95 replies to this topic

[Nik Van Rhijn]

It's not magic - it's BattleTechnology!

[canned wolf]

Lasers cannot attack a target beyond visual range. Ballistic weapons can. I've been doing this in BF3 lately. It's relatively easy to engage tanks behind cover if someone marks the target for you. And since they are usually blocking their return fire with their own cover, it turns into free hits.
If the weapon has predictable drop, then its useful. A smart monkey could even rig his Gauss with adjustable velocity to get a predictable but also adjustable arc. You could trade some damage for the ability to hit targets behind cover.

Lasers also don't have the ability to load special ammo types. Lots of things could be done with this.

[VYCanis]

Prosperity Park, on 05 December 2011 - 10:30 AM, said:

I guess a problem with implementing a ballistic arc is that some players may then expect the projectiles to "trail off" beyond their maximum range, like a real projectile does...

I mean, it would be kind of weird to program these ballistic weapons to follow a nice, realistic semi-parabolic arc, but then magically disappear as they cross the 500m line.

thats just it though

>don't< make the projectile disappear.

Other than easy abstractions for the TT, there is no real reason why the projectile should just magically disappear. So don't do it.

Let the standard ranges more or less a bit be the ranges where the AC can hit optimally without significant difficulty. everything after that you need to start compensating significantly for drop and speed. So like if someone wants to hit at like 900m with an ac20, they *could* but it would be hard as hell, require aiming considerably higher and ahead of your target, and likely be a waste of ammo, where as an ac2 would simply require keeping the target in your sights with minimal leading.

For other weapons it might be damage drop off more than anything.

the more weapons feel like actual weapons instead of just simplistic stat lines, the better

Edited by VYCanis, 05 December 2011 - 11:35 AM.

[CeeKay Boques]

Yeah, where's the magic worm hole pic?

[VYCanis]

it fell into a magic wormhole

[verybad]

It's a trivial problem to solve with 1960's (or earlier) technology. I think it would be a waste of time to model into the gaming environment, especially as all indications have been that most combat will be relatively close (lots of urban has been mentioned)

If tube artillery is in, then yes, but there should be no need for piltos to compensate for the effecs of gravity even if it's modeled into ballistic weapons firing. It should be a graphical addition at most. The problem with it being an actual accuracy issue is that it would make lasers and ppcs more accurate by default, and therefore have a bonus that has to be counterbalanced.

I wouldnt' mind seeing it as a graphical addition (tracers following a curved path) but pilots shouldnt' have to lift their targeting reticule in order to get good shots. This also makes lasers and ppcs unable to fire accurately at the same time, something that is not true in the games long history.

Resounding no unless it's just graphical.

Should we also model wind and altitude (density of air)? At a certain point it returns less than positive results. The issues are easilly counteracted by low grade tech than can be made on even a boondocks periphery planet.

[Damocles]

/agree with verybad

It is unnecessary and honestly adding "real-world physics" to a game that is NOT the real world just annoys me personally.
It is an interesting topic, about as interesting as "What if star wars' turbolasers weren't sublight?" X_x

Damo

[Mchawkeye]

Damocles, on 05 December 2011 - 12:40 PM, said:

/agree with verybad

It is unnecessary and honestly adding "real-world physics" to a game that is NOT the real world just annoys me personally.
It is an interesting topic, about as interesting as "What if star wars' turbolasers weren't sublight?" X_x

Damo

While I accept that the world isn't earth (although earth exists I believe in this universe) the existence of things like physics is there to help involve the player with the game; to give it magical/alien realities would cut off the player entirely from this type of game.
That, and you have to start somewhere, Right? May as well your earth standard as a basis if not the end of the process.

[VYCanis]

verybad, on 05 December 2011 - 12:32 PM, said:

It's a trivial problem to solve with 1960's (or earlier) technology. I think it would be a waste of time to model into the gaming environment, especially as all indications have been that most combat will be relatively close (lots of urban has been mentioned)

If tube artillery is in, then yes, but there should be no need for piltos to compensate for the effecs of gravity even if it's modeled into ballistic weapons firing. It should be a graphical addition at most. The problem with it being an actual accuracy issue is that it would make lasers and ppcs more accurate by default, and therefore have a bonus that has to be counterbalanced.

I wouldnt' mind seeing it as a graphical addition (tracers following a curved path) but pilots shouldnt' have to lift their targeting reticule in order to get good shots. This also makes lasers and ppcs unable to fire accurately at the same time, something that is not true in the games long history.

Resounding no unless it's just graphical.

Should we also model wind and altitude (density of air)? At a certain point it returns less than positive results. The issues are easilly counteracted by low grade tech than can be made on even a boondocks periphery planet.

Forget dicerolls, forget hit modifiers, forget what constitutes a class 20 AC and what is a medium laser, forget battletech, forget everything just for a moment.

Starting from scratch, lets say you want to represent the firing characteristics of a large multiton repeating cannon, and you want to give it personality. How would you go about it?

because I'm of the mind of make the weapon as interesting to use as possible, and you can balance it in the numbers later.

Going from the onset of such and such weapon has to fit these narrow parameters just because that the way its always been, instead of exploring all the different ways that you can express something through physics and simulation, quirks and characteristics, if anything seems the less fun approach.

its not a matter of bogging the game down in physics, it a matter of not restricting it to a narrow representation of arbitrary RPG values.

The ac20 doesn't have to be some lame stat block that only spits out 20 damage x distance y many times a minute. It can be a shaking, muzzle flash roaring monstrocity of a BFG that can be expressed in so many different ways, so long as they are relatively balanced within gameplay.

TL-DR i don't want boring, sterile weapons, that all hit the same, for that i can go back to MW4, and i'd rather not

Edited by VYCanis, 05 December 2011 - 01:33 PM.

[verybad]

Nobody said it has to be a "lame stat block"

However there's no good reason to have it be an additional problem for the player to solve. The technology to handle gravity's affect on ballistic weapons has been around for over 50 years TODAY.

As I said, give it a grafic effect in the game? Sure. Make players pretend they're firing a sniper rifle with no mechanical hookups? Less than realistic. Ballistic weapons rounds can travel several kilometers a second. If they fall @ 3 meters during that time, it's something a vacuum tube based computer can handle. There's NO GOOD REASON to make players compensate for it, they're not infantry firing a WWII era field cannon.

Edited by verybad, 05 December 2011 - 01:57 PM.

[Xhaleon]

VYCanis, on 05 December 2011 - 01:26 PM, said:

snippy snippy

You can make them hit harder and rock more. By your expectations, some deviations are perfectly acceptable. And there are better ways to make an AC unique than making it have ballistic drop. Ballistic trajectories are more work for the servers and clients to handle, and don't really improve gameplay in any way. That attribute would simply become an annoyance as people adapt to them, and then halfway forget that ballistic drop existed.

Maybe give them a slight curving arc as they move to their aimed point. No weapon is zeroed parallel to the bore, after all.

[CeeKay Boques]

Quote

However there's no good reason to have it be an additional problem for the player to solve. The technology to handle gravity's affect on ballistic weapons has been around for over 50 years TODAY.

Wut? Anti-gravity bullets? Do you mean sighting, or actually overcoming gravity's affect on ballistic weapons?

In most types of long-range shooting (whether by rifles or large cannon) a short time of flight is considered desirable because it maximizes the hit probability by reducing the time of flight and flattening the trajectory. It also results in the projectile striking the target at a high velocity and therefore with greater effect. The main exception is when artillery fires in the "upper register" (above 45 degrees elevation) to achieve plunging fire.

Quote

There's NO GOOD REASON to make players compensate for it, they're not infantry firing a WWII era field cannon.

What about long flight times? Awesome just barely hits from really far away? One more calculation in the game for people that want immersion? Physics based magic moments during a game that are only possible when you care about physics.

I mean the HVAC is High Velocity.

The others aren't.

[Zakatak]

Lasers dissipate out of existence within 400m, and considering that the game has always been stacked against ballistics, why should they follow the laws of physics?

That said, if we boosted damage/reload/tonnage of ballistics, we could do this. Give each projectile a drop rate of 10m/s (adjustments for world gravity)

AC/2 - 750m/s
UAC/20 - 500m/s
MG - 625m/s
Heavy Gauss - 1500m/s
Light Gauss - 2500m/s
Longtom Artillery - 350m/s
Sniper Artillery - 1000m/s

So a UAC/20 would drop 10m in 500m (which should be its maximum range)

Edited by Zakatak, 05 December 2011 - 02:42 PM.

[VYCanis]

Modern fire control systems yeah, are way more detailed and factor in way more things than BT gives them credit for. If we were being truly realistic all BT weapons would essentially have some kind of auto aim.

but this is a game that will hopefully require skill

Thing is if you have ACs having aim that is always hitting true and nearly instantly to the crosshair no matter the range, then you are pretty much forced to either make them arbitrarily inaccurate, or arbitrarily short ranged (evaporating projectile) in order to keep them from hosing people down at past their standard ranges. Neither of those options really sell the idea of this massive dumptruck sized cannon

So i'm saying make performance of the projectile part of the gameplay in relation to how increasingly hard it is to hit farther out.

Haven't you guys ever driven a tank in a BF game and had crazy *** long range tank battles? haven't you ever used the crossbow in halflife 2 DM? sniped with a vintorez in STALKER? or any game that required dealing with travel time and drop? Same difference. People trying to kill each other with highly lethal but difficult to use at long range weapons that would probably be better up close, but they are trying their luck anyway.

Also, energy weapons >are< more accurate. that is an inherent quality of energy weapons. The give would be that at outside their usual range, they don't lose accuracy, they lose power. Ballistics could deal consistent damage but simply be harder to use by virtue of their projectile characteristics. In such a way you can have weapons have believable visual performance without any magic wormhole gobbling up in flight rounds, and still maintain game balance

Edited by VYCanis, 05 December 2011 - 02:41 PM.

[verybad]

Kay, so Tank Gunners today don't need to factor it in, but in 3049 they forgot how to make what is barely more complex than an abacus.

Seriously. Laser rangefinder determins range, gun automatically elevates to compensate for gravity, wind, humidity, temperature, altitude, mood of the combatants, favorite color, and what they had for breakfast. It's not something that a mechwarrior would have to factor for.

Hell, you can get a sniper scope that tells you how far to rase the weapon. It wouldn't add to fun, and it wuold make problems for the game. Having an arc over the course of the weapons projectory would be kind of cool, but making the weapons less accurate and unable to be fired at the same time as lasers would be lame.

[Datum]

Ghost, on 05 December 2011 - 08:22 AM, said:

I'm against bullet drop for several reasons. The most prominent reason I'm against ballistics being involved is the fact that the deck is already stacked against projectiles. I'm all for anything that keeps the laser boats at bay.

What if they toned down the lasers' effectiveness?
Maybe made that heat buildup a little harder to get rid of, perhaps?

[VYCanis]

verybad, on 05 December 2011 - 09:23 PM, said:

Kay, so Tank Gunners today don't need to factor it in, but in 3049 they forgot how to make what is barely more complex than an abacus.

Seriously. Laser rangefinder determins range, gun automatically elevates to compensate for gravity, wind, humidity, temperature, altitude, mood of the combatants, favorite color, and what they had for breakfast. It's not something that a mechwarrior would have to factor for.

Hell, you can get a sniper scope that tells you how far to rase the weapon. It wouldn't add to fun, and it wuold make problems for the game. Having an arc over the course of the weapons projectory would be kind of cool, but making the weapons less accurate and unable to be fired at the same time as lasers would be lame.

Between arbitrary range restrictions and forced inaccuracy, yes, for gameplay purposes i would much rather bite the bullet on taking projectile drop that i have to compensate for manually.

If it helps smooth over your suspension of disbelief, pretend that you as a player aren't solely representing your pilot but also the mech's targeting system.

Edited by VYCanis, 06 December 2011 - 05:21 AM.

[canned wolf]

Modern weapon systems don't fire drastically different weapons simultaneously. Saying that we need an arbitrary restriction on realism because we have an arbitrary restriction on performance seems like going at the problem backwards. Battletech restrictions on range are mostly related to fire control limitations if you read the books and errata. So if you want to go ultra hard core by the book, you need to make it hard to hit a 5 story tall mech at 300 meters with a large bore, high velocity cannon. Imagine trying to shoot an office building from a distance of 3 football fields... with a canon. Not actually a hard shot in real life. The boardgame was simplifying things we don't nee to simplify and balancing to compensate for the things they simplified. Calculating ballistic trajectory is pretty much standard in any game that uses firearms, so worrying about how much it will tax your computer is a little silly.

I say extend ranges on everything , then scrap battletechs autocannon system and replace it with something that makes sense, and balances with lasers.

[Dsi1]

Since we aren't all dumb here we can assume that gravity will be in the game, otherwise mechs would just float off into space after every step.

My question is: Differing gravity on different planets? (Yes please!)

[verybad]

Technoviking, on 05 December 2011 - 02:16 PM, said:

Wut? Anti-gravity bullets? Do you mean sighting, or actually overcoming gravity's affect on ballistic weapons?

No, a sub-386 level computer automatically calculating the level the barrel has to be raised based on highschool level physics., it's a simple a concept to understand.

Quote

What about long flight times? Awesome just barely hits from really far away? One more calculation in the game for people that want immersion? Physics based magic moments during a game that are only possible when you care about physics.

I mean the HVAC is High Velocity.

The others aren't.

The HVAC is HIGHER velocity. I'm pretty certain regular ACs aren't powered by rubber bands however. A flight time longer than a second would be unusual, and would also be very subject to lag, making the weapon very unreliable in actual game play rather than concpetual discussion