29 replies to this topic

[m]

Before voting or commenting I suggest you read the below explaination of the suggestion within the link in greater detail that I previously wrote several months ago:

http://mwomercs.com/...ost__p__4677664

My argument for implementing very simple and logical Weapon Recoil is as such;

If there is Cockpit Shake from using Jump Jets then logically Recoil is already implemented in the game. If cockpit shake was not in the game then these mechs could handle the force applied against them. Since that is not the case, when in flight (or not in flight) these mech's, when fired upon, SHOULD be affected by recoil. These mech's should also be affected when firing the weapons themselves.

The vote is simple. It's either Yes or No. The question is "Should Weapon Recoil be implemented in this game", and the question refers to both physical Recoil from you firing a weapon on your own mech, and physical Recoil from you being fired upon, while airborne or on the ground. If you read the explaination in the link I supplied above, and the comments within this thread, then you can make the correct decision if you think something like this should be implemented.


Please vote and discuss below.

Thank you for your time.


EDIT:

For those die-hard players who can't live with Weapn Recoil, a 'Crouch' toggle button could be implemented which would Lock/Unlock a mech in-place in a crouched position stance and disable Jump Jets. This would be the same stance when a mech falls from a high position and initially makes contact with the ground. The only part of the mech that would be moveable would be the Torso once 'Crouch' is toggled. Implementing 'Crouch' would alleviate any internal damage caused by forced movement in the opposite direction to the legs in a forward/reverse motion and obviously the motion of Weapon Recoil. I think 1.5 seconds to hunker down and 2 seconds to rise back up again with full use of the movement of legs and Jump Jets would be appropriate when toggling the 'Crouch' button.

Edited by m, 10 November 2015 - 01:20 PM.

[Vellron2005]

What kind of pre-WW2 weapons do you think exist in 3050?

If they couldn't do away with a recoiling cannon by 3050, then Battlemechs would really really suck..

Cockpit shake when jumpjetting is a thing only cose' its marginally logical that the vibrations of the jet engines or something would throw off your aiming hand. In truth, it doesn't make much sense for a 3050 warmachine.. Same with MASC.

When taking AC fire.. well, ok that's a little more beliveable that your mech would shake when hit by a high-velocity projectile. Still.. only marginally believable.

In truth there is absolutely no reason or logic I can think of to explain a 3050 cannon to shake a whole mech. None whatsoever. Don't even get me started on lasers..

And from a game mechanic point of view, it would make the game even more unimmersive, unrealistic and add another useless mechanic "for the sake of balance, TTK" or whatever...

[Strum Wealh]

Vellron2005, on 10 November 2015 - 05:30 AM, said:

What kind of pre-WW2 weapons do you think exist in 3050?

If they couldn't do away with a recoiling cannon by 3050, then Battlemechs would really really suck..

Cockpit shake when jumpjetting is a thing only cose' its marginally logical that the vibrations of the jet engines or something would throw off your aiming hand. In truth, it doesn't make much sense for a 3050 warmachine.. Same with MASC.

When taking AC fire.. well, ok that's a little more beliveable that your mech would shake when hit by a high-velocity projectile. Still.. only marginally believable.

In truth there is absolutely no reason or logic I can think of to explain a 3050 cannon to shake a whole mech. None whatsoever. Don't even get me started on lasers..

And from a game mechanic point of view, it would make the game even more unimmersive, unrealistic and add another useless mechanic "for the sake of balance, TTK" or whatever...

Projectile weapons are necessarily going to produce recoil during their firing - it is a consequence of Newton's Third Law of Motion, and one can no more change this fact than one can change, say, the emission spectrum of atomic hydrogen.

Recoil damper systems (such as hydraulic recoil mechanisms, recoil buffers, and so on) can serve to reduce the overall impact of recoil on the vehicle or structure on which the weapon is mounted, but such recoil damper systems cannot prevent recoil from occurring at all, nor can they ever completely eliminate the effects of recoil (such that the vehicle/structure "feels" no recoil).
This even extends to the so-called "recoilless rifle"/"recoilless gun" concept - "a type of lightweight tube artillery that is designed to allow some of the propellant gases to escape out the rear of the weapon at the moment of ignition, creating forward thrust that counteracts some of the weapon's recoil". Even then, "despite the name, it is rare for the forces to completely balance, and real-world recoilless rifles do recoil noticeably (with varying degrees of severity)".

On top of that, there are many examples of recoil being significant in BattleTech:

CBT Master rules specifically states on page 138 that the recoil of the Heavy Gauss Rifle is such that it can only be mounted in torso locations, and TechManual specifically states on page 218 that the recoil from the Heavy Gauss Rifle is enough to "destabilize the firing unit".

From Classic BattleTech Starterbook: Wolf and Blake:

Quote

The LB 10-X autocannon in the Zeus’ left forearm belched fire and kicked, the recoil momentarily swinging the Zeus’ torso out of alignment.

From Classic BattleTech Starterbook: Fist & Falcon:

Quote

All eighty-five tons of the BattleMaster shook with recoil as the Gauss rifle fired.

From Blood of Heroes:

Quote

Alex waited for the targeting cross hairs to flash red, then hit the firing studs for both missile racks in quick succession. The Archer staggered under the multiple recoil of forty missiles streaking from the tubes

While BattleMechs may have advanced systems (the DI computer and its balancing protocols, together with the gyro) to keep them upright across uneven terrain and while under fire and can be equipped with additional optional systems to further assist in compensating for recoil (e.g. the targeting computer system and its integrated "recoil compensators" (Tech Manual, pg. 238)), the instances cited above clearly demonstrate that the DI computer & gyro are actually rather limited in regard to being able to deal with recoil and even the latter, while improving upon the former's capabilities, is not enough to compensate in the most extreme of cases (HGRs/iHGRs, where the recoil is so extreme as to require a Piloting Skill Roll to keep the 'Mech from falling, in TT gameplay).

So, yes, recoil is still very much an issue for projectile weapons in 3050 (and beyond) & it is always going to be an issue for projectile weapons in reality, and recoil would very much have a good place in MWO.

[Vellron2005]

Well I know basic physics of recoil, and all that.. I just think that in 3050 most weapons and most mechs should not have that problem to such a degree as to shake the cockpit..

And since we don't have Heavy Gauss Riffles yet, I see no point in adding yet another mechanic to an already complicated game.

Also, cockpit shake is not some great big thing, and the Dev's have PLENTY of more important things to focus on..

[Hotthedd]

Vellron2005, on 12 November 2015 - 05:47 AM, said:

Well I know basic physics of recoil, and all that.. I just think that in 3050 most weapons and most mechs should not have that problem to such a degree as to shake the cockpit..

So, wait. You just read three examples from the lore, and the rules, about recoil being a real thing in the BattleTech universe, and your reply is THIS? You don't think it should be, even after having it shown to you that it IS?

[C1audius]

I would support this only if they found a way for ballistics do deal some of there damage directly to structure regardless of how much armor the target has remaining. These weapons were designed to punch through armor to varying effectiveness based on caliber, shell velocity, range and a large number of other factors. What kind of projectiles are we even using; HEAT, HVAP, APCR? Do we have rifled auto-cannons or are they smoothbore? The "LB" probably have smooth bore barrels and would be the exception to not penetrating armor along with machine guns.

[Strum Wealh]

C1audius, on 12 November 2015 - 03:23 PM, said:

I would support this only if they found a way for ballistics do deal some of there damage directly to structure regardless of how much armor the target has remaining. These weapons were designed to punch through armor to varying effectiveness based on caliber, shell velocity, range and a large number of other factors. What kind of projectiles are we even using; HEAT, HVAP, APCR? Do we have rifled auto-cannons or are they smoothbore? The "LB" probably have smooth bore barrels and would be the exception to not penetrating armor along with machine guns.

The LB-X ACs (which can fire either a HEAP-type "standard" shell or a shotshell-like cluster round, but cannot make use of the munition types available to standard ACs) are explicitly stated to be smoothbore weapons (TechManual, pg. 207), as are the AC/2s mounted on the Mauler (Close Quarters by Victor Milan, ch. 35). Unless otherwise specified, we can assume that most AC models are probably smoothbore weapons rather than rifled.
Canonical "standard" AC munitions are usually described as "high-explosive armor-piercing" or "dual-purpose armor-defeating" munitions, though other munition types were available to normal ACs (and the later Light ACs), and the only LB-X family could use their special cluster munitions.

The Gauss Rifle, on the other hand, would have a rifled barrel set inside the coil array (hence the name).
The canonical Gauss Rifle slug is a blunt impactor - a spherical or ovoid (egg-shaped), watermelon-sized mass of nickel-ferrous alloy driven to high speed (between Mach 2 and "hypersonic", depending on the source).

[C1audius]

That's a lot of really awesome information Strum Wealh and furthers supports my question. How come ballistic weapons don't penetrate armor and deal some damage directly to structure? Right now in MWO it feels like you are just bashing a homogeneous steel (or ferro-fibrous) plate until it falls off exposing the internals. Again I would support bringing in some sort of recoil affect on mechs when firing ballistics (except for maybe machine guns) if they would implement some kind of armor penetrating mechanic.

[Strum Wealh]

C1audius, on 13 November 2015 - 04:55 AM, said:

That's a lot of really awesome information Strum Wealh and furthers supports my question. How come ballistic weapons don't penetrate armor and deal some damage directly to structure? Right now in MWO it feels like you are just bashing a homogeneous steel (or ferro-fibrous) plate until it falls off exposing the internals. Again I would support bringing in some sort of recoil affect on mechs when firing ballistics (except for maybe machine guns) if they would implement some kind of armor penetrating mechanic.

Exactly that type of munition comes into being later in the BT timeline, in the form of "Armor-Piercing" autocannon ammunition.

"First prototyped by the FedSuns in 3053 and reaching standard production by 3059, armor-piercing (AP) ammo uses advanced ballistic materials and improved anti-armor warheads to deliver a punch hard enough to damage internal systems through otherwise fresh armor. Available solely to standard AC types, the drawback to this greater punch is the fact that the increased weight of this ammo impairs its firing accuracy and the number of rounds that can be loaded into a given bin." - TechManual, pg. 208

In TT/lore terms: it costs 4x as much as normal AC ammo, one only gets half the number of salvos per ton of ammunition, and it's less accurate (suffers a +1 to-hit modifier), but it is able to damage intermal components through even fresh armor (gains a critical hit chance anytime it strikes an enemy unit).

However, recoil of the weapon on the firing platform has little to do with the shell's warhead type or said warhead's impact effect on the target.

Edited by Strum Wealh, 13 November 2015 - 05:24 AM.

[Hotthedd]

Armor piercing rounds are at best experimental technology at this point in the timeline of the BattleTech universe. In other words, unavailable.

Please also remember that the armor in BT is more than a single steel plate, but layers of ablative materials.

[Strum Wealh]

Hotthedd, on 13 November 2015 - 05:55 AM, said:

Armor piercing rounds are at best experimental technology at this point in the timeline of the BattleTech universe. In other words, unavailable.

Please also remember that the armor in BT is more than a single steel plate, but layers of ablative materials.

The AP ammo is also beside-the-point - the thread is about the implementation of recoil effects for the weapons that should have it (which is, basically, everything other than the lasers).

Of course, smaller-caliber weapons should generally (but not necessarily) have less per-projectile recoil than larger-caliber weapons, and some munition types might have more (or less) recoil than other munition types, and some weapon types in the same class (e.g. Standard AC/5 vs IS UAC/5 vs Clan UAC/5 vs LB 5-X, all being "class 5 autocannons") might have more (or less) recoil than other types in the same class.

[GenJack]

Strum Wealh, on 10 November 2015 - 12:30 PM, said:

Projectile weapons are necessarily going to produce recoil during their firing - it is a consequence of Newton's Third Law of Motion, and one can no more change this fact than one can change, say, the emission spectrum of atomic hydrogen.

Recoil damper systems (such as hydraulic recoil mechanisms, recoil buffers, and so on) can serve to reduce the overall impact of recoil on the vehicle or structure on which the weapon is mounted, but such recoil damper systems cannot prevent recoil from occurring at all, nor can they ever completely eliminate the effects of recoil (such that the vehicle/structure "feels" no recoil).
This even extends to the so-called "recoilless rifle"/"recoilless gun" concept - "a type of lightweight tube artillery that is designed to allow some of the propellant gases to escape out the rear of the weapon at the moment of ignition, creating forward thrust that counteracts some of the weapon's recoil". Even then, "despite the name, it is rare for the forces to completely balance, and real-world recoilless rifles do recoil noticeably (with varying degrees of severity)".

On top of that, there are many examples of recoil being significant in BattleTech:

CBT Master rules specifically states on page 138 that the recoil of the Heavy Gauss Rifle is such that it can only be mounted in torso locations, and TechManual specifically states on page 218 that the recoil from the Heavy Gauss Rifle is enough to "destabilize the firing unit".

From Classic BattleTech Starterbook: Wolf and Blake:

From Classic BattleTech Starterbook: Fist & Falcon:

From Blood of Heroes:

While BattleMechs may have advanced systems (the DI computer and its balancing protocols, together with the gyro) to keep them upright across uneven terrain and while under fire and can be equipped with additional optional systems to further assist in compensating for recoil (e.g. the targeting computer system and its integrated "recoil compensators" (Tech Manual, pg. 238)), the instances cited above clearly demonstrate that the DI computer & gyro are actually rather limited in regard to being able to deal with recoil and even the latter, while improving upon the former's capabilities, is not enough to compensate in the most extreme of cases (HGRs/iHGRs, where the recoil is so extreme as to require a Piloting Skill Roll to keep the 'Mech from falling, in TT gameplay).

So, yes, recoil is still very much an issue for projectile weapons in 3050 (and beyond) & it is always going to be an issue for projectile weapons in reality, and recoil would very much have a good place in MWO.

This guy!

And Also!! I live in Pittsburgh too! Mech Pilot lunch?

[Cynosure]

Speaking of recoil: Why does my mech recoil when I'm hit by lasers? When hit by AC's and missiles, I can understand being shaken. Lasers, however, apply no direct force or pressure. It's understandable to be shaken if a laser hits where my armor is stripped bare and a component explodes, especially if it's ammo. But if the laser is merely whittling away my armor... ?

Edited by Cynosure, 15 November 2015 - 05:43 PM.

[Strum Wealh]

Cynosure, on 15 November 2015 - 05:40 PM, said:

Speaking of recoil: Why does my mech recoil when I'm hit by lasers? When hit by AC's and missiles, I can understand being shaken. Lasers, however, apply no direct force or pressure. It's understandable to be shaken if a laser hits where my armor is stripped bare and a component explodes, especially if it's ammo. But if the laser is merely whittling away my armor... ?

That's more along the lines of "knockback", which is a different phenomenon from recoil - the former (knockback) is experienced only by the target, while the latter (recoil) is experienced only by the shooter.

As for the lasers producing a knockback effect, it's a function of BattleMech armor (which is ablative by design) explosively ablating due to the sudden heating from gigawatt-class laser beams (see also, here - "...laser ablation can be used to transfer momentum to a surface, since the ablated material applies a pulse of high pressure to the surface underneath it as it expands..."), as well as the BattleMech's balance systems rather suddenly having to account for the change in weight distribution that comes from losing (literal) tons of armor from one side or the other.

PPCs, on the other hand, are particle beam weapons ("PBWs"), and PPC bolts would produce knockback through a combination of explosively ablating the armor (like the lasers) AND transferring momentum/KE from the particles (very small mass m, very large velocity v) to the target ("...These particles have tremendous kinetic energy which they impart to matter in the target’s surface, inducing near-instantaneous and catastrophic superheating...").
(Additionally, it should be noted that PBWs would also produce recoil for the firing platform.)

Also, radiation pressure from lasers is a thing...

Edited by Strum Wealh, 15 November 2015 - 06:50 PM.

[Dark Bard]

i think its not bad idea. And it can fix balance slightly.

[Night Thastus]

Maybe, but the only weapons this would affect realistically would be ballistics.

They're crap already compared to lasers (thought the PTS seems to even the grounds a good deal).

Why would you introduce a mechanic that only affects ballistics, and makes them worse? I'd need some incentive. Something to keep it balanced.

[m]

Night Thastus, on 20 November 2015 - 07:53 PM, said:

Why would you introduce a mechanic that only affects ballistics, and makes them worse? I'd need some incentive. Something to keep it balanced.

It wouldn't only affect ballistics, as each weapon can have a fair amount of recoil represented in their own way.

If you read within the link in the first post you would realize that Heat would be the major benefit if the current restrictions were removed.

Also, not being able to keep a reticule lock in-between firing, in partnering with other weapons, is also significant as well. This would force us to actually use the mech accordingly with the weapons as they were supposed to be used, and would make the use of the weapons, in conjunction with other weapons, much more appropriate. For instance, firing an AC-20 on an arm/torso in tandem with small lasers on the opposite arm/torso should cause stability issues with reticule lock due to recoil, especially on small chassis mechs (torso twist or reverse movement due to force). We don't see this accurate recoil today, and without this recoil implementation we are playing a substandard representation of Mechwarrior from the RPG...almost, and dare I say it, a COD clone of Mechwarrior if recoil isn't implemented appropriately.

[Night Thastus]

m, on 21 November 2015 - 09:24 AM, said:

It wouldn't only affect ballistics, as each weapon can have a fair amount of recoil represented in their own way.

If you read within the link in the first post you would realize that Heat would be the major benefit if the current restrictions were removed.

Also, not being able to keep a reticule lock in-between firing, in partnering with other weapons, is also significant as well. This would force us to actually use the mech accordingly with the weapons as they were supposed to be used, and would make the use of the weapons, in conjunction with other weapons, much more appropriate. For instance, firing an AC-20 on an arm/torso in tandem with small lasers on the opposite arm/torso should cause stability issues with reticule lock due to recoil, especially on small chassis mechs (torso twist or reverse movement due to force). We don't see this accurate recoil today, and without this recoil implementation we are playing a substandard representation of Mechwarrior from the RPG...almost, and dare I say it, a COD clone of Mechwarrior if recoil isn't implemented appropriately.

If you're suggesting trading heat generated for recoil, then no. That's a terrible trade. Ballistics are already cool-running for the most part. People want PPFLD and pinpoint damage in general. They don't give a crap about heat. With doubles, some quirks, and some cool-shots, it doesn't freaking matter. But recoil? That can absolutely chew into damage done.

That makes Ballistics a significantly worse weapon. It would be cool, sure, but it would make them worse. No thanks.

This is the year 3052 bub. You think they don't have dampeners that take care of that recoil by now? The animations might not play anymore (they were pretty prevalent on some 'Mechs before custom geometry), but those guns can move and have have the ability to absorb the shock.

It's a thousand freaking years in the future. They figured out how to deal with recoil. There you go, realism. I'm not about to trade gameplay and balance for some idea of "realism" that you have.

[Strum Wealh]

Night Thastus, on 30 November 2015 - 07:52 AM, said:

This is the year 3052 bub. You think they don't have dampeners that take care of that recoil by now?

No, they don't.

Edited by Strum Wealh, 30 November 2015 - 08:35 AM.

[Hotthedd]

Night Thastus, on 30 November 2015 - 07:52 AM, said:

People want PPFLD and pinpoint damage in general. They don't give a crap about heat. With doubles, some quirks, and some cool-shots, it doesn't freaking matter. But recoil? That can absolutely chew into damage done.

Sure, some people do.

But others do not think it fits very well into the universe, while still others see massive PPFLD as a broken mechanic when combined with a component system such as in BattleTech.