244 replies to this topic

[trulez]

It should work exactly like in previous games.

Artillery/Rockets:
You aim your target until you get a LOCK, then you can shoot at your target redardless of where your sights are pointing at and the projectiles will hit based on the weapon/ammunition quality. A target lock should last as long as the target is in your radar, anything that blocks radar (inside buildings/out of range) cancels lock.

Lasers/Cannons:
You aim and shoot your weapons just like in a FPS game, no autoaims, no assists and no locked targets.

[Karl Streiger]

the targeting computer should do the major part of your aiming. You select a object or a part of the object and the computer will try to hit the target, the computer need some time for the calculating, resulting in greater importance of Electronic Warfare.

Of course you should be able to realign the aim, but it shouldn't be a point and click - for example you ask the targeting computer to hit the Hunchback - per default it will try to hit the center - the target hit the good armored belly of the Hunchback - now you adjust the next fire - lets say the computer should take that aim and fire next time three or four meters above the last hit. may hit the head but could be a miss too, when you take a new target for example the Jenner the 2 meters higher will result in a miss because 4 meters above the center is only air.

MechWarfare shouldn't be a fast pace action game like MW4, i hope to see a dance between surgeons

[Max Liao]

Pht, on 09 November 2011 - 07:07 PM, said:

I've said it before, and I'll probably say it again -

MW is about simulating what it's like to pilot a BattleMech in the BT universe; and in the BTU the pilot picks the target, and the 'Mech tries to hit that target.

So the pilot picks it and the 'Mech tries to hit it; the 'Mechs ability to hit is determined by what weapons it's firing, it's overall condition and environment, and the actions of the target 'Mech.

MW4 style aiming is not "mechwarrior" at all - it's quake, just slower and with more guns. MW is an first person armored combat sim ... not an FPS.

"Gunnery" skill in the BTU boils down to situational awareness along with the ability to put the reticule on the right target. You have to "think" for your mech more than you have to "twitch" the reticule to point at the pixel you want.

If they botch this up again like mw4 did ... that'll be sad. Very sad.

Man, I so wanted to type up something on my own, but ... ^^ this ^^

[Dozer]

As mentioned earlier it really is about pilot painting the target and the targeting computer doing the rest. Accordingly it will be probablistic because there are simply too many variables for the computer to compensate for. Unless you have a point blank shot, with no form of outside interference there is never going to be a 100% accurate shot.

Oh BTW I posted this in another related discussion but laser accuracy is affected by temperature fluctuation. If it passes between two or more temperature gradients it can bend. Such accuracy fluctuations can be minimised but never 100% eliminated or computatively predicted. And laser accuracy can also be affected by target refractedness (sic) and ambient light. Ergo not 100% accurate.

Oh there is such a thing as luck on the battle field. Just because you can't see it in action or control it doesn't mean it doesn't happen and can't affect your accuracy. How for example does you're targetting computer compensate for debris from an explosion or someone behind you being blown into you at that exact firing moment, a helo flying low into your firing arc to avoid a missle, the mech stop moving or twisting etc... unpredictability is a reality of war (and life in general).

For these reasons probablistic is the more likely mechanic imo. I would be willing to conceded however that a pilot skill may increase the probability factor somewhat but never ever eliminate it. Otherwise it would make the skills more than a little redundant (if it existed).

Edited by Dozer, 10 November 2011 - 04:02 AM.

[Nik Van Rhijn]

I'm a supporter of the "hybrid" ie probabilistic modified by pilot skill dfor all the reasons given above. We have to remember that the original TT BT was not based on reality. Since when have cannon shot shorter distances the bigger they got?

[Tyrant]

Probability and randomization in a first person action game results in terrible user experience.

Please play WoT and witness a poor system, not only may you miss but even on a hit you can bounce your shot because of the bad dice roll.

Remember they are not making an electronic version of the TT game, this game needs to have mass appeal to have the potential to make real $$$ and that simply cannot be achieve by aiming this service at the CBT TT niche crowed.

Think for a second and realize that this is a product / service and it needs to make money, the more money it makes the more they can reinvest into the product, win win.

Making MWO super niche will be detrimental to the product in the long run.

Edited by Tyrant, 10 November 2011 - 04:13 AM.

[Karl Streiger]

That's why it should always be possible to readjust the fire of the computer, when your ac grenades miss the because of weather condition like air pressure and wind, the next round will have the same failure so you say to the computer "aim-point plus 2.33 meter" like adjusting artillery fire.

[Captain Hat]

I may have said this before in another thread, but could all of the guys advocating targeting computer control of all fire please forward me the numbers and trading names of their local dealers? 'Cause you guys are obviously getting some seriously good **** that I appear to have missed out on entirely.

Look, to the hardcore BTech fan who pays far too much attention to some seriously obscure background stuff and doesn't think about it too much that sort of model might make sense but this is a game, and the point of a game is that you control it directly, your actions determine the outcome and your skill matters.

Thus, any action to remove control from the player is inherently a bad thing, and needs some serious justification before you can put it into a game and expect it to work.

The limited randomisation of shots in WoT kind of works only because most guns are quite accurate when fully aimed and it turns the acquisition of a target into a skill not just of aim but also timing- you control the level of randomness you are comfortable with in your shot as well as the centre of the probability distribution, so at the end of the day even the distancing of the precise hit location from the player's direct control is folded into another player-skill action.

Obviously WoT's model isn't perfect, but it is an example.

Any action to further remove the aiming aspect of the game from the player- especially one to fold the entirety of that action into an automated process- is fundamentally counterproductive to the gameplay experience. You get little to none of the satisfaction of a manually-aimed shot.

In addition, even in canon instances such as the "Ghost 'mech" which are often used to justify the idea that most of the shooting is done by battle computers, 'mech pilots are noted to have fired weapons under direct manual control, with enough of them hitting the target in at least one instance to destroy the 'mech that demonstrated the ability. The clear indication is that while the targeting computer is essential to proper coordination and convergence of weapons fire and for locking missiles onto a target, the actual aiming and firing i still mostly done directly by the pilot. An advanced targeting computer is- and should be- a pilot aid, not an automatic "Win" button.

Edited by Captain Hat, 10 November 2011 - 05:04 AM.

[trulez]

Dozer, on 10 November 2011 - 03:49 AM, said:

Oh there is such a thing as luck on the battle field. Just because you can't see it in action or control it doesn't mean it doesn't happen and can't affect your accuracy. How for example does you're targetting computer compensate for debris from an explosion or someone behind you being blown into you at that exact firing moment, a helo flying low into your firing arc to avoid a missle, the mech stop moving or twisting etc... unpredictability is a reality of war (and life in general).

There's plenty of real luck involved in shooting without adding on any artificial factors.

Your ping, hand-eye-coordination, enemy movement etc. make taking the shot hard enough without added chance of some random failure of your equipment. It's already VERY frustrating to miss your target due to lack of personal ability, but if you miss because something out of your control (you rolled critical miss) happens I'd quit the game.

[Captain Hat]

Exactly. And I think you'll find that the vast majority of gamers will follow trulez. Moreover, it's the gamers that this game needs to win over, not the people who are already fanatics.

Edited by Captain Hat, 10 November 2011 - 05:14 AM.

[Tierloc]

Kudzu, on 09 November 2011 - 07:46 PM, said:

Grab a friend, a paintball gun, and a pickup truck. First, stand in the truck while it's parked and shoot a target. Not hard, huh? Next, have the friend drive the truck about 20 mph down a road while you stand in the bed with the gun and try to shoot the target. Not easy, but doable, right? Now have him drive off road over some rougher ground at the same speed and try it. Gets a lot harder, right? Now try to hit a moving target while driving off road while your driver is speeding up and slowing down, going over bumps...

Try it, and you'll see what that expanding reticule is representing. The same thing applies to mechs in the BT universe. They aren't graceful Gundams, they are more like lumbering hulks. There's a reason that their scatter and miss completely.

All that suggests is that I would have to continually aim my recticle at what I want to hit. That is not what I am focusing on, or what I believe this discussion is on. Once I have my recticle on the target, regardless of the possibility of having my shot knocked off or the target moving, I will have to keep my sights on the target. That could be based on turret twist speed, chassis momentum or motion. I use a joystick so I'll add the vibration of the controls can even affect me being able to paint a target.

It's the idea that even if I do put my sights on the target, that each individual weapon then has their own sights to focus.

You have just proven my example indirectly. In WoT or in your paintball example, the idea a human crew is not just choosing a target but manually directing the turret, calculating distance, trajectory and air speed of the projectile can account for some focus time of a recticle. Mechs are not piloted by teams. This is not Voltron. The targeting system is completely electronic, once I choose a target the electronic guidance system hits it.

Here's a neat paintball turret:



Here's an electronic motion sensor based paintball turret:



I would suggest that the difference between motion sensor and electronic guidance is the target choice, not the guidance system involved in directing the turret.

The individual accuracy of the weapons can be decided by a number of things, but the repeated expectancy of what that weapon will do based on where my recticle is aiming is what makes me better than you or vice versa. If you compare an LBX to a shotgun, the accuracy of your shot will be determined by your aim, distance and ammo used. If it's buck shot (which it is), then an expected pattern of widening effect will grow like a cone. It is not based on each of us firing at each other under the same circumstances and a random factor determines if we hit each other or not.

[Tierloc]

Best example I have for focused recticles in gameplay are battleships. Specifically shown in the movie "Under Seige". The deck guns are controlled by an electronic guidance system. When the "terrorists" knock out the guidance system, at the end of the movie 3 guys have to manually hit the submarine old school by cranking the turret by hand.

Some other turret / guidance videos..

Electronic guidance:



Manual guidance:




You get the idea.

[Dozer]

Captain Hat, on 10 November 2011 - 05:14 AM, said:

Exactly. And I think you'll find that the vast majority of gamers will follow trulez. Moreover, it's the gamers that this game needs to win over, not the people who are already fanatics.

err we're all gamers, be we 'fanatics', 'realistist', 'dreamers' whatever. Just because people approach things from different directions doesn't invalidate that status for them now does it?

Many of the most popular FPS do have recoil and yet are still very successful. Adding 'some' level of realism might only change playstyle rather than negate it altogether imo. I learn to double tap/thriple tap to ensure I am generally hitting what I am aim at. Hence my comment about a probability being important (the foundation), but player skill (either real or simulated skills) impacting that probability. It acknowledges both mechanics rather than invalidates.


And to be honest alot of what we are talking about is going to be 'under the hood' so to speak. We will see hit or miss visually but how it got there we won't really have time to ponder about it. We're in the heat of battle after all It's not as if critical hit/miss splashes across our cockpit...

Edited by Dozer, 10 November 2011 - 05:54 AM.

[Tierloc]

Karl Streiger, on 10 November 2011 - 03:22 AM, said:

the targeting computer should do the major part of your aiming. You select a object or a part of the object and the computer will try to hit the target, the computer need some time for the calculating, resulting in greater importance of Electronic Warfare.

Of course you should be able to realign the aim, but it shouldn't be a point and click - for example you ask the targeting computer to hit the Hunchback - per default it will try to hit the center - the target hit the good armored belly of the Hunchback - now you adjust the next fire - lets say the computer should take that aim and fire next time three or four meters above the last hit. may hit the head but could be a miss too, when you take a new target for example the Jenner the 2 meters higher will result in a miss because 4 meters above the center is only air.

MechWarfare shouldn't be a fast pace action game like MW4, i hope to see a dance between surgeons

That is, if the surgeon's implements are only 40-80% accurate at any point in time with a recalculation between slices.. right?

"Don't worry Jim, this scalpal cuts a straight line 65% of the time over all."

[Tierloc]

"We hit 10 out of 10, 18 inch bullseye at 600m"




A playstation controller..

[Nik Van Rhijn]

There will always be a probabilistic element in any ballistic weapon in RL. The number of times I've had a sudden gust of wind downrange tke my shot off target. With lasers it could be smoke etc attenuating the shot. This is all catered for in the game engine, with the level of "reality" modified to give a satisfying game experience and to avoid overworking the processors (even at the present level) with too much calculation in any multi mech simulation. At the same time skill, ie practice and experience with your mech, weopons and how they behave in game will count. It should never be a case of "if my crosshairs are exactly on that spot, that is where all my shots will hit" especially with multiple weapons, in different places and with different characteristics. No two weapons, even of the same type will behave exactly the same - reduced for lasers, more for AC's and at it's worst for missiles which inherently have a spread of fire in BT. What we ned to hope for is that the dev's balance it out so that beginners have a chance (even if it's learning how to ambush at close range so that they can hit) while allowing experience to factor in as time in game increases. I love BT in all it's forms and hope that this game can show how true to the original ideals it can be while taking advantage of the improvement's over the last decadesto produce something that is accessible to a wide audience.

[Captain Hat]

Dozer, on 10 November 2011 - 05:51 AM, said:

err we're all gamers, be we 'fanatics', 'realistist', 'dreamers' whatever. Just because people approach things from different directions doesn't invalidate that status for them now does it?

You aren't a mainstream gamer, particularly not in the way things are gonna be split for this particular game. The mainstream demographic that this game needs to grab in order to succeed does not count you among their number.

Aside from which, take yourself away from the BTech canon for a moment and think about what makes for the better game, the better interactive experience as it were: Is it more fun to right click on a target than just keep mashing the fire button while you look elsewhere and drive, or to aim and fire the guns yourself? Speaking as a BTech nut you may find the former more authentic, though I personally would disagree on that view of the canon as it stands, but speaking as a gamer the vast majority of people would far prefer to be the ones making the shots directly, whether through a randomisation filter based on speed, traverse, terrain etc or not.

[Dozer]

Captain Hat, on 10 November 2011 - 07:50 AM, said:

You aren't a mainstream gamer, particularly not in the way things are gonna be split for this particular game. The mainstream demographic that this game needs to grab in order to succeed does not count you among their number.

Aside from which, take yourself away from the BTech canon for a moment and think about what makes for the better game, the better interactive experience as it were: Is it more fun to right click on a target than just keep mashing the fire button while you look elsewhere and drive, or to aim and fire the guns yourself? Speaking as a BTech nut you may find the former more authentic, though I personally would disagree on that view of the canon as it stands, but speaking as a gamer the vast majority of people would far prefer to be the ones making the shots directly, whether through a randomisation filter based on speed, traverse, terrain etc or not.

I do have to chuckle that somehow you take a couple of my posts about probability, most of which have been framed as real world examples (i.e. in a real world context), and turned me into a 'fanatic', non-mainstream BTech nut. I have to say that's a bit of a stretch

I have some time so I will try to perhaps counter your misconceptions. I played TT rules twenty years ago for a few years. I picked up the Mech bug again back when the PC Mechwarrior came out. Played Mechcommander 1 & 2 a little too. I couldn't tell you anything about the mechanics of the game system at all beyond the name of some of the Mechs, and the odd reference to House Steiner. I am middle aged, with a wife and 3 year old, and in the last year of completing my Masters so time can sometimes be tight. I am also a person who plays a number of different online games a total of about 8-10 hours some weeks, 0 others. I am not, nor ever will be, a min maxer. I prefer flashy graphics, play solo a lot due to my timezone (GMT +4) and like spending time chatting ingame as much as playing.

So, with all due respect, your definition of me is way off the charts.

With all that said, I don't mind the idea of point/click/hit... I just recognise that it becomes less of a challenge for me which is not my preference, or some others as indicated on this thread and others, and try to explain my reasons why without personally tearing down others. If it is felt in the best interests of the game by the designers that this is the way the game will go then that's ok. I'll gladly line up my Atlas and point/click/hit your mech for all its worth

I might add it's interesting that you say for me to take another perspective on what makes for a better game, but seem unable to do so yourself. Does that seem a balanced approach in your opinion, or a contradictory one?

Edited by Dozer, 10 November 2011 - 08:22 AM.

[Joseph Mallan]

I voted Pinbalistic Velocitizer! No wait,...Personal Skill! Which will actually hurt me to begin, I have some serious rust to remove and tired eyes to compensate for, But if I'm a 4/5 gunner in reality then that's how it should relate in game.

[Havoc2]

I voted for pilot skill pure and simple. However I suspect that (read: HOPE like H-E-L-L) the targeting reticule will get bigger/smaller/bounce around depending on your pilot's trained skill and 'Mech's movement. So if you feel like being a giant stationary target and crouch down, you can get a nice tight reticule for sniping. Moving around and bouncing all over the place, your reticule is larger and your direct fire weapons are more prone to hit different areas within that reticule.
Through experience and training, your reticule can get smaller/tighter faster.

I would like to see the targeting computer integrated into this (another training element) so that it's used to get faster missile locks and ALSO can be used to get tighter/more accurate shots on direct fire weapons.