81 replies to this topic

[nehebkau]

I hate that mechanic with a passion. Why? Lets say I have a damaged right torso, so I twist to protect it and some sausage gets a glancing blow off my CT ... guess what that exposed torso will get damage even if there is no LOS between the projectile and the damaged component.

Been killed a few times because of the inelegant (A nice way of saying quick and dirty) way PGI implemented it.

[Tahribator]

Yeah it nerfs twisting, hard. I don't think it's the way to go, it's pretty much cone of fire reversed.

[Kjudoon]

Agent1190, on 08 November 2015 - 09:00 AM, said:

"Because if a human can't do it, then a giant machine 1000 years in the future can't do it either."

Well done.

How many tons is a targetting computer in MWO? Now, how big is an iPhone that can do it?

That's right, you're dealing with 'historical science fiction'. That means just like Sci Fi from the 1920s and '50's can be seen as silly, there are things about this that can as well.

Let's stop cherry picking when we want realism and when we don't. Even the game wasn't designed with the idea of precision targeting in mind. We want more simulation, not less.

[HollowBassman]

Nightmare1, on 08 November 2015 - 07:41 AM, said:

I've been saying for close to a year now that PGI should just timeskip and then implement reactive and reflective armors. That would help fix all kinds of problems without breaking hit reg further, much less the aiming mechanics which are one of the few things that work well in this game.

Timeskip could also fix many balance problems in the game.

I don't know why PGI is so fixated on redoing the Battle of Tukayyid. Anyone who would likely appreciate the lore and story behind it was probably here for the first one and I doubt many/any new Steam players are going to know or care about it enough to justify the balance problems the game is facing. Even worse is that if they balance the game as it is now, they will have to completely re-balance when the timeline reaches those new technologies.

[wanderer]

Nightmare1, on 08 November 2015 - 07:41 AM, said:

I've been saying for close to a year now that PGI should just timeskip and then implement reactive and reflective armors. That would help fix all kinds of problems without breaking hit reg further, much less the aiming mechanics which are one of the few things that work well in this game.

All that does is render a specific type of weapon less effective.

You're still getting laservomited one way and dakkablasted the other. The problem was, is, and will continue to be perfect, instant convergence of all weapons to a single pixel while firing on "iron sights", as Joe Deathstar isn't worried about silly things like sensor locks. Might have something about that in my sig or somesuch.

[Aresye]

Hotthedd, on 08 November 2015 - 08:47 AM, said:

A Cone of fire isn't random, it is a probability simulator, and realistic. What is unrealistic is expecting pinpoint precision while firing multiple weapons, while moving, and/or while your machine is overheating.

Any CoF system designed for a game is going to be based on randomness. If you want to argue realism, it's actually unrealistic to think a mech could NOT compensate for such simple variables. Ever hear of the CIWS system on navy ships? Doesn't matter how violent the seas are, or what maneuvers the ship is making. The CIWS can calculate, track, lead, and shoot down targets the size of a cardboard box at 4500 rounds/min with 20mm ammunition. The system is scary accurate. One of my coworkers was on a flight where the helicopter's IFF transponder went down, and they had a friendly CIWS that looked like it was spazzing out, later confirmed to be that it was actually tracking each individual rotor blade as they spun around (Source: MH-60S rescue swimmer/crew chief for 9 years).

Hotthedd, on 08 November 2015 - 08:47 AM, said:

As far as 2015 war machines go, they are either only firing one weapon at a time, or they are using guided munitions.

Sounds like somebody's never read anything other than Wikipedia. Pro-tip: Most information on modern war machines tracking and engagement specifications are not available to the public.

Hotthedd, on 08 November 2015 - 08:47 AM, said:

And I always have to laugh at the "aiming skillz" crowd. You are dragging a mouse and clicking a button, you are not aiming. You are not even simulating aiming. Go out to a gun range sometime. Deal with recoil, ballistics drop, try to empty an entire clip from a fully automatic weapon into one target.
Hell, use a laser pointer instead, it takes a second to light up that bullseye. Now grab 6 laser pointers and do it. Then do it while running and jumping. Let me know when you are able to get all 6 on target instantly. Until then, don't brag about your aiming skillz.

If the vast majority of players could actually aim well, you might have a point. As it stands there's only a few dozen players or so that I actually worry about.

Btw, it's called a, "magazine." The very fact you called it a clip tells me all I need to know about your experience at the range.

[wanderer]

Kjudoon, on 08 November 2015 - 09:16 AM, said:

How many tons is a targetting computer in MWO? Now, how big is an iPhone that can do it?

People often think that the entire tonnage/critspace of a targeting computer is just...a computer.

It isn't. It involves upgrades to the entire weapon system- improved actuation and other control surfaces, etc. etc. The mechanical bits of the resulting superior system are where much of the weight shows up vs. what would otherwise be one frickin' huge mainframe stuffed in your 'Mechs torso.

That's why TC's in tabletop have weight and critspace based on the total weight of all weapon systems vs. ,say the number of weapons networked into it.

Quote

That's right, you're dealing with 'historical science fiction'. That means just like Sci Fi from the 1920s and '50's can be seen as silly, there are things about this that can as well.

While there's super silly, this isn't THAT silly. MWO didn't clue in on how and why TC's function in tabletop, which is why we can strap a one-ton "TC" in and have it upgrade dozens of tons of weaponry.

[Imperius]

JigglyMoobs, on 08 November 2015 - 03:07 AM, said:

IE: send a % of damage points to neighboring components.

In the case of the clan ER PPC, 10 pts go to the component hit and 5 go to the neighbors.

For laser, one could do something like 33% of damage goes to neighboring components.

Therefore, a Timberwolf laser vomit would cap out at ~40 pts pin point plus 20 pt to neighboring components.

This seems a doable change given that they've already implemented it for ER PPC.

Also, it seems less random than most cone of fire schemes.

Please stop talking about pin point being the issue. If it's so bad how about we just take all the armor points and merge them then take all the internal health merge that. Remove all the hit boxes and put one giant hit box on each mech. Chip away at the shared armor pool followed by the shared internals and stackpolling port it to Xbox one and call it Mechassault online!

Sound good?!?

***HEAVY SARCASM***
They should lock every stupid anti-convergence thread!

[Hotthedd]

Aresye Kerensky, on 08 November 2015 - 09:57 AM, said:

Any CoF system designed for a game is going to be based on randomness. If you want to argue realism, it's actually unrealistic to think a mech could NOT compensate for such simple variables. Ever hear of the CIWS system on navy ships? Doesn't matter how violent the seas are, or what maneuvers the ship is making. The CIWS can calculate, track, lead, and shoot down targets the size of a cardboard box at 4500 rounds/min with 20mm ammunition. The system is scary accurate. One of my coworkers was on a flight where the helicopter's IFF transponder went down, and they had a friendly CIWS that looked like it was spazzing out, later confirmed to be that it was actually tracking each individual rotor blade as they spun around (Source: MH-60S rescue swimmer/crew chief for 9 years).


Sounds like somebody's never read anything other than Wikipedia. Pro-tip: Most information on modern war machines tracking and engagement specifications are not available to the public.

Again, this is the BattleTech universe we are talking about, not a our 2015 technology evolved. It is extremely realistic to believe that a war machine that has seen very few upgrades in the last 300 years, expects unreliable repairs, and has had extensive damage would perform factory fresh. Even if it DID possess the technology, which it doesn't. Regardless of the fact that the technology would exist today.

Aresye Kerensky, on 08 November 2015 - 09:57 AM, said:

If the vast majority of players could actually aim well, you might have a point. As it stands there's only a few dozen players or so that I actually worry about.

Btw, it's called a, "magazine." The very fact you called it a clip tells me all I need to know about your experience at the range.

The vast majority of players (all of them) do not aim at all in this game. They point-n-click. These are different skill sets.

You have never heard a magazine referred to as a clip? Really? Where I am from (Louisiana) we use the term clip all of the time. Magazine is usually reserved for bigger weapons, but maybe it is because saying "I'm going to shoot a clip" is easier than saying "I'm going to shoot a Magazine". If you're ever in the area, we can go to the range together, I'll treat. Just don't ridicule anybody who says "clip".

[CaptainScumBa11s]

Anyone who's read any BT knows mechs had lock on times for convergence. The mythical gold lock. And they only thing advanced to the point of being magical about mechs was the armor and muscles. Hell even the lasers are nothing how realistic lasers are. The point is this is a Sci FI game that's made too feel clunky that's what makes it MechWarrior and not gundam.

[Simbacca]

Mister Blastman, on 08 November 2015 - 08:26 AM, said:

I think one solution they need to consider to fix alpha striking is capacitor/power loop limits. I've said this once and will say it again...

Alpha Strike...

a. Risk of capacitor overload -> random weapons overload and short out and disabled for some time
b. and/or Significantly slower re-charge after alpha strike due to power loop insufficiency
c. and/or instrument brownouts and 'mech slowdown
d. and/or power harness failure -> capacitor output reduced permanently for rest of drop

Alpha striking should be risky. Firing six to eight lasers at one time (if they are medium or large) should tax your system and there should be penalties for it.

Different weapons should have different power demands to balance them. And likewise, to prevent autocannons from getting out of hand due to their lower draw, other weapons like flamers and ppcs should have the ability to randomly cook off ammo due to "hotspotting" so it is a risk to go ultra dakka.

This game needs creative thinking to make logical balance solutions. It doesn't need to be convoluted--it just needs to make sense.

I think coding wise this is probably the simplest solution to implement. After all there is the Gauss Rifle firing limitation (two of them) and Ghost Heat. Though for the greatest simplicity, any alpha strike has a 50% chance to shut down the mech for 2 or so seconds before it can power back up. This assumes a player does not hit the heat cap. If they exceed the heat cap by a certain margin (aka the DireStar) then there is a high chance of the mech exploding on its first and only alpha strike. Thus there is definitely a significant risk for the player.

This solution uses existing game code so it should be relatively easy to implement.

Edited by Simbacca, 08 November 2015 - 10:50 AM.

[Tarl Cabot]

recsa, on 08 November 2015 - 04:29 AM, said:

Ok think i understand it now, basically PGI relayed on player skill the aiming while the tabletop BT i guess uses a random generated result from a table roll (which is the usual method for tabletop games to simulate aiming skill with modifiers on that table).

So in the end the convergence claim its either a way to increase TTK (which imho is a bit too low) or the old Skilled vs non-Skilled player dispute, or both of them.

Wouldnt the inclusion of reflective armor help increase the TTK while adding a new lore step?

Hotthedd, on 08 November 2015 - 09:08 AM, said:

In the BT universe, Battlemechs are not the precision machines you seem to think they are. And even so, it is the PILOT (human) that aims, not the Battlemech. And I love the idea that gimbals would efficiently move one fifth of a vehicles' weight with ease and no negative effects on aim.

However, it was more of a rant against people who brag about their aiming skills when they wouldn't know the difference between gunpowder residue and cheeto dust.

In BT, humans put the crosshairs over the target and attempts to keep it there while the battlecomputer attempts to converge the weapons selected TIC (target interlock circuit) on target, which both are likely moving at different speeds, the pilot waits for the "TONE" to pull the trigger(s). Not all the weapons will necessarily hit, even rarer for those weapons to hit the same component. But then the damage components were setup for that in mind.

Now for the boardgame, there are modifiers to determine how difficult the hit will be, then once a hit is determined, which location is hit. The modifiers that increase the difficulty is distance to target, the location of heat on the heat scale, the speed of the mech firing (stationary, walking, running and jumping), the distance the target mech has traveled (convert to speed) and,, hmm, there may be a few other modifiers, but ya get the gist of it.

Converting BT from a board game to a 3D, live action environment is not even remotely possible while keeping any sort of order or balance. The previous MW/MPBT games all had different issues, and while FASA early on introduced Solaris that broke up the 10 second rounds into 2.5 second rounds, even it had issues, where Machine Guns were the most dangerous weapons due to no heat and zero cooldown.

And all previous games had issues, and was even more pronounce when Clan tech was introduced. Just a reminder that when Clans were introduced to the board game, the initial round of testing had them in Star League era mech/techs, and with their fighting style, could not make any inways into the IS vs 3025 mechs. Consider the current IS customized mechs as being Star League vs stock 3025 mechs..... Board game and leagues could play a per lore, 5-7 Clan mechs vs 12 IS mechs, and for the later MW4/Mercs there were the Microsoft Gaming Zone then later Mektek. All mechs were customized with Clan tech. And even though MW4Mercs was primarily a PVE setting, for PVP the weapon placement was pretty mellow when compared to MWO weapon placements, where most humanoid (primarily IS) mechs weapon placement are on the lower torso with low slung arms that can not be raised up, allowing it to fire above an object.

(shrugs) There will be those with rose colored glasses who want "lore" in a PC, FPS where a boardgame used dice, even though upon entering a new era content was added that unbalanced the game, to those who are remembering only the good times on the MW series, to those who may have a vision on what could be changed to make the game better for both sides.

Dang if we do, dang if we don't.

[Aresye]

Hotthedd, on 08 November 2015 - 10:29 AM, said:

Again, this is the BattleTech universe we are talking about, not a our 2015 technology evolved. It is extremely realistic to believe that a war machine that has seen very few upgrades in the last 300 years, expects unreliable repairs, and has had extensive damage would perform factory fresh. Even if it DID possess the technology, which it doesn't. Regardless of the fact that the technology would exist today.

I must have misinterpreted the context of your reply. You said, "What is unrealistic is expecting pinpoint precision while firing multiple weapons, while moving, and/or while your machine is overheating." I'll assume you were trying to say, "Unrealistic for BattleTech," since you seem to agree with me that it is realistic to today's modern war machines, but doesn't align with BT lore. Got it, moving on...

Hotthedd, on 08 November 2015 - 10:29 AM, said:

The vast majority of players (all of them) do not aim at all in this game. They point-n-click. These are different skill sets.

What exactly is your definition of "aim" then? Does it depend if a player uses a mouse, joystick, or controller? because all of those are still point and click mechanisms. Every FPS is point and click, regardless if there's CoF, bullet drop, etc. The fact of the matter is some players can point and click better than other players, and this point and click mechanism has been referred to as "aim" pretty much since FPS games have existed.

Hotthedd, on 08 November 2015 - 10:29 AM, said:

You have never heard a magazine referred to as a clip? Really? Where I am from (Louisiana) we use the term clip all of the time. Magazine is usually reserved for bigger weapons, but maybe it is because saying "I'm going to shoot a clip" is easier than saying "I'm going to shoot a Magazine". If you're ever in the area, we can go to the range together, I'll treat. Just don't ridicule anybody who says "clip".

I've heard of magazines being referred to as clips plenty of times before, but never in a professional course of instruction. Both military and civilian shooting courses I've attended if you so much as say the term clip the instructor will correct you right on the spot. We'll generally say, "Going to the range to shoot a few mags," to shorten it. Could be like the soda vs. pop argument, and it's based on area. I'm just saying I've never heard magazines being referred to as clips in any instructional setting.

Think we're straying off from the topic though

My main issue comes from the fact I've been playing MechWarrior since MW2, and have been playing competitive PvP since MW3 on the MSN Gaming Zone. While MW3 "sort-of" solved the convergence issue by needing to lag shoot, the truth is every official MW game to be released has had perfect convergence.

If it's within the scope of PGI's abilities, I wouldn't mind seeing non-perfect convergence, as long as it's not based on RNG mechanics like a CoF. Cone of Fire works for fast shooting guns like most of the weapons in CoD or CS:GO, but for the single shot nature and long cooldown times for the majority of weapons in MWO, CoF just won't work the way people envision it will. Good players get screwed with high heat and wasted ammunition when the game decides their CT shot misses high and right, and bad players get rewarded with random hits when they didn't even fire on target. It would practically drive the meta to nothing but UAC spam, which while that may seem nice with how sick we are of the current meta, will quickly get very, very annoying.

Imagine if every laser boat you see nowadays was instead a dual, triple, or quad UAC-5 boat. Think of how much screen shake and performance reducing particle effects that will induce. Now imagine that being the new meta for over a year.

[Imperius]

If you want random numbers to decide your fate there is a BT game coming out for you via Kickstarter! Leave my FPS alone!

[Khobai]

Quote

I hate that mechanic with a passion. Why? Lets say I have a damaged right torso, so I twist to protect it and some sausage gets a glancing blow off my CT ... guess what that exposed torso will get damage even if there is no LOS between the projectile and the damaged component.

make it so the splash damage only transfers outward then. no inward transfer. simple fix if thats your only complaint.

whenever a torso section gets hit, a portion of the damage (say 25%) would transfer outward to the closest undestroyed location to the point of impact.

So if your center torso is hit on the right side, 25% goes to the right torso. If your side torso is hit near the arm, 25% goes to the attached arm. if your side torso is hit near the leg, 25% goes to the attached leg. The damage would only transfer outward if theres an undestroyed location for it to go to though (if both the arm and leg are destroyed, the side torso takes the full hit)

The transfer % would vary based on weight class (it might be 25% for assaults, 20% for heavies, 15% for mediums, 10% for lights, etc...). Because Light mechs obviously spread damage better than assault mechs so they dont need the full 25% transfer (nor do they necessarily want side torso damage going to their legs)

in battletech, arms and legs absorb 50% of the hits, and thats how it should be in MWO too. Having an outward damage transfer mechanic helps achieve that. Its an entirely non-random way of combating convergence.

Edited by Khobai, 08 November 2015 - 12:00 PM.

[JigglyMoobs]

Hotthedd, on 08 November 2015 - 08:47 AM, said:

A Cone of fire isn't random, it is a probability simulator, and realistic. What is unrealistic is expecting pinpoint precision while firing multiple weapons, while moving, and/or while your machine is overheating.

Precision in a modern laser weapons system soon to be in service in the next decade will let you take the largest map in mwo, put a jet on the other side of that map at 15000 ft, and while flying around at 500 mph, it will be able to put 100000 watts on a quarter sized spot that is locked on the very center of a single laser turret of a light mech running around at full speed. think about that.

argumeNTS about how its realistic are untenable. its a game mechanism of tabletop and a crutch for people with less mouse aim.

Quote

And I always have to laugh at the "aiming skillz" crowd. You are dragging a mouse and clicking a button, you are not aiming. You are not even simulating aiming. Go out to a gun range sometime. Deal with recoil, ballistics drop, try to empty an entire clip from a fully automatic weapon into one target.

if its so easy why don't you just deal with it?

Quote

Hell, use a laser pointer instead, it takes a second to light up that bullseye. Now grab 6 laser pointers and do it. Then do it while running and jumping. Let me know when you are able to get all 6 on target instantly. Until then, don't brag about your aiming skillz.

human beings aren't built to aim six things at once. its a trivial for a machine if its designed right. the reason modern weapon systems don't do it is because it would ve idiotic to carry six weapons instead of a single big one. hence we have tanks, and yes, they do aim very well and automatically on the move

nehebkau, on 08 November 2015 - 09:10 AM, said:

I hate that mechanic with a passion. Why? Lets say I have a damaged right torso, so I twist to protect it and some sausage gets a glancing blow off my CT ... guess what that exposed torso will get damage even if there is no LOS between the projectile and the damaged component.

Been killed a few times because of the inelegant (A nice way of saying quick and dirty) way PGI implemented it.

yeah, but it made it a lot less likely for you to have that single torso damage in the first place, which is the point.

[JigglyMoobs]

Mcgral18, on 08 November 2015 - 08:31 AM, said:

Calculation overload?

Lasers have a tick rate (assumed to be ~a tenth of a second).
Your suggestion would add 2 additional damage calculations, on top of 2 times as many Crit rolls once armour is breached. For 24 mechs.


Hitscan one upon a time could crash the server game instance...not sure if they could handle 300% load.

Not sure if quite that bad mcgral.

The expensive part of the calculation should be the initial hit detection since that involves a geometric projection from the point of fire to the point of impact. The rest is just changing some variables and running a comparison vs an rng for crit probability. I wouldn't be surprised if that was only 0.1 or 0.01 times as expensive, or even less. So I'm guessing you'll only add very little to the server load.

[Gamuray]

People, people. We don't need a RNG cone of fire OR perfect convergence. Just make weapons fire completely straight unless you're locked onto a target. When locked onto a target, weapons will aim at a convergence point at the target's distance. Pixel convergence? No, unless you're locked, which has it's sacrifices. It even has the bonus of allowing you to lead a target without your weapons converging on some far away point on the horizon.

Really sure why so few people see this option. It makes information and locks useful since they allow you to strip armor more effectively without actually nerfing any weapons. It has no probability/random hit chance. It helps to avoid pinpoint peeking.

Could even come with a signal that tells you when your weapons are set to a convergence point.

[maxdest]

Gamuray, on 08 November 2015 - 12:48 PM, said:

Really sure why so few people see this option. It makes information and locks useful since they allow you to strip armor more effectively without actually nerfing any weapons. It has no probability/random hit chance. It helps to avoid pinpoint peeking.

PGI have said that changing convergence is not easy due to HSR, and they are reluctant to change.

[JigglyMoobs]

Gamuray, on 08 November 2015 - 12:48 PM, said:

People, people. We don't need a RNG cone of fire OR perfect convergence. Just make weapons fire completely straight unless you're locked onto a target. When locked onto a target, weapons will aim at a convergence point at the target's distance. Pixel convergence? No, unless you're locked, which has it's sacrifices. It even has the bonus of allowing you to lead a target without your weapons converging on some far away point on the horizon.

Really sure why so few people see this option. It makes information and locks useful since they allow you to strip armor more effectively without actually nerfing any weapons. It has no probability/random hit chance. It helps to avoid pinpoint peeking.

Could even come with a signal that tells you when your weapons are set to a convergence point.

But then people will have even more problems with ECM mechs and Arctic Cheetahs.

Aresye Kerensky, on 08 November 2015 - 09:57 AM, said:

One of my coworkers was on a flight where the helicopter's IFF transponder went down, and they had a friendly CIWS that looked like it was spazzing out, later confirmed to be that it was actually tracking each individual rotor blade as they spun around (Source: MH-60S rescue swimmer/crew chief for 9 years).

Wow, speaking for myself I'd feel a strong and urgent need to poop after an incident like that.

Edited by JigglyMoobs, 08 November 2015 - 03:02 PM.