40 replies to this topic

[zverofaust]

Part of the "fun" is in the fact that many Mechs have a variety of different weapons with different ballistic properties and behaviour characteristics that the pilot must take into account. I'd like to see all weapons be more or less pin-point accurate, with different projectile times and reaction to gravity, with a slight sluggishness to actual pilot controls, but very, very little (or non-existent) deviation. No "target reticle" that expands and contracts based on your movement and/or tracking speed or any of that garbage -- that's not how weapons work. Many games are able to do more accurate representation of aiming, which is not only more realistic but provides a substantially more responsive, consistent game. Dice rolls suck, quite plainly. Come up with better ways to make aiming a little challenging besides arbitrarily adding deviation modifiers in coding. I hate to bring it up but MWLL does this near perfectly. Almost every weapon is pin-point accurate and will hit wherever your target reticle is on but subtle effects like torso turning sluggishness, a slight sway while moving and being jolted when hit with enemy weapons, and the fact that most Mechs have weapons with different behaviours and projectile speeds, make it a bit of a challenge to consistently aim well even when all your weapons are super-accurate.

[Kudzu]

Phades, on 04 December 2011 - 12:42 PM, said:

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.

I don't think you've quite thought this through all the way, or you've missed a couple of points.

Under the CoF system, roles become very important.

Recons job is using their maneuverability finding the sniping mech so that the command mechs can call in arty strikes to flush them out (not so much fun to stand perfectly still when you have high explosives raining down on you!). Sniping at long range isn't as accurate as it is under the old systems, so it becomes a lot harder to put down a mech with just one volley, meaning a good sniper mech pilot will be using a move/stop/shoot/move system rather than the old hide/perfect alpha strike at max range/free kill system.

You could have mechs standing still at 100 meters and blasting each other, but it still turns into a slugging match with no guaranteed winner and even if you do come out on top you're damaged. With that in mind, teamwork and focused firing becomes a lot more attractive-- if a whole lance is moving (making each of them harder targets) and firing at the same target (weight of fire overcoming the misses generated) it becomes suicide to stand still for long.

Combat lasts longer, teamwork is rewarded, playing your role well becomes vital, and the overall game play experience is improved.

[MacKenzie Wolf]

Kudzu, on 04 December 2011 - 01:57 PM, said:

I don't think you've quite thought this through all the way, or you've missed a couple of points.

Under the CoF system, roles become very important.

Recons job is using their maneuverability finding the sniping mech so that the command mechs can call in arty strikes to flush them out (not so much fun to stand perfectly still when you have high explosives raining down on you!). Sniping at long range isn't as accurate as it is under the old systems, so it becomes a lot harder to put down a mech with just one volley, meaning a good sniper mech pilot will be using a move/stop/shoot/move system rather than the old hide/perfect alpha strike at max range/free kill system.

You could have mechs standing still at 100 meters and blasting each other, but it still turns into a slugging match with no guaranteed winner and even if you do come out on top you're damaged. With that in mind, teamwork and focused firing becomes a lot more attractive-- if a whole lance is moving (making each of them harder targets) and firing at the same target (weight of fire overcoming the misses generated) it becomes suicide to stand still for long.

Combat lasts longer, teamwork is rewarded, playing your role well becomes vital, and the overall game play experience is improved.

And this is exactly how TTBT works

[Phades]

Kudzu, on 04 December 2011 - 01:57 PM, said:

I don't think you've quite thought this through all the way, or you've missed a couple of points.

Actually I am pretty sure I know cause and effect here perfectly well.

How is your recon going to tag a target, that he can't tag due to inaccuracy at anything other than point blank range? How is the artillery actually going to hit anything with intervening buildings (remember that bit about cover I mentioned earlier)? Also, how is the artillery going to be more accurate than smaller direct fire weapons? Indirect artillery is less accurate always by comparison.

There is no "sniping" at long range given the parameters you are defining, unless you just like to heat up the mech and miss more shots, since not only is the target smaller, the cone is also arbitrarily bigger. Also by consequence, shooting at smaller targets becomes exponentially harder as well. Good luck trying to hit an elemental a year down the road (by comparison the the urbie, it would be a skiddish flying pixel on your screen).

As far as your teamwork bit and focused fire, exactly how many mechs side by side are you going to fit down a street anyhow? You also completed missed how the biggest machine with the most armor will always win in this scenario. You also entirely discredited the fact that the longer ranged weapon will have the luxury of targeting sections and accurately hitting them since the target is also big, while the shorter ranged weapons will never have that luxury unless they are at the melee range I was describing earlier. So instead of "on noes, he has 6 medium lasers and I only know how other games did it wrong what ever will i do?", it will be oh hi they all have PPC, Gauss, or large lasers now and they achieve the same thing while all other weapons are rendered ineffective until they get spitting distance. Not sure what your idea of fun is, but mine doesn't involve only seeing 3-4 weapons systems represented out of 40 or so weapons. It wouldn't be much different from the table top on the first turn always jettisoning Mgun ammo or other low caliber ammo systems in order to avoid the liability they represent.

The game isn't on paper anymore, it can be represented far better.

[Kudzu]

Phades, on 04 December 2011 - 07:21 PM, said:

How is your recon going to tag a target, that he can't tag due to inaccuracy at anything other than point blank range?

Gee, how about using speed and maneuverability to get in close? You know, the hallmarks of smaller mechs.

And who says you have to TAG a target to be an effective scout? One of the best uses for a scout mech is to just find an enemy so the rest of the lance knows to not walk into its kill zone. "I just detected a pair of heavies waiting to ambush you down the western street, circle around and hit them from the other direction". "Don't go down the center canyon, they're waiting for you".

Quote

How is the artillery actually going to hit anything with intervening buildings (remember that bit about cover I mentioned earlier)? Also, how is the artillery going to be more accurate than smaller direct fire weapons? Indirect artillery is less accurate always by comparison.

Until we found out more beyond "command mechs can call in off-board artillery and air strikes" this particular debate could go either way. You forgot to mention the part about if they're hiding behind arty-proof cover what exactly is it they can see to shoot anyway? "Hahaha, the arty can't get me behind this building, but I can't see them to shoot at them either because the building is in the way".

Quote

There is no "sniping" at long range given the parameters you are defining, unless you just like to heat up the mech and miss more shots, since not only is the target smaller, the cone is also arbitrarily bigger. Also by consequence, shooting at smaller targets becomes exponentially harder as well. Good luck trying to hit an elemental a year down the road (by comparison the the urbie, it would be a skiddish flying pixel on your screen).

If only there was a zoom feature... And how is being harder to hit when you're a small target a bad thing? If nothing else it swings the smaller units back into the realm of "somewhat competitive and useful" instead of "LOL, why didn't you bring an assault mech?".

Quote

As far as your teamwork bit and focused fire, exactly how many mechs side by side are you going to fit down a street anyhow? You also completed missed how the biggest machine with the most armor will always win in this scenario.

What, you mean you'll need to use good tactics and terrain advantages in order to win? How awful!

We haven't seen any maps yet so we have no idea how wide the streets are, but unless the cities are nothing but chokepoints and alleys it'll work out just fine. As far as bigger with more armor always winning, you couldn't be more wrong. You'll find all that armor disappears really quick and that it's hard to accurately shoot when you have multiple people beating down on you, especially if they're working together.

Quote

You also entirely discredited the fact that the longer ranged weapon will have the luxury of targeting sections and accurately hitting them since the target is also big, while the shorter ranged weapons will never have that luxury unless they are at the melee range I was describing earlier.

Earlier you said "there will be no sniping and you can't hit anything at range". Make up your mind, which is it?

Quote

So instead of "on noes, he has 6 medium lasers and I only know how other games did it wrong what ever will i do?", it will be oh hi they all have PPC, Gauss, or large lasers now and they achieve the same thing while all other weapons are rendered ineffective until they get spitting distance.

It's almost as if mechs with long ranged weapons will want to find places with clear lines of fire and that mechs with short ranged weapons will want to use cover to get in close. Hrm, I wonder if that's intentional.

Quote

Not sure what your idea of fun is, but mine doesn't involve only seeing 3-4 weapons systems represented out of 40 or so weapons. It wouldn't be much different from the table top on the first turn always jettisoning Mgun ammo or other low caliber ammo systems in order to avoid the liability they represent.

Except for the fact that this system encourages you to have weapons with different range profiles and lances that have a good mix of long range weapons, close range weapons, scouting, and command features so that you are more adaptable to changing situations.

Quote

The game isn't on paper anymore, it can be represented far better.

So your idea of representing the game better is to make it completely different from the game it's supposed to be representing?

[Raeven]

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

A voice of reason? Hide!

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.

Just curious, but how do you know that? I have no idea how having 8 different sets of cones for multiple weapon types would affect lag or the speed of the game CPU wise. It's simply never been done before in a FPS (or if it has, I've not been introduced to the game).

Now, having said that...I like the idea of Cones of Fire. It would go a long way towards keeping the balance of Battletech when using Alpha strikes or Target Interlock Circuits (TIC's). Thing is, I do not want them mimicing the board games to hit percentages on a 1-to-1 basis.

My idea of a cone of fire is, If I aim center mass at you with a AC/2 from 720 meters away, I ought to hit you 90% of the time. I might not be able to snipe specific locations on your 'Mech, but I should hit. My cone would be slightly smaller than the outer cone on your #1 pic with the urbanmech.

Also, the cone would not change base on my movement or my opponents movement. I already have to compensate for my 'Mechs movement when I walk/run/jump with my controls and I have to track my opponent when he's moving around. I don't need the computer expanding the circle on me just because of my own movement or because a Locust is running straight at me at 80 mph. Maybe a slight expansion from taking fire, but I think you could easily compensate for that with reticle shake.

[Raeven]

zverofaust, on 04 December 2011 - 01:49 PM, said:

Part of the "fun" is in the fact that many Mechs have a variety of different weapons with different ballistic properties and behaviour characteristics that the pilot must take into account. I'd like to see all weapons be more or less pin-point accurate, with different projectile times and reaction to gravity, with a slight sluggishness to actual pilot controls, but very, very little (or non-existent) deviation.

Something else that goes along with the idea of individual ballistics models for each weapon. When the Lasers have to be held on target for a second, AC's and Gauss have a slight (but different) lag time, PPC's become top dog again, and maybe AC's are constant fire and do damage over time...that's going to affect alpha strikes and TIC's. You won't be able to shoot all these weapons at the same time and expect them to hit the same place.

I'm fully with you that I want as much control over my shot placement as I can get. If weapons have different ballistic profiles, all the better...so long as the balance remains.

[Kudzu]

Raeven, on 04 December 2011 - 11:10 PM, said:

Just curious, but how do you know that? I have no idea how having 8 different sets of cones for multiple weapon types would affect lag or the speed of the game CPU wise. It's simply never been done before in a FPS (or if it has, I've not been introduced to the game).

It would be pretty hard to get that many rings out at once as many weapons share the same range brackets. (Small lasers, mg's, and flamers share one, medium lasers, AC/20's, and SRMs share another, etc).

Quote

Now, having said that...I like the idea of Cones of Fire. It would go a long way towards keeping the balance of Battletech when using Alpha strikes or Target Interlock Circuits (TIC's). Thing is, I do not want them mimicing the board games to hit percentages on a 1-to-1 basis.

My idea of a cone of fire is, If I aim center mass at you with a AC/2 from 720 meters away, I ought to hit you 90% of the time. I might not be able to snipe specific locations on your 'Mech, but I should hit. My cone would be slightly smaller than the outer cone on your #1 pic with the urbanmech.

It wouldn't be a 1-1 TT hit percentage, but the plan is to mimic the idea behind why those hit percentages are in place. The cones themselves can also be adjusted to be center-weighted. Typically when CoF is used a shot has an equal chance to land anywhere within the cone, but you can adjust the likelihood of where they go to so that you get a cone-within-a-cone effect (basically your shots have a better chance to land towards the center of the cone rather than the outside edges.)

As far as the picture goes, I whipped it up in MS paint in about 3 minutes just to give a visual idea of what I'm talking about. There would need to be a lot of play testing and adjustment so that it feels right and is balanced.

Quote

Also, the cone would not change base on my movement or my opponents movement. I already have to compensate for my 'Mechs movement when I walk/run/jump with my controls and I have to track my opponent when he's moving around. I don't need the computer expanding the circle on me just because of my own movement or because a Locust is running straight at me at 80 mph. Maybe a slight expansion from taking fire, but I think you could easily compensate for that with reticle shake.

The cone would need to expand based on your movement, but it would be a gradual effect fully under your control. Standing still would be the baseline, and as you go up in speed the cone expands. So slightly bigger at 10% speed, noticeably bigger (but not huge) at 60% speed and once you hit run speeds (70%+) it starts getting really big by comparison. (This is actually a more in-depth take on the walk/run modifiers from the TT). Jumping would expand it the most, and your heat levels would also effect it. (The biggest cone would be jumping while redlining your heat).

Your targets movement you not expand it, nor would intervening cover (but what the cone does mean is that if you are in the woods there's a much better chance of a tree catching a shot than under the old systems).

[CeeKay Boques]

YO Dawg, I heard you like Cone of fire, so we put a cone of fire in your Cone of fire so you can Cone of fire while you Cone of fire!

[MaddMaxx]

The movement penalty does not have to be permanent. From 0-max (whatever that is) could be broken down into segments. As the Mech speed increase the Cone grows until the same speed is maintained for 2-3 seconds then he cone relaxes as the Mech settlers into its new Gait/Speed. Increases in Throttle or Throttle downs, invokes the same effect.

Once any Speed is reached and maintained the Cone relaxes back to some preset % of the standing still min. size. Once the Mechs Gait has been established, balance is easier to maintain and so should the aiming game.

Any Cone would change only during Acceleration and or De-acceleration or extreme maneuvering, but when in a maintained/stable state, be it at rest or moving at a steady constant, the cone relaxes accordingly.

Edited by MaddMaxx, 05 December 2011 - 12:40 PM.

[Xhaleon]

Technoviking, on 05 December 2011 - 11:37 AM, said:

YO Dawg, I heard you like Cone of fire, so we put a cone of fire in your Cone of fire so you can Cone of fire while you Cone of fire!

One blue circle and one red circle too difficult for you?

[Yeach]

Ultimately I want to have MWO a fun game.
All this talk about movement making aim so much harder while moving moving worries me.
If a stationary mech or slow-moving mech can have a much-more accurate bead on a moving target, what is the point of moving.

It could end up being a game of camping.
I do want the game to end up being turret-warrior

[Kudzu]

Yeach, on 05 December 2011 - 06:54 PM, said:

Ultimately I want to have MWO a fun game.
All this talk about movement making aim so much harder while moving moving worries me.
If a stationary mech or slow-moving mech can have a much-more accurate bead on a moving target, what is the point of moving.

It could end up being a game of camping.
I do want the game to end up being turret-warrior

Keep in mind that sitting stationary makes you an easy target in return.

[Yeach]

Kudzu, on 05 December 2011 - 07:45 PM, said:

Keep in mind that sitting stationary makes you an easy target in return.

I know.
I'm just saying relatively.

That hitting a stationary mech should be much easier to hit in the moving mech than said stationary mech hitting the moving mech.

[AlfalphaCat]

Why is this titled Dev Blog 1? Are you a dev or are you just trying to get your thread noticed? I am sick of trying to sift through all the pointless hypothetical rant threads on these forums, and some random dude gets all cheeky with this crap.

All your opinions, speculations, ideas, and thoughts on MWO are moot, until we know anything about this game. So far it's just snippets and teasers, we don't need poser threads as well.

Give your thread a new title.

[Kudzu]

AlfalphaCat, on 05 December 2011 - 08:04 PM, said:

Why is this titled Dev Blog 1? Are you a dev or are you just trying to get your thread noticed? I am sick of trying to sift through all the pointless hypothetical rant threads on these forums, and some random dude gets all cheeky with this crap.

All your opinions, speculations, ideas, and thoughts on MWO are moot, until we know anything about this game. So far it's just snippets and teasers, we don't need poser threads as well.

Give your thread a new title.

If you don't like "pointless hypothetical rant threads" and think that "opinions, speculations, ideas, and thoughts on MWO are moot" why in the world are you reading the suggestion forums? I don't care for recruiting, fan fiction, or fan art... so I don't go into those sections. Problem solved.

The issue here is your inability to understand the different sections of the forum.

[Raeven]

It was called Dev Blog 1 because I was responding directly to and quoting from the Developers Blog 1. If you had bothered to read the first quotes, you might have picked up on that.

Edit to add - I was mistaken calling it Dev Blog. The quotes were taken from Q&A 1. My mistake on that.

Edited by Raeven, 06 December 2011 - 04:39 AM.

[Haeso]

Raeven, on 04 December 2011 - 11:10 PM, said:

Just curious, but how do you know that? I have no idea how having 8 different sets of cones for multiple weapon types would affect lag or the speed of the game CPU wise. It's simply never been done before in a FPS (or if it has, I've not been introduced to the game).

It's quite simple, no big impact on performance or anything. You have one cone where you're aiming for every weapon, you can have weapons separated by increments of 100~ and a different color and/or opacity. Say brighter colors for longer range, darker colors for shorter range. Given that we have weapon groups confirmed, one assumes you'd only have one or two different range weapons in the same group, and they'd most likely be the same range, unless it's a short range weapon group where long range weapons would obviously be included since unlike the reverse, they can't not hit at that range.

[VYCanis]

I'd much rather have the approach of having weapons that actually behave like weapons, then have their values made to fit the game balance. Then trying to turn a set of RPG values into a weapon.

Give me an AC5 that fires like a futuristic analogue to a bradley's Bushmaster cannon or the M230 chaingun on an apache.but balanced vs its bigger and smaller cousins, with the focus on feeling right

Don't give me, "oh the AC5 has to fire exactly like such and such because if you extrapolate its TT accuracy and damage values it has to this way and that, and if it looks weird or awkward too bad."

Approach 1 gives you a believable weapon with personality, approach 2 is far less likely to.

I highly recommend people play MWLL and drive AC using units a bit. Their ACs have almost nothing in common with their TT stats, but damn do they feel like ACs should. When you unleash quad ac5s from a "partyvan" downrange, the look, the feel, the handling is so satisfying. You're not thinking oh i'm only doing blah blah amount of damage per 10 seconds with x amount of accuracy. You're thinking EAT MY WALL OF DAKKA DIE DIE DIE as you strafe your fire across their mechs and try to lead them as they try to break away into a run.

Edited by VYCanis, 06 December 2011 - 09:45 AM.

[cipher]

Your poll doesn't make any sense. It's not a yes or no question...

"I simply want to know if people agree or disagree with my point of view."

Should just be "Do you agree with the ideas in the OP?".