite invite. The more in his inbox the merrier.

----

Ok. I wasn't quite sure what you meant by "closed system."

I was more addressing the idea of games that, while simple, give rise to complexity in play. Yes, I realize that "complexity" is different for different people.

----

At least you're not in the boat alone.

[Pht]

... and some more evidence about how the 'mechs affect the firing equation:

C3 / C3i systems allow your 'mech to shoot at a target with the exact same RANGE effects as the unit in your network that is the nearest to it.

So, if a 'mech in your C3 network is at 180 meters, and you're at maximum range for your weapon, you'd get a RANGE modifier as if you were only 180 meters away.

This means that quality of weapons lock by the T&T computers is adversely affected by how far you are from your target.

Yet MORE evidence that many parts of the TT system represent the Battlemech's part of the aiming equation.

[blinkin]

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.

Pht said:

So you admit that dice function as a statisical math tool.

• i also saw soccer balls used as examples in geometry does that make them special math tools too? would you also say magic 8 balls are math tools? they are basically a dice suspended in a solution.
  
• it would also appear that Sir Stephen Hawking and Albert Einstien (famous mathematicians) also agree with me that dice are "arbitrary and random" http://www.hawking.o...-play-dice.html so if you wish to continue this absurd fantasy about dice being precision tools i think i will just refer you to them.
  
• your move.

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.

Pht said:

Real-time ray tracing is extremely expensive in computing power (not network load):

http://www.codinghor...raytracing.html

http://www.cs.utah.e...of_ray_tracing/

http://www.extremete...gaming-graphics

• i love how you conveniently left out all of my references to the endless ways that 3D graphics use ray tracing. i have one reference to throw at you "Planetside 2". if ray tracing were intensive computers would regularly lag when there are high levels of rapid fire gunfire. do you want to know a game that used lots of ray tracing for fully automatic weapons from (to put it mildly) several sources? "Doom" or also "Doom 2". either of those games used as much or possibly more ray tracing than MWO does and when those game were popular processors were just a little bit less advanced.
  
• here are the "expensive" requirements for running multiple realtime ray traces at a high rate of speed in "Doom" http://gamesystemreq...mes.php?id=1541 :
  
• CPU: 486 processor operating at a minimum of 66MHz or any Pentium /Athlon processors RAM: 8 MB RAM OS: Windows 95/98/ME/ 2000 operating system http://gamesystemrequirements.com/ HDD: 40 MB of uncompressed hard disk space
  
  
  100MB of free hard drive space for the Windows swap file (in addition to install space) Sound: A 100% Windows 95/98/ME/2000-compatible true 16-bit sound card and drivers Recommended peripheral: 100% Windows 95/98/ME/2000-compatible mouse and driver
  100% Windows 95/98/ME/2000-compatible keyboard
  Note: A 100% Windows 95/98/ME/2000-compatible computer system (including compatible 32-bit drivers for video card, sound card and input devices)

• you are a moron

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...

Pht said:

There is no need for multiple traces to implement the quality of lock reticule. You only need one to touch a target; the target itself would already be sending all the info to the server for the server to know what modifiers exist between it and you... and the ability to determine if your ports are unobstructed; which the game is already doing; instead of, as I suspect it is doing now, a raytrace for each port when you fire your weapons, which would not be necessary.

• the target does not know where it is with respect to the one firing. the only thing the target knows is it's own speed and whether it is jumping or not. if you intend to include terrain features in the equation (which your OP indicates that you do) then repeated ray traces are required to check for intervening trees, to check if a hit is even possible (is there a mountain in the way), to check if you are still designating the target, and probably more.

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

Pht said:

Again with the having your cake and eating it to - you are trying to use something other than the OP as if it were a part of the OP. Your "most cases" are from something else.

• again you ramble on saying nothing and then somehow equating your babbling to me being wrong. of course my "most cases" refer to something else, I WAS REFERRING TO THE CURRENT SYSTEM THAT DOES NOT SUCK unlike the trash in your OP.

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.

Edited by blinkin, 10 September 2013 - 10:57 PM.

[blinkin]

Pht said:

So, in other words, you don't want the 'mechs to perform like they do in the novels, in the fluff text, or the TT game? ... and you wonder why I state that some people simply don't like the idea of a game which has battlemechs from the BT setting, instead of larger and slower quake 3 avatars. You have just directly stated that you don't like how the battlemechs perform in combat.

• i like the overall feel of "MECHWARRIOR" and the series of "MECHWARRIOR" games. here is straight opinion from me to you: i believe that the battletech rules and flavor text were written with the primary concern being the creation of a good TABLETOP game. chess is also a good tabletop game, but that does not mean it accurately represents medieval combat, just as tabletop BT does not accurately represent realtime combat in a giant walking weapons platform. it is most likely impossible to fully represent a complete combat environment in a turn based game AND still have it be fun. SO many of the complexities that surface on a battlefield are fudged and rolled up into dice (you know the random and arbitrary ones that Stephen Hawking and Einstien reference) which then serve as a proxy for complex and seemingly random battlefield occurrences.

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.

Pht said:

"probably tell" - you could do the math, you know. it's all there

Large lasers in the OP and TT system are rated at 15 hexes - 450 meters effective combat long range; so the range modifier is +6 for extreme range (the bracket just past long) - the weapon was never meant to operate at this range - +4 for the target going 100 kph, +1 for jumping; that's +11 total; 8.33% hitting.

This is an extreme situation in the BT setting. If you don't like this; that's fine. But I'm going to say that if you really don't like not being able to use weapons past their rated long range versus highly mobile targets, you don't care for how the setting works.

That said; move up to 300 meters, and your hit rate goes down to +7 or 58.33% hitting - wait till he's on the ground and it's +6 or 72.22% hitting at 300 meters; and you'll be shooting with more damage vs less armor and a chance to do internal damage.

• yes i think 8.33% falls pretty squarely under the realm of "probably tell you to F--- off". and finally something we agree on! i don't like the idea of having a weapons platform that cannot accurately fire it's weapons as well as i can with iron sights. i know there is plenty of lost technology and knowledge within the BT universe, but who would design an aiming system that is that thoroughly defunct in the first place? the whole purpose of targetting systems is to enhance the capabilities of the user NOT to get in the frigging way and randomly screw up shots that could have been easily made by someone who knows how to lead/follow a target.

this will end pinpoint strikes (no doubt there) because you are stripping the players of their precision.

Pht said:

Red herring. Look, if you don't like a game in which the battlemechs behave like they do in the novels and lore and the TT game - as you have now repeatedly indicated - that's fine. Don't act like it's wrong for someone to like something simply you don't like it, especially in this case, when the OP is a proper representation of how the 'mechs in the lore work. That said; I think you're over-reacting and unwilling to give it a chance for merely personal reasons.

• 8.33% accuracy versus my 90ish% accuracy. your statement directly above this one clearly explains (MATH INCLUDED) how what i said is not a red herring and is in fact fairly accurate.
  
• yet another in your long line of abuses of logical fallacies. if you have actually read up on logic then there is no excuse whatsoever for your endless ignorance, only making all of your failed claims all the more pathetic.
  
• my "personal reasons" are that i don't want this game to suck and your system very clearly strips power away from the player making it far more boring to me.
  
• you say players need to think more but why do they need to think when you intend to slap the to hit modifier directly on their screen with an alarm that tells the player when it is a good idea to shoot?

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...

Pht said:

How "other solid FPS games" do something is of purely secondary importance.

• merely listing the myriad of ways that those things can and have been done WITHOUT any need for dice (see Einstien, Hawking) rolls

...(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,...

Pht said:

I have not posted that the OP is "the only way" that the battlemech can be made to take part in the aiming/combat eqation. In fact, I didn't address that at all.

However, right now, I'll say something new: it would be the best way to have the 'mechs perform in combat like they do in the setting.

• there is the self absorbed Pht we all know and love!

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.

Pht said:

Whooptie-do.

• many people (myself included) tend to like games where THEY are in control instead of a random number generator. i don't like the idea of pulling a lever on a slot machine to see if i get to hit my target today.
  
• this statement also brought to you by Albert Einstien and Stephen Hawking.

you have done just about everything else you could to inflate that list.

Pht said:

So, you know "everything I could do" to "inflate" that list? Even though you've never even met me?

• so you are proud of the packing peanuts that you have crammed into your description to make it seem like more than it is? pro-tip: when used in argument the term "inflate" usually refers to the addition of things that lack substance or quality in an effort to make something unnecessarily large much like using air to inflate a beach ball.
  
• so when will you add pulling the trigger and looking at the HUD to your list?

• and here is the rest of that quote that he left out because it reveals the ugly truth about his system

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.

• in these last two posts i referenced "Sir Stephen Hawking" which is incorrect. he was in fact offered a knighthood but he turned it down and thus does not have the title of "Sir".

Edited by blinkin, 10 September 2013 - 11:12 PM.

[Pht]

blinkin, on 10 September 2013 - 04:11 PM, said:

i also saw soccer balls used as examples in geometry does that make them special math tools too? would you also say magic 8 balls are math tools? they are basically a dice suspended in a solution

----

it would also appear that Sir Stephen Hawking and Albert Einstien (famous mathematicians)...

---

also agree with me that dice are "arbitrary and random" http://www.hawking.org.uk/does-god-play-dice.html"]http://www.hawking.o...-play-dice.html[/url]...

----

... so if you wish to continue this absurd fantasy about dice being precision tools i think i will just refer you to them.

Soccer balls in and of themselves are not used to determine a mathematical result - false comparison. I was pointing out that dice in and of themselves are math tools, not that they were examples used in some branch of math.

Most magic 8 balls I've seen aren't marked with numbers on every side. I suppose one could be; and than it would, as you've said, just be a suspended die, and in your words, would be usable as a statistics tool.

If you need to have a result chosen from two to twelve; two six sided dice will work; just like flipping a coin will get you any one of three results.

----

Name dropping. Fame in any particular field doesn't make someone's conclusions correct.

----

To quote the first line of the linked article: "This lecture is about whether we can predict the future, or whether it is arbitrary and random." It's a discussion of the philosophy of science; in particular determinism vs non-determinism. The word "dice" pops up as a literary tool only; and he gives zero indication that he believes actual dice (or RNG generators in software) are "arbitrary and random" - the matter of actual dice or RNG's in software simply isn't discussed - directly or indirectly.

In fact, hawking states that, even in the instance of the information and certainty eating black-hole boogeyman:

"The loss of particles and information down black holes meant that the particles that came out were random. One could calculate probabilities, but one could not make any definite predictions. "

Now, either hawking means that you can actually definitely calculate the probability, but you can't predict anything else about it... or he's contradicting himself by saying you can predict a probability about something which no predictions can be made. Take your pick... either way, the article doesn't support your assertion.

Which is really moot, because:

----

... you're simply putting words in my mouth. I have not posted that dice are "precision tools" nor have I posted anything that means that they are. This is nothing but your abusive and illogical conclusion. You're arguing against something that's not even been put forth.

I have posted that they give results from, as you yourself called it, a statistical range; a hit percentage; a range of possible results. I have posted that you can know the range; and that you can know the statistical chances that any number in that range will come up - for a D6, you know there is a 1 in 6 chance that any number from 1 to 6 will result.

For 2d6 being used in a "roll equal to or higher than (x)" (the to-hit) you can KNOW that you will ALWAYS hit on or less 2, because it is IMPOSSIBLE to roll less than 2 on 2d6. You can also KNOW that you can't roll a 13 or higher, so you can never hit on a 13 or more. Anything on 2d6 "roll equal or higher than" mechanic from 3 to 12 describes a different sort of statistical chance, from nearly certain to roll more than to nearly certain to not roll in steps of 8.33 percent.

Your statement that I have been arguing that "dice are precision tools" would not have been utterly ludicrous if I had actually said that you can always know which specific number in the possible range will come up in any given particular instance. But I have never stated this ... directly or indirectly.

You have either somehow managed to remain ignorant of this fact... or you have realized this fact and are simply being abusive.

Quote

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.

----

i love how you conveniently left out all of my references to the endless ways that 3D graphics use ray tracing. i have one reference to throw at you "Planetside 2". if ray tracing were intensive computers would regularly lag when there are high levels of rapid fire gunfire. do you want to know a game that used lots of ray tracing for fully automatic weapons from (to put it mildly) several sources? "Doom" or also "Doom 2". either of those games used as much or possibly more ray tracing than MWO does and when those game were popular processors were just a little bit less advanced.

here are the "expensive" requirements for running multiple realtime ray traces at a high rate of speed in "Doom" ...

----

you are a moron

"Disadvantages of Ray Tracing over Rasterization
Typically slow-Ray tracing and rasterization are both very computationally expensive. However, it is trivial to implement rasterization in hardware (like commodity GPUs) leaving ray tracing principally to software approaches

Acceleration structures-Without acceleration structures, ray tracing is prohibitively, horrendously slow. For a static scene, they can be precomputed, but for a dynamic scene they sometimes need to be completely rebuilt every frame, which can be very expensive"

http://www.cs.utah.e...of_ray_tracing/

And our consumer (and most other) GPU's don't do ray-tracing in hardware: http://en.wikipedia....racing_hardware

----

Ray tracing is a rendering technique that’s hovered just over the horizon for decades. It was boosted to prominence (and tremendous controversy) when Intel announced Larrabee in 2007 and proclaimed that the chip would deliver a digital Holy Grail — real-time ray tracing (RTRT) at playable framerates in modern games.

<a href="http://www.extremetech.com/gaming/135788-investigating-ray-tracing-the-next-big-thing-in-gaming-graphics">www.extremetech.com/gaming/135788-investigating-ray-tracing-the-next-big-thing-in-gaming-graphics

Raytracing in doom is not the same level of complexity of raytracing in MWO.

All of which may be entirely moot, because apparently they're using ray casts: http://mwomercs.com/...dpost__p__78543

Which are only as computationally expensive as the environments you plan to use them in:

"How do you define expensive? The cost of a raycast is the cost of the intersection algorithm for each object checked until a hit is registered if the objects are depth sorted, otherwise, it must check every object. Simple object's have much simpler intersection algorithms. Raycasts that are far enough away from an object being checked should not check against the object, but should quit out early. Raycasts against convex 3D geometry even with a fast optimized algorithm is the cost of several subtractions, additions and in many cases at most like one division per triangle. The number of cycles taken by each of these operations is generally hardware dependent. If your scene has your colliders spaced enough, you are using simple colliders and you are not raycasting too often, it should be quite cheap."

http://answers.unity...ay-casting.html

... and apparently MWO isn't a cheap environment to raycast in:

"If you can visually see a mech, it will show up on radar most of the time. With all 3d games, there is a chance you can see something but the ray cast fails. It all depends on how many casts are done and from which point to point. Ray casts are not cheap to use" - Bryan Ekman

http://mwomercs.com/...dpost__p__78720

----

Non-sequiter; nothing but abusive invalid name-calling.

Quote

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...

...the target does not know where it is with respect to the one firing. the only thing the target knows is it's own speed and whether it is jumping or not. if you intend to include terrain features in the equation (which your OP indicates that you do) then repeated ray traces are required to check for intervening trees, to check if a hit is even possible (is there a mountain in the way), to check if you are still designating the target, and probably more.

I did not post that real time ray tracing is expensive in network load.

----

I did not post that the target(client) knows where it is in relation to any 'Mech firing at it. Nor did I post that it would need to know this for the to-hit switches to be properly flipped. Nor does it need to know these things.

All of the factors you've listed are already accounted for by MWO right now. It has to know if a target is behind a building, or behind a tree or trees - in fact, it already has to know exactly where every 'Mech is on the map and what it is doing in real time just so that it may send that information to to the clients so that the clients may know where to render the 'Mechs on the client side; and so that it may resolve damage properly.

Quote

again you ramble on saying nothing and then somehow equating your babbling to me being wrong. of course my "most cases" refer to something else, I WAS REFERRING TO THE CURRENT SYSTEM...

----

...THAT DOES NOT SUCK unlike the trash in your OP.

----

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.

Hyperbole. I knew you were referring to the current system. I was pointing out that you saying that "apples" were correct, and than trying to treat the "oranges" in the OP as if they were "apples."

----

Text screaming, emotional appeal by the false use of loaded descriptive words, and presuming your conclusion...

----

As I've already pointed out; In a MechWarrior video game the 'Mech part of the combat actually has to be carried out as it is in the lore; and it's been demonstrated that the 'Mechs aren't capable of getting every weapon to hit perfectly under the reticule in any instance with the sole exclusion of an absolute extreme mathematical outlier - not in the novels, not in the sourcebook fluff, not in any version of the boardgame, or in any other definitive source can the 'Mechs do what you want them to do.

Besides, your calculating lead for a single direct-fire weapon you are physically holding...<-- "RL"

...or lead for a single or multiple weapons in a video game that uses its reticule to perfectly indicate to you exactly where all of your weapons are actually "physically" perfectly pointed at, leaving you only to calculate for weapons fire velocity... <--This is what MWO currently does

...is not the same as having to independently calculate individual lead points for multiple independently aimed direct fire weapons, mounted in disparate positions all across a bipedal armored combat unit's "body." <-- This is what a 'Mech actually has to do in order to hit what the pilot has under the reticule.

Calculating lead independently for multiple weapons that are independently aimed is not the same thing as calculating lead for a single weapon or a group of weapons that are aimed as if they were a single weapon ("perfect physical alignment"), and as the OP has already conclusively shown beyond any rational doubt (if you allow the IP holders and writers to define their own universe) that BattleMechs are not capable of perfectly converging multiple independent weapons under the reticule; with the single sole exclusion being the you were a stupid ***** and stood still or were somehow rendered immobile PLUS "murphy's law/the universe hates you" effect, which virtually never happens.

All that you have to stand on from what you've posted so far is simply that you don't personally like the idea of a mech/a that can't perfectly concentrate all of it's weapons under the reticule. You have, however, continued to equate the level of difficulty of aiming a single weapon with what a 'mech in the BT fiction does; which is a false comparison. The two things are not the same.

blinkin, on 10 September 2013 - 10:52 PM, said:

i like the overall feel of "MECHWARRIOR" and the series of "MECHWARRIOR" games.

----

here is straight opinion from me to you: i believe that the battletech rules and flavor text were written with the primary concern being the creation of a good TABLETOP game.

----

chess is also a good tabletop game, but that does not mean it accurately represents medieval combat, just as tabletop BT does not accurately represent realtime combat in a giant walking weapons platform.

----

it is most likely impossible to fully represent a complete combat environment in a turn based game AND still have it be fun. SO many of the complexities that surface on a battlefield are fudged and rolled up into dice...

----

...(you know the random and arbitrary ones that Stephen Hawking and Einstien reference) which then serve as a proxy for complex and seemingly random battlefield occurrences.

----

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.

By "Feel" ... you mean? I'm betting NOT tactile perceptions.

----

... and? Even if your belief is right (and I'm not for a moment accepting that you have validly verified your belief) you cannot logically derive the conclusion from it that it therefore wouldn't work to make a fun game in the MW video game format. You'd have, at the least, to add another valid premise to it in order to deduct the conclusion you've made.

----

I haven't posted that the TT accurately represents "realtime combat in ... mechs" - nor anything that has that meaning. Nor does anything I have posted require that it would.

----

I haven't posted anything that requires representing a "complete combat environment." Non-sequiter.

----

Already discussed your references to those two men and why they're wrong.

----

More false comparison.

Of course you can do what you're discussing when all of the weapons you're firing are always perfectly physically aligned as if they were one weapon. All you need to do is calculate weapons velocity. Which, of course, is not the same thing as having to independently calculate lead for every single weapon and than independently physically align those weapons.

----

"Getting around" the forum bot to drop the f-bomb. Certainly a great way to show everyone your arguments are valid.

Quote

Yes i think 8.33% falls pretty squarely under the realm of "probably tell you to F--- off". and finally something we agree on! i don't like the idea of having a weapons platform that cannot accurately fire it's weapons as well as i can with iron sights.

----

i know there is plenty of lost technology and knowledge within the BT universe, but who would design an aiming system that is that thoroughly defunct in the first place? the whole purpose of targetting systems is to enhance the capabilities of the user NOT to get in the frigging way and randomly screw up shots that could have been easily made by someone who knows how to lead/follow a target.

The f-bomb, again... and more false comparison of mutually exclusive things.

It is, however, actually possible in the setting for the more advanced pilots, when using a single weapon only, to hit a specific component; it's one of the "special pilot abilities" in the RPG, which is part of the canon (as indicated by the OP):

"Marksman

The Marksman Ability enables a MechWarrior ... to potentially hit any desired location on a target. A pilot ... with Marksman can make a special Aimed Shot attack as if using a targeting computer. The pilot’s unit must remain stationary and make no physical attacks during the round in which he uses this ability. In addition, only one of the unit’s weapons may be used; no other weapon may be fired in the same turn. Use of the Marksman Ability is considered a Complex Action.

The Marksman Ability may be combined with a targeting computer or enhanced-imaging technology; if the warrior’s unit is equipped with such items and they are active when this ability is used, the Aimed Shot attack receives a +2 roll modifier."

"Battletech, A Time of War - The BattleTech RPG," Pg 220.

In order to get this ability a character has to have a high "gunnery skill" (not just generalized gunnery skill - any of a number of what the RPG classifies as "gunnery skills).

Once I get some more clarification on what these "gunnery skills" represent I'll be adding this to the OP.

----

So, a weapons system that can get multiple non-homing ballistic weapons to hit a 'Mech sized target ... ANY target for that matter ... thirty five miles away ... is "thoroughly defunct?"

This is exactly what the LOS range bracket describes; and you only need an a ISML and thirty seconds of the target being in your front arc (EASY when the target is that far away) to drive the to-hit down to +5 vs a stationary target; +6 vs a slow moving target. If your ISML is arm-mounted and you brace it on some structure (like a one story building or a large boulder) you can knock another +2 off for a total to-hit of +3 vs a stationary target, meaning you can hit a target that's going 97 kph(60mph) over thirty-five miles away at only +6 (72% hit rate) - with a completely "plain jane" battlemech. Or, using the marksman SPA, you could use a single ISML to hit a specific component on a target at that range going 22Kph/13Mph at +6 (72%) - or against a target standing still, at +2 - yes, 100% hit rate.

In fact, in space combat, Mechs can do this vs Mech sized targets over *sixty* miles away, using the same hardware. These sorts of shots are possible with even some of the worst scavenger-tech long range succession wars hardware. Their pilot's abilities to actually keep the reticule center of mass at max zoom at that range, however, is another thing; but in the MW video game, that's our problem.

Quote

8.33% accuracy versus my 90ish% accuracy. your statement directly above this one clearly explains (MATH INCLUDED) how what i said is not a red herring and is in fact fairly accurate.

----

yet another in your long line of abuses of logical fallacies. if you have actually read up on logic then there is no excuse whatsoever for your endless ignorance, only making all of your failed claims all the more pathetic.

----

my "personal reasons" are that i don't want this game to suck and your system very clearly strips power away from the player making it far more boring to me.

----

you say players need to think more but why do they need to think when you intend to slap the to hit modifier directly on their screen with an alarm that tells the player when it is a good idea to shoot?

----

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...

merely listing the myriad of ways that those things can and have been done WITHOUT any need for dice (see Einstien, Hawking) rolls

...(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,...

Yes; you're right that this particular instance is not a red herring. My mistake calling it one.

What I should have said is that you're still putting forth that it's proper in an MW video game to have the BattleMechs be able to perfectly calculate multiple independent aim points and than perfectly independently physically align each weapon to those points - and the lore/setting clearly refutes this; and MW is, by definition, a video game genre "all about" having the BattleMechs perform in combat in the video game as they do in the setting.

----

Abuses that have not happened and logical fallacies - with the exception of the mistake I just acknowledged and owned - that do not exist - abuses and fallacies which you won't quote, and you won't point out, because any attempt to do so on your would be to reveal that you're wrong to accuse me of this.

A rather ironic claim coming from someone who has alleged that they took several critical thinking classes, all the while committing a string of epistemological blunders in their claims about me, my intent and my knowledge (you'd have to know my thoughts and memories to know those), and even my access to a TV set. You've claimed things about me - multiple times - that you are in no position to know. There's also your repetitively putting words in my mouth (in the post I'm replying to here, no less), making false comparisons of mutually exclusive things as if they were the exact same thing and than basing conclusions upon said false comparisons, your use of emotionally loaded weasel words, you've called me "self absorbed" and a "moron" with no valid justification, and to top it all off, you've dropped the f-bomb repeatedly. These are all things you've done in just the last few posts of this thread. You've also called me a "pretentious D-bag" for no valid reason, you've admitted publicly with no shame that you had been quoting me in an "evil and nefarious manner" in one of my other threads:

"yes i am directly quoting him in an evil and nefarious manner." - http://mwomercs.com/...ost__p__2583340


You also spammed one of my other poll threads with nearly a full quote of a mutilated by emphasis previous version of the OP of this thread and indicated that I had taken the previous version down for underhanded reasons - when the entire non-mutilated post you were spamming had been (and still is) linked very clearly at the top of the original post of this thread, right under the very first line, telling everyone the OP had been edited... and before that, in our very first interaction you spent pages doing the text version of screaming at me with a repetitive phrase, only because I had the temerity to actually agree with you and dared to ask you legitimate questions; and all triggered off by a reply I made to someone else besides you. Every single one of these things is easily proven with in-context quotes of your posts (I have the forum threads in question saved).

Yet in spite of all of this, somehow, between you and me, I'm the one who's been engaging in "abuses and a long line logical fallacies."

----

So, because you don't like your perception of my system, does that justify your behavior towards me? Even if I had (and I have not) treated you in ways that you don't validly deserve, would my (theoretical) wrong(s) morally justify your demonstrable and repeated wrongs?

----

Indicating the to-hit modifier visually and audibly does not make it something you don't have to think about. Furthermore, you have to know WHY the to-hit modifier that is being indicated at any given time has happened, if you're to predict when it will happen again, and how to get that to happen (or not happen). Something that's not present in the game at all right now as something to be tracked and considered - weapons lock of any sort on direct fire weapons is not even in MWO.

----

Their being present in other shooters does not mean that they were done in the way that is right for the MW genre, there being other ways to implement the things I listed does not mean that those other ways are the right way from the MW genre, and nowhere have I said that the way I mentioned is the ONLY way. More logical fallacies on your part.

Quote

there is the self absorbed Pht we all know and love!

----

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.

----

many people (myself included) tend to like games where THEY are in control instead of a random number generator. i don't like the idea of pulling a lever on a slot machine to see if i get to hit my target today.

----

This statement also brought to you by Albert Einstien and Stephen Hawking.

----

you have done just about everything else you could to inflate that list.

So, are you presuming that the ONLY way possible in all of humanity to make that statement is to be self absorbed? ... which would be to have used the form "All swans are white - and only because every swan I've observed is white" (arguing from the particular to the general); or are you posting what you know is only your opinion... as if it were truth ... or is it something else?

----

Combat mechanics which you have yet to demonstrate as wrong for the MW genre. As of yet the best you've managed to demonstrate is your visceral dislike for your perception of them.

----

... and a different false comparison of two other mutually exclusive things; slot machine behavior and the OP system.

There is no way to predict if a slot machine will pay out.

The OP is the exact opposite - you can know with 100% perfection if your weapons will pass their to-hit rolls.

You'll even know 100% which hit location table is used - and because you know the hit table math, you can statistically predict the spread... and the "aiming for center of mass" hit tables bell curve heavily under the reticule; the others give an equal chance.

You even know 100% what you need to do to significantly narrow your field of fire. The marksman SPA mentioned above even means you can hit component level targets predictably; as long as you're using only one weapon - and the to-hit for that is a known and predictable factor.

----

Demonstrated as wrong in the post above already.

----

You cannot have deduced this statement. Your conclusion is not justified by your possible knowledge. You should never have posted it as if it were a statement of truth. Yet another blunder - again, the only way you could KNOW this is if you had read my thoughts and knew all of my memories.

Quote

so you are proud of the packing peanuts...

----

...that you have crammed into your description to make it seem like more than it is?

----

pro-tip: when used in argument the term "inflate" usually refers to the addition of things that lack substance or quality ...

----

...in an effort to make something unnecessarily large much like using air to inflate a beach ball.

----

so when will you add pulling the trigger and looking at the HUD to your list?

You don't posses the means to know if I'm proud of that list or not.

"Packing peanuts" - a phrase that majoritarily serves as an appeal to emotion.

----

Yet more things you can't humanly know. You have no way of *knowing* that I put anything into the OP to "inflate" the description.

---

The content of the OP does not "lack substance or quality" and none of it is filler.

----

After all your replies and your specific retorts about the list of piloting skills in question here you stilldon't even know what's in it and what isn't.

Quote

and here is the rest of that quote that he left out because it reveals the ugly truth about his system

----

if you want solid examples of pilot skill listed then here is a list of games ...

The idea that posting a list of other games that do similar things by a different means somehow reveals an "ugly truth" about the OP is laughable. All you are doing is saying that the to-hit and hit-location combat mechanics are "ugly"... and the only justifications you've offered for this is your statement of your dislike of those combat mechanics and a false comparison of mutually exclusive things - aiming a single weapon; or aiming multiple weapons as if they were a single weapon, vs. multiple independent weapons being individually aimed as the lore actually has it.

You've also simply presumed the "solidity"of the games you've quoted, when their "solidity" is the basic foundation for your entire line of argument in quoting these other games.

I could just as easily use the exact same form of argument that you've used here to say that MWO shouldn't use the combat mechanics that you enjoy and like, because some other games that I called "solid" didn't do it that way and still got the same "end results" - and you'd reject it, because you wouldn't like the conclusion - and in so doing you'd be rejecting your own form of argument - you'd be saying that you were wrong.

----

Already replied to this.

Edited by Pht, 15 September 2013 - 10:15 AM.

[KnightedChaos]

Ok, so in the end a mechwarrior game should fall somewhere between the battletech tabletop and a FPS.

So two quick points, in the TT weapons fire would be spread by the role of the dice bell curved to centre of mass, which is fair, this makes the TT more enjoyable(sometimes, RNG can be a ***** but I digress). In FPS', take your pick here, they all have "spread" you pull the trigger in call of duty, battlefield, whatever, not every single one of your rounds hits exactly where you were pointing, hell if you are far enough away, outside of what one might call the "effective range" of a weapon there is a chance not a single round will hit exactly where you were pointing, and things like walking, running, crouching, laying prone, using a bi-pod affect this spread. Yet in fps, dispute this random spread player skill is still the most important factor.

So I don't understand why everyone is up in arms to make our mechs a little less precise. As advanced as a mech might be have you ever tried firing 6 sniper rifles at the same while running with perfect accuracy, not going to happen.

I don't think that anyone here is advocating for a prefect reproduction of the TT in videogame form, if so try playing something like megamech it is much closer then MW:O will ever be, but we just want to bring the game more in line with accepted game mechanics in any genre you think this game belongs too.

Edited by KnightedChaos, 23 September 2013 - 02:39 PM.

[Pht]

KnightedChaos, on 23 September 2013 - 02:38 PM, said:

Ok, so in the end a mechwarrior game should fall somewhere between the battletech tabletop and a FPS.

The one is obviously turn based and the other real time; so yes, some of the stuff that describes how the 'mechs perform in combat will have to be converted over with some forethought in order to keep the TT stuff working in realtime like they did in their original format (for instance, the "speed gaps" in the target modifiers).

Other than that ... it really depends on what you mean by "fps."

Quote

So two quick points, in the TT weapons fire would be spread by the role of the dice bell curved to centre of mass, which is fair, this makes the TT more enjoyable(sometimes, RNG can be a ***** but I digress).

RNG's in software can seem to act very oddly because they don't introduce as many variables as a human tossing dice; so sometimes you see them behaving in a way you percieve as being non-random.

There's a good reason why vegas pays SO much for high-quality RNG's in software.

Quote

In FPS', take your pick here, they all have "spread" you pull the trigger in call of duty, battlefield, whatever, not every single one of your rounds hits exactly where you were pointing, hell if you are far enough away, outside of what one might call the "effective range" of a weapon there is a chance not a single round will hit exactly where you were pointing, and things like walking, running, crouching, laying prone, using a bi-pod affect this spread. Yet in fps, dispute this random spread player skill is still the most important factor.

From what I know most of these FPS games have used a simple cone of fire mechanic - not a robust one. Not sure if any of them didn't use a calculated cone and went with a different setup. Which gives rise to situations that make pretty much no sense at all; so they're very hard if not impossible to control for. Read: No fun.

I suspect a few might have gone with the full on physics engine simulating ballistics... or at least attempted to.

Quote

So I don't understand why everyone is up in arms to make our mechs a little less precise. As advanced as a mech might be have you ever tried firing 6 sniper rifles at the same while running with perfect accuracy, not going to happen.

This is purely my opinion, but I think it's because people have encountered the poorly setup CoF setup or systems like them, and they don't enjoy them at all, and because of those bad experiences, they tend to (over) react badly when anyone discusses any sort of system to deconverge the weapons fire from under the reticle... and it doesn't even matter to them if this actually would make the 'Mechs in MWO perform a lot more like they do in the novels without removing human skill with the mouse and human choices as the over-riding factor in game play.

People just seem to have this wrong-headed expectation that the MW genre/series should be "an fps" instead of being an armored-combat game. The two aren't the same.

Quote

I don't think that anyone here is advocating for a prefect reproduction of the TT in videogame form, if so try playing something like megamech it is much closer then MW:O will ever be, but we just want to bring the game more in line with accepted game mechanics in any genre you think this game belongs too.

I've never seen anyone advocate that; which makes it all the more aggrivating when people use the cop out "you want MW Tactics."

[Zyllos]

I felt like I have complained, explained, and pleaded with PGI every single day since Closed Beta.

The only thing I keep seeing is CTs are among the first hit locations to be taken out, people equip only weapons of similar types so they all hit the same location, and mechs are dropping like flies in games.

I mean, it's only logical to see the current aiming and armor systems are flawed. One assumes random hit locations while the other is 100% accurate. So it would only make sense for the mechanics to breakdown.

Maybe one day we will get a fix...it's been 24 years since the initial mistake was introduced. Hopefully our current and future developers will see the errors in keeping the same system and not perpetuate the same existence.

[KnightedChaos]

Pht, on 29 September 2013 - 12:32 PM, said:

RNG's in software can seem to act very oddly because they don't introduce as many variables as a human tossing dice; so sometimes you see them behaving in a way you percieve as being non-random.

There's a good reason why vegas pays SO much for high-quality RNG's in software.

Vegas also invests a fair amount of money in properly balanced dice, as a lot of common gaming dice are not %100 balance in much the same way it is very difficult to correctly emulate randomness in programming, there was an article about dice randomness somewhere, can't find right now but my point is that true random is very difficult to find no matter what system you use, and even true random can feel like it is against you.

Now I feel that even a simple CoF on most weapons would be an improvement I can understand some difficulties in this as the traditional FPS has the advantage of being able to change the reticle on a per weapon basis to give use a feel for the CoF MW:O currently doesn't have a similar mechanic and this would have to be addressed.

Quote

People just seem to have this wrong-headed expectation that the MW genre/series should be "an fps" instead of being an armored-combat game. The two aren't the same.

You are right they are not the same, damage management, ammo conservation, and mech construction are unique to this style of game, but I feel that bullet spread is fairly critical to the complete the simulation, we are supposed to be a pilots of advanced war machines in a crumbling universe, our tech, especially our computers, no longer run to the original specifications, so this perfect accuracy somewhat destroys the illusion of the BT universe.

Quote

I've never seen anyone advocate that; which makes it all the more aggrivating when people use the cop out "you want MW Tactics."

That was my point, this game is not the tabletop nor will it be, so we have to be understanding that some mechanics have to change to fit this iteration of the Battletech universe.

[Pht]

Zyllos, on 29 September 2013 - 12:54 PM, said:

I felt like I have complained, explained, and pleaded with PGI every single day since Closed Beta.

The only thing I keep seeing is CTs are among the first hit locations to be taken out, people equip only weapons of similar types so they all hit the same location, and mechs are dropping like flies in games.

They seem to see the fact that 'mechs drop "quickly" as a problem. They, however, seem to have actually refused to have fixed this problem in a way that respects the lore.... because ...

Quote

I mean, it's only logical...

Logic seems, at this point. to have nothing to do with it in the current implementation.

From the podcast recently released it seems we got the FPS mechanic instead of an armored combat mechanic because ... russ doesn't like the armored combat mechanic; and bryan thinks the 'mechs are being properly simulated.

Russ apparently thinks that any combat mechanic that *actually* spreads the fire around (as it happens in the novels, btw) "is not fun" ... and our opinions otherwise don't mean enough to him to make the difference, apparently.

The truth or falsity of the OP in relation to how the 'mechs actually behave in the novels or the lore seems to be of secondary importance at best.

This is why I explicitly pointed out that no, that really is how they perform in the lore; with appeal to the people who control and write the lore.

Quote

Maybe one day we will get a fix...it's been 24 years since the initial mistake was introduced. Hopefully our current and future developers will see the errors in keeping the same system and not perpetuate the same existence.

I guess at this point we're simply stuck waiting and hoping that a group of developers that realize using the FPS combat mechanic in an armored combat game just doesn't work and that doing something else isn't of necessity "not fun."

[Pht]

KnightedChaos, on 30 September 2013 - 11:59 AM, said:

Vegas also invests a fair amount of money in properly balanced dice, as a lot of common gaming dice are not %100 balance in much the same way it is very difficult to correctly emulate randomness in programming, there was an article about dice randomness somewhere, can't find right now but my point is that true random is very difficult to find no matter what system you use, and even true random can feel like it is against you.

Yep. Which gets off into some areas of philosophy and some big cans of worms...

Quote

Now I feel that even a simple CoF on most weapons would be an improvement I can understand some difficulties in this as the traditional FPS has the advantage of being able to change the reticle on a per weapon basis to give use a feel for the CoF MW:O currently doesn't have a similar mechanic and this would have to be addressed.

I agree that the entirely doable simple CoF would be a step up; simply because I'm willing to accept the odditites that it would incur.

The thing that keeps it from being accepted is people's dislike of it; they simply don't think the returns are worth the oddities incurred.... and I personally don't see the necessity of using an actual calculated cone when we already have the maths to solve the problem on hand - and they are *simple* maths.

Quote

You are right they are not the same, damage management, ammo conservation, and mech construction are unique to this style of game, but I feel that bullet spread is fairly critical to the complete the simulation, we are supposed to be a pilots of advanced war machines in a crumbling universe, our tech, especially our computers, no longer run to the original specifications, so this perfect accuracy somewhat destroys the illusion of the BT universe.

Even in the depths of the first and second succession wars the 'tech overall doesn't dip below what the OP outlines as being possible; unless your particuar equipments have actually sustained damage or haven't been maintained at all.

Quote

That was my point, this game is not the tabletop nor will it be, so we have to be understanding that some mechanics have to change to fit this iteration of the Battletech universe.

Certainly. But only those that are actually required to change in order for the game to play. Once you actually "get in there" and start working with the actual rules and the actual maths most of what people say "are required to be dropped" ... aren't. People, in my experience, simply say that these changes are required because ... those changes are needed for the gameplay they want, not because they can't be converted to realtime without changing the way the game plays out.

Edited by Pht, 01 October 2013 - 04:53 PM.

[Nick Makiaveli]

Ok, first off I only read the OP and this last page. Well some of this last page. I don't give a **** about the arguing about what is or isn't etc.

I get what Pht is getting at. However, what I didn't get was how player skill in MWO doesn't equate to special abilities, rules, equipment etc etc in the rules. Marksman for example. If a player is really good at FP shooters, then wouldn't that equate to that skill? Adv. Targeting Computer? Sounds like a precision mouse/joystick to me. Even a better PC or a superior ISP could be an advantage, similar to having a 20 year old Battlemech as opposed to a 200 year old one.

To me, MWO is doing exactly what the TT rules do. Simulating 'Mech combat. Real time vs Turn Based is the main difference, not counting graphics etc which are really beside the point.

The thing most people miss is that the 10 second turns really didn't mean squat in TT. In D&D each round of combat was a minute. Yet you only rolled dice once to see if you actually scored a hit. It might take 10 minutes to move all the mechs, tally hits etc, but who cared it representing 10 seconds? That number is as much fluff as anything. Would it have changed anything if they had said 5 seconds? Or 20? Yes ground speed for the ******* in the crowd but again that isn't the point.

Now does anyone really want to wait 10 seconds between shots? Or have all weapons have the same cooldown? Doubtful. So for real time they had to make adjustments. I agree with Pht that is was unintended consequences etc, but that's life. We have what we have, and I for one prefer the more fast paced version as opposed to a slower, more methodical approach.

Would I play if they brought back the 30 heat threshold, random ammo explosions on the way to 30 etc? Sure would. Would I deal with really slow movement etc? Yep. But last I checked there are other turn based versions out there for those who want a more TT approach. So I for one will take what we have here, make suggestions when I think I know what I am talking about, and have fun in the meantime.

Now nothing said above should be construed as trying to say Pht shouldn't continue his crusade to bring more TT into this game. Loyal opposition is a wonderful thing to have, and only the small minded would think it wasn't useful.

[Pht]

Nick Makiaveli, on 21 October 2013 - 02:56 PM, said:

Ok, first off I only read the OP and this last page.

Thanks.

Quote

I get what Pht is getting at. However, what I didn't get was how player skill in MWO doesn't equate to special abilities, rules, equipment etc etc in the rules. Marksman for example. If a player is really good at FP shooters, then wouldn't that equate to that skill? Adv. Targeting Computer? Sounds like a precision mouse/joystick to me. Even a better PC or a superior ISP could be an advantage, similar to having a 20 year old Battlemech as opposed to a 200 year old one.

Well, the first and biggest one - the hit-location tables actually represent the battlefield performance of the 'mech. Thus they represent the ultimate ceiling on what a battlemech can actually "do" in response to it's pilot's gunnery related inputs.

The hit-location tables haven't been simulated or used in really any way, and at this point I guess that's because Russ doesn't think it could be fun to do so, and Bryan has said that he thought that the 'mechs were being well simulated already, such that they didn't need to revisit that topic.

So, in a very real way, the MWO 'mechs aren't performing in combat like they do in the rest of the lore in a meaningful way. That aspect simply just isn't there.

There's weapons simulation.

Not 'mech weapons-handling simulation.

---

As for the rest of the skills - I need to get some extra clarification on what exactly the marksman skill represents. I am not certain if simply being able to keep the reticule exactly where you want it very steadily would fully represent that skill.

On the advanced targeting computer (all 'mechs have basic targeting computers) - these fall under the stuff mentioned above, about the hit tables and such. They carry off the majority of their affect by making the 'mech more precise. Ditto with the advanced acutator systems.

It must be made very clear that there's a huge facet of battlemech battlefield performance that's simply not present - the 'mech's ability to calculate aimpoints for each individual weapon, and the 'mechs ability to actually physically align those weapons to those aimpoints, all to hit what the pilot has under the reticule.

This simply isn't in MWO. It should be.

Quote

To me, MWO is doing exactly what the TT rules do. Simulating 'Mech combat. Real time vs Turn Based is the main difference, not counting graphics etc which are really beside the point.

Real time vs Turn based is not the bogeyman most people make it out to be.

Most people won't even do more than say "it won't work, it's turn based and not real time" - and they don't even bother to give an example of what they think won't work... and that's really sad.

Quote

The thing most people miss is that the 10 second turns really didn't mean squat in TT. In D&D each round of combat was a minute. Yet you only rolled dice once to see if you actually scored a hit. It might take 10 minutes to move all the mechs, tally hits etc, but who cared it representing 10 seconds? That number is as much fluff as anything. Would it have changed anything if they had said 5 seconds? Or 20? Yes ground speed for the ******* in the crowd but again that isn't the point.

It has some meaning in regards to calculating mech performance, weapons recycle times, and how long it would, say, take to use the "careful shot" tactic that the OP mentions.

Quote

Now does anyone really want to wait 10 seconds between shots? Or have all weapons have the same cooldown? Doubtful. So for real time they had to make adjustments. I agree with Pht that is was unintended consequences etc, but that's life. We have what we have, and I for one prefer the more fast paced version as opposed to a slower, more methodical approach.

On the weapons recycle rates - the one balancing mechanic that touches every weapon, even the ones that don't make heat... is waste heat.

If you want to fire faster than 10 seconds, add in the appropriate amount of heat. Slower than ten, subtract heat.

Quote

Would I play if they brought back the 30 heat threshold,...

There actually is no 30 heat threshold. That's just where the basic BT game stops adding effects. The advanced game goes up to 50. Neither of them cap waste heat; anything over these scales you still have to dump off.

Quote

random ammo explosions on the way to 30 etc? Sure would.

Random only in the limited sense that once you're over a known waste heat number, there's a chance you get an ammo explosion - and at 48 waste heat, I think the scale has an unavoidable ammo explosion - with varying effects going up to that level. So the effect is predictable in a meaningful way and can be controlled for by your choices.

Quote

Would I deal with really slow movement etc? Yep. But last I checked there are other turn based versions out there for those who want a more TT approach. So I for one will take what we have here, make suggestions when I think I know what I am talking about, and have fun in the meantime.

The 'mechs really aren't that slow in the TT. Check out the velocity tables in the spoiler - every mech can get up to it's rated full speed in less than 10 seconds. Some of the light mechs are blindingly quick.

Quote

Now nothing said above should be construed as trying to say Pht shouldn't continue his crusade to bring more TT into this game. Loyal opposition is a wonderful thing to have, and only the small minded would think it wasn't useful.

If I can survive the last five pages ... I don't think your post is going to put me off.

Edited by Pht, 21 October 2013 - 05:30 PM.

[Karl Streiger]

Pht, on 21 October 2013 - 05:28 PM, said:

The 'mechs really aren't that slow in the TT. Check out the velocity tables in the spoiler - every mech can get up to it's rated full speed in less than 10 seconds. Some of the light mechs are blindingly quick.

Well some one have noticed it too
A Atlas with 300er rating is able to accelerate from 0 - to x speed and travells 150m in 10 sec.
So acceleration is 3m/s²
That means after those 10seconds it must travell with a speed of 30m/s = 108 kph
Or its acceleration must me much higher for example 16m/s² and 16m/s top speed.

But what i can tell is that the movement rate of TT is just an abstraction. Because a Mech don't moving in TT doesn't mean it is immobile - it is still able to doge incoming fire.

That in mind - a Mech moving with a movement rate of 8 / 12 - and moving 8 BP - what do you know about its movement? Maybe that thing isn't moving straight - but running - accelerating - decelerating -taking a care full aim for a second while moving only with 32 kph and again starting to sprint.

The given top speeds in MWO is just another example - of copy & paste.

Although I'm pretty sure - that given the ability to dish out the damage of TT weapons +/- 50% in a 10 second turn split into 2-10 fire events - could work and will almost meet the hit table TT - or at least when they make pelvis area counting towards the legs instead of the CT. A really good example that this is working - are the 3025events - were Mechs can't fire that often - because heatsinks are based on a 10sec time frame - and when you are in thick fighting - your mech doesn't cool down - so you are hardly able to manage the MLAS of a battleMaster (not with 2 MLAS facing front and 33% more heat)