244 replies to this topic

[Lentil]

Past MW PC games have varied in how damage is applied to the locations of the mech. Starting in MW2, if you aimed at the leg you hit the leg. This came to a head in MW4 where concentrated alpha strikes to quickly 'core' CT became the mark of the winning teams.

How does a casual gamer compete? Or should it even matter? After all, in the TT game hit locations are random. So to be the most true to the original, the pilot should have little or no control over hit location. In TT, more armor was naturally located in the places with the highest probability of being hit. So there was a natural balance between armor allotments and the probability of damage. The skill is in tactics, movign less than your enemy, finding good cover, having good intelligence, etc... not in how well you roll the dice.

IMHO, allowing precision aiming is one reason why the arm/leg/head shot tactics occur... and 'boat'ing. When you can fire 8 weapons and have them all hit the precise same point on the target, the amount of armor become much less significant (let alone the damage model).

I would prefer a model more like Half-life, Borderlands or other probabilistic hit systems. Depending on the type of weapon, speed of your mech, heat status, etc, the "reticle" get bigger. Your shot lands somewhere inside the circle. Fire 6 ERLLAS, and they hit 6 random locations within the circle. This gives a light mech a fighting chance, because it won't be killed instantly by the first trigger pull from a heavier 'mech.

[MaddMaxx]

Inside the Reticule is good enough. Lack of movement tightens the Reticule. Holding the Reticule in place over an area tightens the reticule as time passes and the opposite effect occurs in reverse.

The only true focus based weapons (multi weapons focusing to a single point) would have to be Arm based which means they are articulated and thus require the electronics and Gyro's to also be on-board (with the added weight and space requirements accounted for) to allow for said focusing effects.

Running sideways at 70kph, across rough terrain, while burning a hole through the center torso of another moving Mech at 200+ meters should be all but impossible, despite the best gyro set up in the Inner Sphere.

[Dsi1]

Pilot skill. Your shell should go where your cannon points and the skill should be in pointing the cannon properly. Think like Red Orchestra and ArmA2, you shoot and you suffer recoil (or in the case of lasers, heating and not being able to fire it again too soon if you missed), you have to deal with that recoil and bring your rifle back under control for another shot. No automatic compensation at all, gyros should just affect how 'loose' your reticule/how big the deadzone for aiming is.

Edited by Dsi1, 02 November 2011 - 06:14 PM.

[The1WithTheGun]

Dang - hit the wrong one - meant to vote probabilistic - with reasonable scatter.

Then again, depending on how the game is developed - I could live with Target Designation - make it feel a bit more like the board game.

Edited by The1WithTheGun, 02 November 2011 - 06:14 PM.

[Phoenixfire]

I think probabilistic would be better not only so that lights would stand a chance but also fits better with the cannon. You rarely read in the fiction that all the weapons fired hit the mech when it was targeted. Hell, I would like probabilistic work on individual LRM and SRM swarms so that some missles of the 10 or 20 hit while others might not so each missle can do damage and would be more realistic

[Zendric]

I put my vote in for Probabilistic, it is the most skill (as in micromanagement) based and will deter PPC boating.

[Dsi1]

Zendric, on 02 November 2011 - 06:18 PM, said:

I put my vote in for Probabilistic, it is the most skill (as in micromanagement) based and will deter PPC boating.

TIL that the rng = skill and micromanagement.

[Havoc2]

I'd like to hit what I'm aiming at, I'd think that if people can make 100tons of steel and destruction run at 80 km/h that they could make a targeting system that can shoot straight.

HOWEVER.

I think that there should definitely be a lot of skill/timing in firing a steady shot. I.E being hit by weapons skews your targeting reticle, firing your weapons skews your reticle, running makes your reticle jump up and down according to 'Mech movement.

If I have the patience to wait until my reticle lines up with the centre torso before firing each shot, I should be rewarded. Also helps to prevent the "circles of death" we all know and love. If I chain fire my weapons 1 at a time, both my 'Mech and my target 'Mech will have a tough time drawing an accurate bead since the target reticles of both 'Mechs will be jumping around. Maybe not enough to miss, but enough that I don't get a core shot every time unless I can wait for my openings.

Having this plus recharge times on weapons should minimize if not eradicate "coring". Combine that with (what I assume the devs will do since even the MS devs did) splash damage of non-direct fire weapons (missiles etc) and we should see fights that last longer than 10 seconds.

But like I said before, if I can get past the movement of my 'Mech and the motion of being hit, I should be rewarded for my patience.

[infinite xaer0]

All of those options are applicable to different weapons, but none of those options alone would be good for ALL the weapons. For example. Lasers and PPC's should be point and shoot. AC's should have some probabilistic deviation, especially at range, and LRM's are more or less guided by a targeting computer.

[The1WithTheGun]

infinite xÆr0, on 02 November 2011 - 06:24 PM, said:

All of those options are applicable to different weapons, but none of those options alone would be good for ALL the weapons. For example. Lasers and PPC's should be point and shoot. AC's should have some probabilistic deviation, especially at range, and LRM's are more or less guided by a targeting computer.

Yeah but then everyone will load up on lasers and PPCs and that's it. The Ostroc and Ostol will be two of the most popular heavies in the game!

It will be interesting to see how the devs deal with this issue.

Edited by The1WithTheGun, 02 November 2011 - 06:30 PM.

[Dsi1]

The1WithTheGun, on 02 November 2011 - 06:26 PM, said:

Yeah but then everyone will load up on lasers and PPCs and that's it. It will be interesting to see how the devs deal with this issue.

That's why you don't make ballistic weapons luck based, you make them ballistic based. Have the shell go where the barrel points and have it be affected by gravity and wind, there you go, suddenly skill not luck.

Same goes for lasers and PPCs minus the gravity and wind effect.

[Phades]

I'm leaning towards primarily a pilot skill based system. This would be for all unguided direct fire LOS weapons. For other things like radar style lock weapons or LBX auto cannons, or artemis/arrow systems, there should be some spread and placement deviation. If deadfire semi guided missiles are used, allow the player to be creative with "hook" style shots to get around corners in order to give more meaning to the different weapon systems.

I think the primary problem ends up being with the near instant hit style laser weapons in both beam and pulse variations leaving little chance for missing and shot deviation. This can be a problematic issue in a game where resources are finite leading towards player choice bias down the road. Heat accumulation is the traditional counter balance, but that just leads to players overloading heat sinks. Instead of simply only relying upon total mech heat build up, another mechanic along similar lines could be used. Heat on the weapon specifically. Granted, issues like this were traditionally handled through ROF limitations, however in order to have it be more of a pilot based system giving the pilot the choice to go hot and override is a core game element that has always been there. Also, in going weapon based, it will place more limitations on over use of one or two primary weapons and force rotations or self limitations for better protracted use. It would also largely eliminate continuous fire patterns leading into the alpha strike switch for finishing wounded targets quickly. Also, it would give more reason to use weapons like a flamer, to heat up a primary weapon system instead of just general danger to ammo or core explosions as seen in previous games.

It would also be neat to see the melee options in game (carried weapons, DFA, kick/punch w/e, as i love me some hatchet man action), but I'll understand if it is not implemented.


Also, with the ECM style items could easily be elements to help conceal rather than just disrupt or disperse shot grouping too. There are tons of options here for that route if it is taken.

Edited by Phades, 02 November 2011 - 06:32 PM.

[infinite xaer0]

The1WithTheGun, on 02 November 2011 - 06:26 PM, said:

Yeah but then everyone will load up on lasers and PPCs and that's it. It will be interesting to see how the devs deal with this issue.

this is a purely speculative assumption. Based on what the devs have been saying, not all maps will be "energy weapon friendly", and besides, urban maps will force players to get up close and personal, which won't really give pin point accurate lasers that much of an advantage.

[infinite xaer0]

Dsi1, on 02 November 2011 - 06:29 PM, said:

That's why you don't make ballistic weapons luck based, you make them ballistic based. Have the shell go where the barrel points and have it be affected by gravity and wind, there you go, suddenly skill not luck.

Same goes for lasers and PPCs minus the gravity and wind effect.

well, shooting AC's at range in real life has a "luck" element to it, especially if you're reaching to hit targets beyond your maximum effective range, especially moving targets. I'm not advocating for serious deviation of AC's at effective ranges in the game, but beyond those, it should be trickier to put rounds on target consistently.

[Dsi1]

infinite xÆr0, on 02 November 2011 - 06:37 PM, said:

well, shooting AC's at range in real life has a "luck" element to it, especially if you're reaching to hit targets beyond your maximum effective range, especially moving targets. I'm not advocating for serious deviation of AC's at effective ranges in the game, but beyond those, it should be trickier to put rounds on target consistently.

It's only luck if you will yourself to ignore the physical elements at play

There is something to be said for it being lucky that he kept going straight instead of turning, but it is much less luck than your shell going to the top left of your 2 inch reticule and missing instead of going to the top middle of your 2 inch reticule and blowing a mech's head off. (Cough cough, WoT)

Edited by Dsi1, 02 November 2011 - 06:45 PM.

[CrescentHawk]

I voted probabilistic, but I think there should be a case where that reticle is almost non existent (say whe you are completely stationary and haven't moved the reticle). I also think the effect of moving should be more significant. Don't just make the reticle larger but actually have the screen bouncing around. The faster your mech is moving the more it is bouncing. Probabilistic is more faithful to the boardgame and to be honest it makes sence that weapons fired from different spots in a mech should hit in different spots on the target.

[Dsi1]

CrescentHawk, on 02 November 2011 - 06:46 PM, said:

I voted probabilistic, but I think there should be a case where that reticle is almost non existent (say whe you are completely stationary and haven't moved the reticle). I also think the effect of moving should be more significant. Don't just make the reticle larger but actually have the screen bouncing around. The faster your mech is moving the more it is bouncing. Probabilistic is more faithful to the boardgame and to be honest it makes sence that weapons fired from different spots in a mech should hit in different spots on the target.

This except remove the luck element, your weaponry are mounted in different areas so the munition they fire originate from different areas, hopefully your arm isn't still behind that building when you fire that AC20!

The board game was based on probability because you couldn't actually hop in a mech and take the shot yourself. Great for a tactical/strategic perspective. Bad for an FPS perspective.

[CobraFive]

Weapons should have scatter %. Each weapon could have an accuracy... lasers being very accurate, while rapid firing weapons and autocannons are less accurate. This would fix a lot of problems that have been wrong with the series for some time, such as being too easy to leg and some 'mechs being pretty worthless because the head is too easy to snipe. Additionally, since we now have pilot skills we can level up, we'd be able to put points to specialize in particular weapons, such as increasing the accuracy, letting us tailor the game to our playstyles.

I also agree that the movement of your 'mech, as well as movement from your own recoil and being hit by physical weapons, should reduce your accuracy.

[infinite xaer0]

Dsi1, on 02 November 2011 - 06:42 PM, said:

It's only luck if you will yourself to ignore the physical elements at play

There is something to be said for it being lucky that he kept going straight instead of turning, but it is much less luck than your shell going to the top left of your 2 inch reticule and missing instead of going to the top middle of your 2 inch reticule and blowing a mech's head off. (Cough cough, WoT)

oh, so physical elements like imperfect barrel harmonics, or disproportionately expanding gasses coming out of the end of the barrel? Those things would throw off shot accuracy at RANGE, and their effects not likely to be very predictable, hence the element of probability or luck in the shot. Granted, this sort of shot deviation should only really occur at, and most certainly past your weapon's maximum effective range, and it should not be drastic, because, well, it's not that drastic in real life... Basically, this could be the difference between say, aiming and shooting for the CT at 1000m, but hitting the left or right torso, or an arm maybe, but certainly not missing..

[Mezzanine]

I had to read the original post to better understand the poll first, but I'd definitely prefer probabilistic. My shot should land inside the targeting recticle, but things like movement, weapon type, and targeting computers should definitely determine the size and steadiness of my sights. Not to mention environmental hazards like smoke, sun glare, overheated systems, rubble/debris, and whatever the target is crouching behind.

I think some variation on this system strikes the best balance between rewarding a steady hand and a nod towards realism and/or blind luck.