40 replies to this topic

[Raeven]

Quote

Targeting in the table top game had no group fire, and damage from each weapon was randomly distributed across different areas of the 'Mech. Will you be "rebooting" group fire? PS: Do you like my location?


[GARTH] He says he's on top of the TNT roof with binoculars, I think we should answer that.

[PAUL] I won’t answer squat unless he has a gun.

Okay seriously, the topic of pin-point accuracy/concentrated damage is something we are going to have to watch very carefully. There’s no real reason why lasers shouldn’t be pin-point accurate and ballistic shot munitions shouldn’t do area damage. We could go into numerous physics debates discussing how particles (including energy) disseminate over distance but that is not going to be conclusive to balanced gameplay. As for group fire, there’s nothing really wrong with the model and it provides a means of making a MechWarrior® tactically think about what gets fired and when. Needless to say, gameplay tuning will drive how we approach targeting and concentrated/area damage.

Ok, this is one issue where I'm going to argue for the Table-top Rules over "realism". Those of you who break out in hives at the mention of TT, you have been warned. This is also going to be a long one. Skip to the end for the summary.

All of us who got invovled in the tabletop game learned the rules for building a custom 'Mech by heart. Those rules were designed to prevent any one 'Mech from being able to dominate the game. You simply couldn't make the perfect design that couldn't be made in a dozen different ways. This was done through the balance built into the equipment tables. When the numbers were put on paper, all weapons had advantages and disadvantages. I'm going to discuss the numbers related to the Solaris VII combat rules, as they most directly translate to a Video Game. For the sake of succintness, I am going to focus on the direct fire weapons only.

PPC's are high damage high range weapons. Those benefits were offset by the weight, heat, and the longest reload time. In the case of Inner Sphere PPC's, they also suffer from minimum weapon ranges.

Gauss Rifles are high damage, high range, medium reload, and low heat weapons. The best of the best. These advantages are offest by huge critical spaces, weight, and limited duration because of small ammo loads per ton. While they don't suffer from ammo explosions, the weapon itself causes severe damage to the 'Mech if destroyed by a critical hit.

Lasers decent damage low range and middle reload times. Their short range is offset by weighing little and taking up little critical space. You can mount many more lasers on a 'Mech than any other weapon. This advantage is offset by the heatsinks required to mitigate the heat of each weapon.

Auto Cannons are the middle ground weapons that has been knocked over and kicked in the gut a few times. Each weapon fires with very little heat, does increasingly greater amounts of damage at decreasing ranges. Great weapons, if not for the offsets. All of them suffer from limited Ammo capacities that can rip the 'Mech apart if they go critical from damage OR heat. All of them are heavy and take up large amounts of space compared to their energy counterparts. Thing is, they fire fast. Fast shooting with very little heat.



So, what am I leading up to with all of this? Weapon accuracy. This applies to both Pin Point Accuracy and especially to Cone of Innaccuracy models of targetting. Arguably, by the numbers, Lasers should be less accurate than PPC's, Gauss Rifles, and the longer range AC2 and 5's. Lead times and damage spread will only make certain weapons more usable than others and diminish the weapons that already face high penalties for their use. Autocannons already suffer from limited ammo capacities and severe damage from ammo explosions. PPC's take long enough to reload and suffer high enough heat. You can barely fit one gauss rifle in most 'Mechs, let alone two. Don't make them suffer even more by spreading the damage they do around or making them harder to aim than other weapons.

If you want to put in weapon lead times but leave lasers with PPA, something has to be done to Lasers to mitigate. Maybe a damage over time or area model, so a laser has to burn away armor for a second or two to damage up to its full capacity. In order for all the damage to be in one location, the crosshairs have to be kept on target while the damage is done.

My ideal solution.. Keep the targetting for all weapons the same. No weapons lead or damage spread (missles, LBX, and such excluded from the damage spread model). If targetting is the same for all weapons, it doesn't matter if you use PPA or CoI.

Edited by Paul Inouye, 05 December 2011 - 09:15 PM.
This is not a dev blog but a user poll. Dev Blog 1 is coming soon.

[Raeven]

I meant to say, keep the targetting for all direct fire weapons the same. LRM's, SRM's, Arrow IV, and Artemis Missle Systems are completely different animals.

[Willis Kabrinski]

In most of the canon (this is off memory only so bear with me), lasers DO have to be held on target to cause damage. There's a number of stories etc. explaining that Clan pulse lasers were better only because the lack of a concentrated beam allowed armour already melted to leave the target area (or something along those lines).

And lead time on ballistic weapons adds another layer of skill that should be there.

AC's are the same thing. I think that pinpoint accuracy on ALL weapons would eliminate some of the inherent luck that gets thrown into the mix.

Edited by Willis Kerensky, 30 November 2011 - 02:52 PM.

[CeeKay Boques]

"It's too hard to do" is not a good cop out for making weapon mechanics boring in the game. They'll figure it out. 1 Kind of aiming is exactly the thing that will scare pin point tinfoil hatters, and make CoF the only way to fix it. There have been 20+ page threads on targeting. Shrugging is not a good fix. You are correct though, travel time, heat, tonnage, spread will all be things that will have to be accounted for, it will be difficult to balance weapons. Difficult does not equal impossible.

[Fiachdubh]

Whether or not there is pinpoint targeting there should be nothing random about where they hit. Where a laser\shell\missile hits should be determined by where the weapon was pointing and its flight characteristics, the only question should be to what level of preciseness will we be able to judge where a weapon is aiming.

I don't really care if it is pin point targeting, if all weapons just fire straight ahead when you shoot or if they are zeroed for a certain range like on WW2 fighter planes as long as it is our judgment (or lack thereof) that determines how successfull we are at hitting a mech or a specific part of it not 'oh you hit the mech lets role a dice to see which limb or torso'.
I do agree that pinpoint (for all weapons) would make some mechs overly destructive and it would not be realistic to have a gauss round, an AC shell and laser all hitting the exact same point in one salvo, maybe one of the other options would be better.

Edited by Fiachdubh, 30 November 2011 - 05:52 PM.

[Raeven]

Technoviking, on 30 November 2011 - 04:18 PM, said:

"It's too hard to do" is not a good cop out for making weapon mechanics boring in the game. They'll figure it out. 1 Kind of aiming is exactly the thing that will scare pin point tinfoil hatters, and make CoF the only way to fix it. There have been 20+ page threads on targeting. Shrugging is not a good fix. You are correct though, travel time, heat, tonnage, spread will all be things that will have to be accounted for, it will be difficult to balance weapons. Difficult does not equal impossible.

I hope I didn't come across as wanting to take the easy route. I want to bring this to peoples awareness. Not just the Dev's, but the players too. The game is built around the balance of the equipment tables and 'Mech construction...yes, even after the Clans show up. We've seen how little changes or differences in the mechanics of the game can cause that balance to shift to favor one type of weapon system over another.

I just hope folks (the Dev's in particular) keep that balance in mind when they make changes to the game. You can't mimic the boardgame in every instance. I think I've successfully argued that, while I favor the board rules over any other changes when the board rules fit the engine, I understand and encourages changes where the board rules are fuzzy or contrary to a First Person Simulation.

[MacKenzie Wolf]

Ok, this post is a long one. Bare with me.

In regard to balancing weapons. I like the original TT rules that the OP has covered well. That should be the basis for how developers attempt weapon balancing. Obviously it won't be perfect, but no matter how much effort is put into balancing, players may very well develop a community preference for a few select weapons or combos there off. You can see preferences in many online games now. You can see it in TTBT already. (I don't completely agree with the OP about how the TT weapons are already balanced well.) Community preferences will happen inevitably. What I don't want to see is more lethal weapons made less lethal in the pursuit of balance. I hate playing some so called "fun" online games, for example, where I might drill an opponent in the chest with a trio of .308 rounds without any apparent effect, only to be shot dead a half second later by my target (whom I am logically expecting to at least flinch) and a half dozen shots from their .223. That is not weapon balancing, that is weapon handicapping, and handicapping should remain exclusive to golf. It absolutely destroys my immersion in the experience and makes me stop playing. My reflex skills should not be negated by someone's impression of how to "balance" weapons to aid casual players.

If a game is to truly balance weapons, it should be immersive enough to find other than the obvious tactical ways to do so. MWO has the potential to do that. Weapons, could be expensive, hard to find/procure, difficult to upkeep, hard to get ammo for, etc... In other words give players more reasons to value weapons other than just damage per second, range, heat, weight, etc. If all weapons were balanced in real life, we would have stopped weapon development at our rock throwing stage.

The second topic I wanted to ponder was my thought on basic aiming/targeting, specifically why to logically duplicate the randomness of determining hit locations in TTBT as opposed to previous Mechwarrior titles where multiple weapons could be made to hit a single location in a "group". I won't go into why I think the TTBT creators made it the way it is in TTBT, but instead, why I think it is a fairly accurate approximation of real world weapon fire resultion.

I will start by comparing the imaginary fire control suites of Battletech/Mechwarrior with the actual system of a modern fighting vehicle, the main gun of an M1 tank. Simply described, the main gun of an M1 tank is stabilized by a gyroscope to help its gunner keep the "cross-hairs" on target, so to speak, which is how mech torsos are described as being held upright and stable (most of you are probably aware of these concepts). However, just because the M1's gun is stabilized doesn't mean it is stabilized rigidly enough to place a shot exactly where the gunner places the cross hairs. It is never that simple, especially when external factors effect aim (external factors are, of course, a constant in real life, and always effect aim). So therefore, even the main gun of an M1 has some sort of inherent inaccuracy depending on external factors and the gun's lack of perfect rigidity. So this is where the "cone of fire" comes in. The cone of fire is actually measured in minutes of angle (as in 60 minutes in one degree, out of 360 degrees). Many of you are probably already familiar with this concept as well. We attempt to quantify inherent weapon inaccuracy with the cone of fire, using minutes of angle.

Now imagine the main gun of an M1 and its stabilization gyroscope are removed from the rest of the tank and, in your mind's eye, place it on top of a pair of 4 meter tall legs. Now you essentially have a torso mounted auto cannon like weapon. Undoubtedly the weapon system will posses less rigid stability riding on top of a tall pair of legs than it will on a heavy duty suspension system with a much lower center of gravity (as it did on the tank), thus widening the "cone of fire" and reducing its accuracy (thus helping to simulate randomness in fire resolution).

Now what about arm mounted weapons which are not directly gyro stabilized? They would be subject to even greater accuracy variability from external factors, what with complex joints in the arms being affected by gravity, inertia, momentum, etc... At best, a mech's fire control system would constantly monitor and minutely adjust its ferro-fibrous muscles and its gyro in an attempt to keep its arm mounted weapons trained on where the "cross-hairs" are trained by the mech warrior. This would work much like modern computer controlled flight surfaces on fly-by-wire aircraft. The surfaces are constantly varied in minute amounts to keep unstable, highly maneuverable aircraft seemingly stable to their pilots. Even this sort of assisted fire control will still not completely eliminate weapon instability, so therefore, an additional inherent randomness will always be even more so apparent in fire resolution for arm mounted weapons.

This randomness effect is varied somewhat more if you take into account the amount of physical distance between the weapon positions on a mech and the number of "cross-hairs" that are used in the cockpit to aim multiple weapons. For example, take a mech with a laser in each arm. If these two lasers are "grouped" or linked to the same targeting sub system, and their "aim" is represented in the cockpit by a single "cross-hair," the system would have to compensate for the location of each laser, distance to target, and the instability inherent in each arm of the mech. It would have to depict a somewhat error prone "cross-hair" representing it's best calculation of the approximate single location where both shots will land if both weapons are fired at once. Just because the targeting system's calculation depicts an approximate aiming point doesn't mean resulting shots will land where the "cross-hair" shows they will. But, anyone with any real world shooting experience already knows this. In layman's terms, those out there who actually have tried to "dual wield" firearms in the past have probably gotten fed-up with trying to be accurate.

Yes, I realize this post was probably a boring, overly technical read, but, my point is, due to the inherent instability of the battlemech platform (come on, it's a tank with arms that can potentially fall over) there is no getting around variability in fire resolution. That is why firing weapons in groups should never end with massive amounts of damage done all at once to one location. Based on physics, that concept is ridiculous. If the devs of MWO want to make a realistic and fair targeting system in the game, they need to attempt to introduce some variability into fire resolution.

[shadowsong]

There's been a lot of good points here. However, one of the things not addressed was immersion. Lasers and PPCs, I expect to have them hit nearly instantly. Gauss rifles and Autocannons should have a TEENY bit of lag time, based on the fact that they're firing an actual bloody projectile. I think it's safe to say that bullet drop probably won't be much of a factor as fast as they'll be moving, but that lag time is an important part of what makes me go, "Yes. I'm firing a tank cannon." Eliminating that would push me past the bounds that every other Mechwarrior game has set for me.

And I'll argue FOR group weaponry doing massive damage to an area. We're driving fifty-sixty foot tall giant robots. We've got the technology to do fusion plants, brain interface to allow the mech to use the pilot's sense of balance, and interstellar flight. Balancing the calculations needed to keep a group of widely scattered weapons pointed at the same spot? We can do that today. Things in the torso probably aren't fixed, but mounted in ball turrets that allow them a cone of fire instead of a straight line. And then recessed into armor to keep them from getting damaged by OTHER giant mechs so it's not immediately obvious.

And while saying group fire hits only ONE spot on a mech is indeed silly, keep in mind the zones we're aiming for here. The center torso is probably fifteen-twenty feet wide. Same for the left and right torso parts, You could theoretically have a five-ten foot spread with your fire and still all be within the part of the armor tracked as "center". So you don't have to have pinpoint accuracy, just "decent" accuracy.

[Nik Van Rhijn]

With regard to group fire there are a number of factors. One is the time taken for each weapons aiming mechanism to act and the inherent inaccuracies of each individual system. To focus multiple weapons on the "crosshair" will require repeated adjustments as the target and your mech move. To therefore expect a weapon(s) to fire exactly where the crosshair is is unrealistic. It should be rememberd that the computer systems will also be concerned with moving and maintaining the mech as well. Any discrepancies will be magnified by range and could easily exceed 15-20 feet at 1000 yards. Such estimated (by the computer) inaccuracies could be displayed by either an expanding or contracting ring or increasing/decreasing brightness or both. This is the only indication that you would have of the likelyhood of your shots going where you aimed them as you have no other way of knowing. Traditionally the way of increasing weapon accuracy was the use of dedicated targeting computers linked to groups of weapons and taking up extra weight and space.
Without knowing what all the factors involved are one persons "decent" accuracy may well be "pinpont".

[Raeven]

Ok, do me a favor. Forget realism. These are 'Mechs we are talking about here.

Talk balance and game mechanics instead. We can justify why the game mechanics are the way they are for decades. In the end, it's the balance that matters. I understand there are issues with PPA. Mainly, heading, legging, and the strength if gives to groups of medium lasers. Thing is, I've played all the MW games. The ones with PPA and the ones without it.

PPA made every shot and move a decision. I could place a shot anywhere I wanted, if I wasn't being hit at the time. Coordinated 'Mech movement was crucial to winning. If your entire lance wasn't coming in range at the same time, targetting the designated opponent, the enemy was getting more shots on one of you and taking you out twice as fast. I could decide to juke my 'Mech, just barely turn it right when we come in range. That tiny little move would be enough that my opponent misses, while I get in a solid shot.

What 'Mech you faced was a decision of what you aimed for. If I went up against a Warhammer, it's weak CT was a prime target in 1v1. In team play, we might instead strip it's arms off it's body in one swift concentration of fire by my lancemates. While it tries to run in range of it's medium weapons, we would turn our attention to the next primary target. If I miss a shot and hit another part of the 'Mech.. I then have to calculate whether it's worth it to keep targetting that location or refocus my aim on my original target.

Cones of Accuracy shorten the range game (which isn't a bad thing, per se). It adds a level of decision making that PPA doesn't. Do I slow down or stand still long enough to make this shot count...or do I close the range? It's a dynamic that MW games haven't had before. I wouldn't might trying it out, but I also don't want the cone to try and mimic the penalties to shooting that we faced in the board game. I want it to be MY skill that determines if I hit or not, not some random number generator.

They also change the balance of things. The short range game will dominate. Unlike the board game, you aren't going to have different to hit values for each weapons range. Every weapon will share the same cone of accuracy mechanic, so everything will hit the same at the same ranges. Unless they implement zero point cone shrinkage (stay still long enough you shoot PPA anyway), the short and mid range game will dominate. Hard hitters like the AC20 will dominate over PPC's and Gauss, because the PPC and Gauss will have to be close enough to be accurate that a 'Mech with an AC20 won't have long to close that last little bit of ground to start firing. Things get even worse when you introduce weapon ballistics with a Cone model. That system favors the weapons that have no ballistics, like lasers and PPC's, or locking weapons like LRM and SRMS.

It's all a very fine balancing act. I don't want to see a bunch of players using the same 'Mech because the game mechanics favors that 'Mechs chassis and weapon systems. I want to see them use everything, because everything has something to offer to the playing field (well, almost everything...the ostscout comes to mind.)

[Kudzu]

Raeven, on 03 December 2011 - 01:25 AM, said:

Ok, do me a favor. Forget realism. These are 'Mechs we are talking about here.

A voice of reason? Hide!

Quote

They also change the balance of things. The short range game will dominate. Unlike the board game, you aren't going to have different to hit values for each weapons range. Every weapon will share the same cone of accuracy mechanic, so everything will hit the same at the same ranges. Unless they implement zero point cone shrinkage (stay still long enough you shoot PPA anyway), the short and mid range game will dominate. Hard hitters like the AC20 will dominate over PPC's and Gauss, because the PPC and Gauss will have to be close enough to be accurate that a 'Mech with an AC20 won't have long to close that last little bit of ground to start firing. Things get even worse when you introduce weapon ballistics with a Cone model. That system favors the weapons that have no ballistics, like lasers and PPC's, or locking weapons like LRM and SRMS.

That's not necessarily true, because you're assuming the same cone for every weapon. It's entirely possible to have multiple cones based on each weapons profile and even have them color-coded based on which group you've put them in so that you'll see multiple reticules of different sizes at once.

Using the 3025 Stalker as an example since it has multiple weapons that work at different ranges:


Purple square = LRM's
Blue circle = Large Lasers
Red circle = Medium Lasers
Green square = SRM's

A system like this might be a bit confusing at first, but as you stick with the mech over time it'll become more natural to see it and think "Good shots with my large lasers in blue group one, hold off on the medium lasers in red group two". If someone doesn't like dealing with all the reticules they can either stick with designs that need fewer groups or customize their favorite mech to use similarly ranged weapons.

[Xhaleon]

I'd rather not put the missiles on a cone. Doesn't do anything for a weapon that is supposed to lock on, and the devs are already working on a simulation of the cluster hit table.

Leave COF for MRMs, if we ever get to that point. Also, anybody wanna go find and dig up that ol' Owens-reticule MWLL comparison made by Canis a while ago?

[Phades]

Kudzu, on 03 December 2011 - 01:50 AM, said:

A system like this might be a bit confusing at first, but as you stick with the mech over time it'll become more natural to see it and think "Good shots with my large lasers in blue group one, hold off on the medium lasers in red group two". If someone doesn't like dealing with all the reticules they can either stick with designs that need fewer groups or customize their favorite mech to use similarly ranged weapons.

The problem with doing it that way is that you create an issue with using long range weapons like shotguns firing from the hip, but maintaining maximum accuracy potential to the left eye cockpit pixle instead of CT maybe. Cones of that nature also bias against rapid fire weapons (AC, pulse lasers, machine guns) and overly favor single shot items PPC and Gauss rifle who coincidentally are also your big damage long range sniper items I mentioned as having the earlier problem before.

The best solution will always end up being keep "realistic" mech with hulu girl physics style movement having not absolute convergence of weapons with unique points of origin and shrink the hit areas while creating more of them in order to simulate shot deviation and avoid absolute concentration situations. This will also always end up being the situation that will require the most play testing for a myriad of reasons.

Edited by Phades, 03 December 2011 - 08:57 PM.

[Kudzu]

Phades, on 03 December 2011 - 08:56 PM, said:

The problem with doing it that way is that you create an issue with using long range weapons like shotguns firing from the hip, but maintaining maximum accuracy potential to the left eye cockpit pixle instead of CT maybe. Cones of that nature also bias against rapid fire weapons (AC, pulse lasers, machine guns) and overly favor single shot items PPC and Gauss rifle who coincidentally are also your big damage long range sniper items I mentioned as having the earlier problem before.

I'm not sure how you're getting that at all.


In picture 1, the inner red circle is a long range weapon at short range while standing still. There is still plenty of room to scatter out to any of the three torso locations (at this angle only two, but the idea is the same). The outer red circle is the same weapon at long range while standing still or at medium range while moving.

Picture 2 shows the same red circle representing the long range weapon at short range while standing still and the outer blue circle is a shorter ranged weapon at it's long range.

Picture 3 shows both the long range weapon and the short range weapon at their short ranges. The reticules overlap as they both have the same chance to scatter.

[UncleKulikov]

I hope they mean scattered damage for SRMs, LRMs, and LBX autocannons only. Though if the autocannons are full auto, then it makes more sense.

Easiest way to bring lasers into the fold with the other weapons is have them do damage over time so you have to hold your reticule over the target instead of point and click.

[Phades]

Kudzu, on 03 December 2011 - 09:59 PM, said:

I'm not sure how you're getting that at all.

Oh come now. Think about what you drew then re-read what I said. You picture illustrates my point exactly and you even describe it yourself. Although from the looks of things the only thing you got wrong was that in pic 1 the only things you could feasibly hit would be left torso and left arm (maybe~5% chance) with the long range weapon, while the short range weapon has around a 25% chance to miss roughly. You can't even see right torso or arm inside the reticule for the long range weapon and I'd argue the right torso really isn't visible at all from this angle realistically. You would have to shoot through center torso just to get to it. In pic 3, you are talking about 0-100m range anyhow, so I'd hope you have reasonable accuracy at that range with all weapons.

Basically you are missing the point of how the longer range weapon would be able to dot the I at anything under its short range (which is going to be around max range for the short range weapons), while short range guys would be missing until they are basically melee range with each other. Follow the player bias for weapons to its logical conclusion at that point and you will have your game.

[Kudzu]

Phades, on 03 December 2011 - 11:12 PM, said:

Oh come now. Think about what you drew then re-read what I said. You picture illustrates my point exactly and you even describe it yourself. Although from the looks of things the only thing you got wrong was that in pic 1 the only things you could feasibly hit would be left torso and left arm (maybe~5% chance) with the long range weapon, while the short range weapon has around a 25% chance to miss roughly. You can't even see right torso or arm inside the reticule for the long range weapon and I'd argue the right torso really isn't visible at all from this angle realistically. You would have to shoot through center torso just to get to it. In pic 3, you are talking about 0-100m range anyhow, so I'd hope you have reasonable accuracy at that range with all weapons.

Basically you are missing the point of how the longer range weapon would be able to dot the I at anything under its short range (which is going to be around max range for the short range weapons), while short range guys would be missing until they are basically melee range with each other. Follow the player bias for weapons to its logical conclusion at that point and you will have your game.

Those are also representing you standing completely still at close range with low heat, which should be fairly accurate (but even then you're not completely pinpoint accurate). When you add in movement (or range) you get the outer red circle. If you added in movement and range the circle would be even bigger.

[Tweaks]

I like your view of it all Raeven, and I agree, mostly, with everything you stated. I'm not one of those tho want absolute "realism" based on today's physics and technology. I want a game that is as close as possible to the TT rules and mechanics. As you stated, weapons were thought and balanced based on their battle value, weight, range, RoF, heat output, ammo capacity and the risk of using it (critical hits, ammo explosions).

That is easily portable to the video game model, and should be done that way as much as possible. However, the one thing that can't be transposed to a video game is the dice rolling you have to do to determine if/where a weapon will hit the target. There's no statistic in the TT game for individual weapon accuracy, and the only "aimed shots" you can do requires the enemy 'Mech to be shut down or that its pilot is unconscious (just read that rule in the Master Rules Book, I've never played the TT per say...). That means that in order for weapons to be well balanced in the video game, PGI has to find a way to account for weapon accuracy using their own method.

One thing all 'Mechs have in common is their targeting computer. It allows the pilot to concentrate on where he wants to hit and not have to worry about windage, distance, and enemy 'Mech movement. The computer takes those factors and put the actual targeting reticle where the shot "should" go. For anyone that read the novels, they explain that in several of them, and it's in the tech manuals as well. The targeting computer is not perfect however, and is not pin-point accurate at anything past a few hundred meters. Here's a quote from "Mercenary's Star" from the Gray Death Legion trilogy:

Quote

With most 'Mech tracking units being centuries old and all cobbled together from other, even older units, they were not up to pinpoint accuracy across more than a few hundred meters.

That means there has to be some form of cone of fire to account for this inaccuracy. Some weapons also do, by nature, area damage (either in heat radiation or explosive damage), and that too, should be taken into account. I particularly like your idea of having lasers do damage over time, which is actually how they worked in the novels. I welcome this idea.

Edited by Tweaks, 04 December 2011 - 06:24 AM.

[Pht]

Raeven, on 30 November 2011 - 11:00 AM, said:

So, what am I leading up to with all of this? Weapon accuracy. This applies to both Pin Point Accuracy and especially to Cone of Innaccuracy models of targetting. Arguably, by the numbers, Lasers should be less accurate than PPC's, Gauss Rifles, and the longer range AC2 and 5's.

Wait, do you mean the weapons themselves, in "bench" format? Or do you mean how well the 'Mechs handle those weapons?

Weapons that are more or less accurate have a + or - modifier directly attached, like heavy lasers (+) and pulse lasers (-).

Quote

If you want to put in weapon lead times but leave lasers with PPA, something has to be done to Lasers to mitigate. Maybe a damage over time or area model, so a laser has to burn away armor for a second or two to damage up to its full capacity. In order for all the damage to be in one location, the crosshairs have to be kept on target while the damage is done.

To some extent, the 'Mech handles "lead" in order to get it's disparate weapons to hit what's being aimed at - an elite or great pilot knows when his 'Mech can't get it right and will help in those situations...

Lasers - they shouldn't be "sticky" instant damage instant hit.

They require an "on" time to do their rated damage; they can't put out all their damage in an instant burst. This is why pulse lasers are more accurate - shorter "on" times.


Speaking of pin point and cones, have you seen this thread?

[Phades]

Kudzu, on 03 December 2011 - 11:20 PM, said:

Those are also representing you standing completely still at close range with low heat, which should be fairly accurate (but even then you're not completely pinpoint accurate). When you add in movement (or range) you get the outer red circle. If you added in movement and range the circle would be even bigger.

But ,why precisely would you want a game where all combat only occurs between 0-100m between 2 stationary targets and all other shooting occurring with extreme long range weapons by stationary shooters behind cover with the tip of their gun pointing out?

Punching and kicking would quickly become more reliable sources of damage.