104 replies to this topic

[TWIAFU]

What one of the MW titles for PC that allowed you to target specific components like arm, torso, legs?

Used the number keypad.

Mercs? I cannot remember....

[VitriolicViolet]

it just doesnt seem fun to remove aiming, its a fair portion of the game and i think it would be bad

[Lukoi Banacek]

Sal Roma, on 14 December 2016 - 12:11 PM, said:

So we are all driving around (piloting) advanced weapon systems called mechs... and these mechs have all types of weapons and computer systems to run them and said weapons.... and yet, for some reason, we can't program them to target a specific section on a mech with computerized accuracy?

How does this make any sense?

Edit: to be clear... I am in favor of in game aim bots because computers can aim better then we can, and we are driving around in giant weaponized computers. I'm not talking about snap head shot aimbots.. but let's put more pilot skill into driving these things, and less into turn torso and strafe.... you as a pilot should be able to navigate your mech (looking sideways), and have your mech keep firing while locked on...

I'm going to vote no.

[razenWing]

I'm not sure about this... but do our current military have "auto-aim" per se? I actually don't see it as that much of a benefit. For one, what if in some cases, you DON'T want to hit the enemy? For example, in movies, we see the protagonist hitting the objects above or below to bad guy to make him fall/crush by said objects.

You can't do that if auto-aim always aim for center mass.

There's another issue. Say you program the computer to "auto-aim" for arm. Now, it makes sense in MWO that it seems like a good thing to have... ONLY because the ENTIRE arm have shared hit box. In actual combat, you want want to hit arm gyro, exposed area, underside, targeting marker... basically, you won't be shooting at a general "arm", you would need to target a very specific point. And the other thing is, say "arm" never came into view, and your robot is just idle when you could just be shooting with instantaneous decision making to blast whatever new target you desire.

I mean, there're definitely values like static sentry guns to always shoot center mass when you designate a "general defensive zone," where you want nothing alive as the enemy enter said zone. But, we DO have that. They are turrets. But we are not roleplaying turret controller online.

See, rather than auto-aim, I imagine MW3's targeting computer is closer to reality of what we (and future human) have. The computer auto maps a lead for ballistic or energy weapon when you assigned a general "target" area. Ultimately, you still have to do the aiming, but you are essentially computer assisted and have very low chance of missing.

(It's like saying why US snipers don't just use mechanized rifles to headshot Talibans every time. Though TBF, I always wonder that... why don't we have a rifle where said sniper can duck his head down from harm and just remote the crap out of said rifle to headshot terrorists with absolute safety? Hum.... I mean, why have a human operate a rifle that clearly would be better with a mechanized stand with controllable sway? It would be 100x more accurate. Hum... maybe I should kickstart this...)

[mogs01gt]

Sal Roma, on 14 December 2016 - 12:11 PM, said:

So we are all driving around (piloting) advanced weapon systems called mechs... and these mechs have all types of weapons and computer systems to run them and said weapons.... and yet, for some reason, we can't program them to target a specific section on a mech with computerized accuracy?

How does this make any sense?

Edit: to be clear... I am in favor of in game aim bots because computers can aim better then we can, and we are driving around in giant weaponized computers. I'm not talking about snap head shot aimbots.. but let's put more pilot skill into driving these things, and less into turn torso and strafe.... you as a pilot should be able to navigate your mech (looking sideways), and have your mech keep firing while locked on...

So you want a turn based game because calculations would take time. IMO it would make MWO interesting if we went back to how aiming was done in Lore.

Edited by mogs01gt, 14 December 2016 - 01:39 PM.

[Hal Greaves]

RestosIII, on 14 December 2016 - 12:45 PM, said:

Posting the same gif repeatedly with no visual context as to how it's fitting for the situation is what gives us gif connoisseurs a bad name. Stop it.

you're in the wrong place let me help you:

https://www.reddit.com/

[Mole]

razenWing, on 14 December 2016 - 01:36 PM, said:

(It's like saying why US snipers don't just use mechanized rifles to headshot Talibans every time. Though TBF, I always wonder that... why don't we have a rifle where said sniper can duck his head down from harm and just remote the crap out of said rifle to headshot terrorists with absolute safety? Hum.... I mean, why have a human operate a rifle that clearly would be better with a mechanized stand with controllable sway? It would be 100x more accurate. Hum... maybe I should kickstart this...)

Probably cost and mobility issues. I'm sure we'd be doing this if it were practical to do so. Heck, for all I know we might actually be doing it in some limited capacity.

[Myantra]

TWIAFU, on 14 December 2016 - 01:33 PM, said:

What one of the MW titles for PC that allowed you to target specific components like arm, torso, legs?

Used the number keypad.

Mercs? I cannot remember....

MW3. If memory serves (and it has been quite awhile), it placed a targeting triangle on the desired component. It was particularly useful with the targeting computer's added reticule to calculate leading distance.

[TLBFestus]

So, let me get this straight. You are upset we don't have "targeting computers" that can assist us to hit specific components but you are totally OK with the fact that said computers weigh a minimum of ONE TON or more?

The point being, it's a game and we have to allow for certain idiosyncracies in order for it to be challenging and/or entertaining.

[Mole]

TLBFestus, on 14 December 2016 - 01:50 PM, said:

but you are totally OK with the fact that said computers weigh a minimum of ONE TON or more?

It only just hit me now how ridiculous targeting computers weighing tons is. Hah.

[TWIAFU]

Myantra, on 14 December 2016 - 01:46 PM, said:

MW3. If memory serves (and it has been quite awhile), it placed a targeting triangle on the desired component. It was particularly useful with the targeting computer's added reticule to calculate leading distance.

Thank you. My memory failed me too....

[Lily from animove]

well yes, considering how easy an aimbot works today it would be easy in the future for such devices like mechs to have aimbots, but honestly where would be the point of playing the game anymore if the game woud use a realistic aimbot. So that part fo realism is just killed for the sake of the games fun. Otherwise we had just a rather boring walkign simulator with some positioning as the only determining feature.

Also, don't forget when Battletech was done, it was when computers were closet sized which is why a targetting computer MK 1 already costs 1t. With todays tech, a targetting system would be quite small at all thats true. But this is still Battletech. Many old school games form the 80' and 90's kept their old visions, thats why in Elite a landing computer still requires a huge size too while it would probably just be a few MB on a drive and some lower cpu usage. Live retro dude, because 80's and 90's were indeed better days

Edited by Lily from animove, 14 December 2016 - 04:55 PM.

[CMDR Sunset Shimmer]

Sal Roma, on 14 December 2016 - 12:11 PM, said:

So we are all driving around (piloting) advanced weapon systems called mechs... and these mechs have all types of weapons and computer systems to run them and said weapons.... and yet, for some reason, we can't program them to target a specific section on a mech with computerized accuracy?

How does this make any sense?

Edit: to be clear... I am in favor of in game aim bots because computers can aim better then we can, and we are driving around in giant weaponized computers. I'm not talking about snap head shot aimbots.. but let's put more pilot skill into driving these things, and less into turn torso and strafe.... you as a pilot should be able to navigate your mech (looking sideways), and have your mech keep firing while locked on...

ha...hahaha.

You've clearly not educated yourself on Battletech, please go do so before asking a question like this.

[habu86]

Remote aiming and weapon tracking is already a thing today courtesy of gyro-stabilized sights and electro-optical tracking systems. The only downside to this stuff is the cost, complexity, and relative fragility of the systems involved, but those aspects are being addressed and improved upon constantly.

If this was RL, you can bet your *** computerized systems would be aiding with target acquisition, identification, and tracking (plus weapons guidance and so on). Empirically-speaking, we've shown time and time again that we'll seize any advantage we can in this area.

Why not have something like this in a game? Because it sucks out the fun and skill component, thus defeating the purpose of playing a game in the first place.

[CMDR Sunset Shimmer]

habu86, on 14 December 2016 - 03:05 PM, said:

Remote aiming and weapon tracking is already a thing today courtesy of gyro-stabilized sights and electro-optical tracking systems. The only downside to this stuff is the cost, complexity, and relative fragility of the systems involved, but those aspects are being addressed and improved upon constantly.

If this was RL, you can bet your *** computerized systems would be aiding with target acquisition, identification, and tracking (plus weapons guidance and so on). Empirically-speaking, we've shown time and time again that we'll seize any advantage we can in this area.

Why not have something like this in a game? Because it sucks out the fun and skill component, thus defeating the purpose of playing a game in the first place.

Here's something fun to consider too.

There are a long line of Military Simulation games in existance. SQUAD, ArmA, Project Reality: Battlefield 2. Just to name a few.

Even within these, generally, completely computer controlled weaponry is generally not used. And when it is, it's usually only in the form of a firing computer for artillery.

And that's in games revolving around REAL WORLD stuff. BATTLETECH on the other hand, doesn't have such things because, well, for the most part, Battlemech technology is only aproximately on level with tech we had in the 60's/70's, just turned up to 11. It's all "rule of cool" stuff that doesn't work practically.

They've had to hand wave alot of questions like this too, because of the progress of real life technology [by the way, we HAVE myomer muscle now, let that one sink in.] Battlemechs look, idiotic in a realistic light. And they are... they're entirely impractical. Even if you look at tabletop, if you're looking purely for weaponry effectiveness. A tracked vehicle will always outgun and arguably outperform a battlemech... until you take movement into account. A battlemech's advantage lies in it's ability to go where tracked/wheeled/hover vehicles cannot easily. Jumpjets, hands, ect, allow Battlemechs to work through thick forrests, climb mountians, and pass over more rugged terrain than these other vehicles. That is the inherent [in universe] reason for Battlemechs, and making fighting vehicles in the humanoid form.

So, you have a huge fusion reactor, and a computer that handles things such as pilot intent, balance[aided by the pilot's neurohelmet interface], and basic aiming[arguably convergence can be lumped into that bit.], proper actuator control, gyro stabilization, myomer electric circuts, ect. But it's up to the pilot to ensure the weapons are on target, and when to fire.

In Mechwarrior 3, there was a targeting computer you could get [keep in mind, we do have TC's in MWO, they function VERY differently however.] in mech 3, you could toggle a reticle that helped you target and lead specific parts of a mech, it still relied on the pilot's input, but it gave you a general, small circle for "here's where to shoot if you want to hit X component with Y weapon."

I don't know of any Mechwarriors in multiplayer however, that ever used the thing.

[Jables McBarty]

TWIAFU, on 14 December 2016 - 01:33 PM, said:

What one of the MW titles for PC that allowed you to target specific components like arm, torso, legs?

Used the number keypad.

Mercs? I cannot remember....

Myantra, on 14 December 2016 - 01:46 PM, said:

MW3. If memory serves (and it has been quite awhile), it placed a targeting triangle on the desired component. It was particularly useful with the targeting computer's added reticule to calculate leading distance.

That's my recollection as well--and am I mistaken or did it also cause LRMs to home in on the targeted component as well?

At least that's what I thought it did lol.

Sal Roma, on 14 December 2016 - 12:55 PM, said:

If I knew that, I wouldn't have asked the question. And that's the lore reason.. but someone must have half a brain building these things and it would be EASY for some designer to go..."Why not let the machine aim for us?" Lore problem solved.

Well clearly nobody did, otherwise it would have made it into the lore!!

[GabrielSun]

Our mechs are analog, that's why.

[Kalimaster]

I am a fairly bad shot, yet I don't complain. I don't use aimbots to supplement my ability. I stand my own ground, for better or worse, because when I do head shot someone, and I have, it's my accomplishment.

[General Solo]

TWIAFU, on 14 December 2016 - 01:33 PM, said:

What one of the MW titles for PC that allowed you to target specific components like arm, torso, legs?

Used the number keypad.

Mercs? I cannot remember....

Mech Commander 2

A strategy game

[CMDR Sunset Shimmer]

OZHomerOZ, on 14 December 2016 - 03:52 PM, said:

Mech Commander 2

A strategy game

nope, it was Mech3. with the Targeting Computer installed, you can do this.