121 replies to this topic

[ManDaisy]

Suggestion:

Have targeting reticule bounce and shake based off of movement type to make it harder to aim:

Stand Still, "no shaking" = Tabletop Game + 0 to hit

Walking, "Slight bouncing with each step" = Tabletop Game + 1 to hit

Running, "Heavier bouncing with each step" = Tabletop Game +2 to hit

Jumping, "Rattling Vibrating when thrust is activated" = Tabletop Game +3 to hit.


Although not in table top, gyro damage, leg damage, should also decrease the overall stability of a mech and therefore should also make aiming vibration due to movement more pronounced. So if a mech is limping, the heavy lurch at the end of a limp should also be reflected on the targeting reticule shake.

Edited by ManDaisy, 20 December 2011 - 08:24 AM.

[Nik Van Rhijn]

A good suggestion but it still doesn't answer the other question/problem of all weapons automatically converging on the reticule/target designator at all times despite movement of both your mech and the target. One or two weapons (especially if arm mounted) is not a problem. It's large numbers of torso mounted weapons converging that I (and others) have a problem with.

[ManDaisy]

its got nothing to do with converging... everything should shake before you even think about that stuff. Two seperate things.

Edited by ManDaisy, 20 December 2011 - 08:44 AM.

[Nik Van Rhijn]

More two interlinked things. But your right in that it needs to be considred. Heat should also have an effect.

[ManDaisy]

I could see heat as increasing the lag time behind reticule aim and actual weapons aim... Hotter computer = slower computer.

Edited by ManDaisy, 20 December 2011 - 08:56 AM.

[Nik Van Rhijn]

Just wish we had more info to go on. Most people seem to agree that we need an improvement on what we had before. It's just that very few can agree on what it should be

[Orayn]

Nik Van Rhijn, on 20 December 2011 - 08:36 AM, said:

A good suggestion but it still doesn't answer the other question/problem of all weapons automatically converging on the reticule/target designator at all times despite movement of both your mech and the target. One or two weapons (especially if arm mounted) is not a problem. It's large numbers of torso mounted weapons converging that I (and others) have a problem with.

You could perhaps handle this with some sort of feedback loop... Your targeting reticle would be the "setpoint," and each weapon would attempt to correct itself and match the setpoint whenever possible. The time it takes to do this could depend on the weapon itself, how it's mounted, and what type of "error" was introduced. Heck, you could even make it possible for weapons to overcorrect and momentarily sweep past where you're currently aiming before stabilizing again.

[Draelren]

I agree, something should be done about it, and I think it should be determined by what type of weapon you're shooting what happens when you try to aim. Heat should also interfere with it.

Anything past that should be up to the devs to figure out what happens IMO.

[Nik Van Rhijn]

The problem is that a lot of people here insist that if their "target designator" is on a particular point, that is where the shot should hit. they then argue that it's an affront to their skill and use of an RNG to detract from their ability to hit what they aim at. They don't accept that the reticule is merely a target designator and that the mechs computer has to move all the weapons to aim at that point with varying speeds and degrees of accuracy, irrespective of the inherent accuracy (or inaccuracy) of the weapon itself.

[VixNix]

More c-bill = better targeting computer
Player skill vs pilot rating also needs to be calculated, this isn't just about PVP it is about "training" the pilot all well and good that you can keep the cross-hair on the target but that does not account for wind-age and range and all the other thing's y'all are talking about but a targeting computer would help compensate for these things and training your pilot (your in game self) to do what you think you aught to be able to do.

/ramble

[Nik Van Rhijn]

The problem is that lasers are instant hit irrespective of range or windage. For most people and in previous games they have hit exactly where the reticule is pointing.

[VixNix]

Nik Van Rhijn, on 21 December 2011 - 05:23 AM, said:

The problem is that lasers are instant hit irrespective of range or windage. For most people and in previous games they have hit exactly where the reticule is pointing.

I didn't think the question was specific to laser, from that perspective a Gauss is very nearly in the same boat as lasers

only thing that leaves is missiles, auto cannon etc and I don't know about you but i recall lots of misses in the previous games with these

[Nik Van Rhijn]

Yes, which given the problem with Ammo explosions, plus a limited supply of ammo (which applies to the Gauss) comes back to why would you use them? If you can add heatsinks, especially doubles, then energy weapons rule.

[canned wolf]

There are literally hundreds of ways to correct problems from past games. I think targeting computers as a separate component with variable ratings is a great idea. You could also introduce a little halfsecond lag from the time you pull the trigger to the time the lasers fire. Call it charge time or whatever. You could extend the fire time on the beams making it harder to score all your damage in one spot. You could just make lasers really expensive and hard to replace when they've been damaged. You could go with the tabletop version of heat management, which means a laser boat is going to cook itsself, or you could just admit that the AC's don't make any since as implemented in previous games and totally rework them.

Frankly all the ranges need to be reworked. 300 meters is long range for an infantry engagement, but its practically pointblank for mechanized warfare.

Edited by canned wolf, 21 December 2011 - 09:08 AM.

[Orayn]

Nik Van Rhijn, on 21 December 2011 - 04:16 AM, said:

The problem is that a lot of people here insist that if their "target designator" is on a particular point, that is where the shot should hit. they then argue that it's an affront to their skill and use of an RNG to detract from their ability to hit what they aim at. They don't accept that the reticule is merely a target designator and that the mechs computer has to move all the weapons to aim at that point with varying speeds and degrees of accuracy, irrespective of the inherent accuracy (or inaccuracy) of the weapon itself.

Extending the "setpoint" idea in my last post, your targeting designator could be a large, faint reticle with an open center. Every weapon in your currently active group could be represented by a smaller dot or crosshair on screen that would bounce around and would always correspond to exactly where the weapon was pointing. Weapons yon a mech's arms would wobble differently from weapons on the torso, which would wobble differently from weapons on the shoulders, etc.

canned wolf, on 21 December 2011 - 09:08 AM, said:

There are literally hundreds of ways to correct problems from past games. I think targeting computers as a separate component with variable ratings is a great idea. You could also introduce a little halfsecond lag from the time you pull the trigger to the time the lasers fire. Call it charge time or whatever. You could extend the fire time on the beams making it harder to score all your damage in one spot. You could just make lasers really expensive and hard to replace when they've been damaged. You could go with the tabletop version of heat management, which means a laser boat is going to cook itsself, or you could just admit that the AC's don't make any since as implemented in previous games and totally rework them.

Frankly all the ranges need to be reworked. 300 meters is long range for an infantry engagement, but its practically pointblank for mechanized warfare.

Agreed. Ranges, generally speaking, should be pretty damn long. Real life autocannons have effective ranges measured in thousands of meters, and large lasers really wouldn't have any practical cutoff point for where they'd be less dangerous.

[KuruptU4Fun]

Most people who play videogames like FPS's have never held a real weapon in a combat scenario. You run, you shoot, you hope to h==l your aim is sufficient to hit what you're looking at. If you're prone, the only two things you need to worry about is distance (for bullet drop) and breathing. Since Mechs don't breathe and we're going to be using lasers to some degree the ONLY thing we have to worry about is movement. Current add-on weapon sights will work accurately while moving, but only to a certain degree. If you have a tactical laser on a weapon then it's still affected by movement. There are ONLY 2 ways to counteract this. Gyros for stabilization and weapon systems that calculate movement into it's use. These are being used in tanks and other ground based vehicles already. Either one should be something you have to buy and maintain in game to continue to use it effectively.

[Kudzu]

Battletech =/= real life, and it's made that way for a reason. Short ranges and bad accuracy make for longer fights with the possibility of melee, otherwise you'll end up with two lines of people on the opposite ends of the map sniping away-- not much fun.

[Glorius]

Frankly, Mech XP introduced by devs today make step in right direction, I think. Imagine, improve your targeting system for better compensation of movement&heat (TRO's already have different manufacturers) or may be upgrade targeting soft- hardware for C-bills.

What about laser boat, IMO fire delay is good idea plus implement different delays for each laser, say 0.1 sec range, and this kill the problem of convergence (4 med lasers = 1 AC/20).

[ManDaisy]

Best video so far on how I interpret lasers, notice its not instant damage. And yes I know they guy is using a pulse laser but this should be the behavior of a normal laser. Skip to 02:30 for laser action.

Edited by ManDaisy, 21 December 2011 - 08:27 PM.

[CaveMan]

Nik Van Rhijn, on 21 December 2011 - 04:16 AM, said:

The problem is that a lot of people here insist that if their "target designator" is on a particular point, that is where the shot should hit. they then argue that it's an affront to their skill and use of an RNG to detract from their ability to hit what they aim at.

As though it takes skill to move a mouse cursor! lololololololololol