140 replies to this topic

[DaZur]

}{avoc, on 07 May 2012 - 12:00 PM, said:

No, I'm not.

Not being able to hit what's under my targeting reticule makes no sense at all. What's the point of having a reticule then?

If there's lag time (and it's visually indicated) between the time I acquire the target, aim at where I want to hit the target, and when the weapons actually aim at the target then that's fine, I SHOULD STILL HIT WHAT I'M AIMING AT.

There should be no magical hit/miss/crit rock/paper/scissors thing going on in the back ground, otherwise all we'll do is ram/alpha each other. Why? Because then we'll be pretty much guaranteed to hit each other.

EUREKA! That it... We'll roll virtual die every time we take a shot and let chance dictate the outcome! BRILLIANT! I was almost excited with about the rock, paper, scissors idea... but then realized the chance modifier is waaaaay to small.

[Arkhangel]

anyone even thought about projectile weapon recoil yet? i do recall Kai Allard-Liao in Yen-Lo-Wang in one book "fighting his autocannon's tendency to rise."

[Punisher 1]

Jun Watarase, on 04 May 2012 - 11:07 AM, said:

I remember playing EA's MPBT 3025 where weapons were 100% accurate. The result was that med lasers and AC2s were incredibly powerful, and medium class games were usually 4 blackjacks sniping another 4 blackjacks with AC2 fire at 1000 meters (or whatever the max range was). Then at some point one side would try to hide and the other side would walk backwards while firing their AC2s. People who tried to take hunchbacks, centurions, etc were usually very ineffective.

And well...if you look at MW4 multiplayer...it's almost entirely comprised of people taking PPC/Gauss boats and sniping each other at 800+ meters without leaving their spawn.

Seriously hoping MWO won't turn into another snipe fest, where people just take the heaviest mechs they can and hide behind hills with jump jets in "uber" sniper configs while sniping with pinpoint accuracy across the map.

No hell no.

Nothing like having to make a critical shot and it randomly goes somewhere else from 10 feet way. That's is nothing but aggravating.

Sorry dude but it is called skill some people have it others don't I do not want to be a victim of randomness. Nor do I want to fail because my rounds do not fall where I aim them.

[Mike Silva]

}{avoc, on 07 May 2012 - 10:48 AM, said:

Stopped reading here.

In the year 3049, even if several BattleMechs are several hundreds of years old, you're going to tell me that any tech in the year 2800+ will not be "high tech"?

Stopped reading here.

If you haven't bothered to read any of the source material that this universe is based on I'm not going to spend time filling you in..... especially with your "stopped reading here" attitude. That's rude, and not worth my time.

Edited by Mike Silva, 07 May 2012 - 03:32 PM.

[Kvidar]

I agree for the most part that weapons should go where the reticule is pointing, but i think that the balance should come into play in that certain chasis turn slower, and have slower torso twist and therefore, their reticule does not track the fast targets quickly (imagine being in a heavy tank in WoT trying to kill one of those french lights dancing around you)
In short, the weapons should be accurate, but the mech's should have limits that are logical to account for balance and anti-sniping.
Just my 2 cents.

[Cruxshadow]

Kvidar, on 07 May 2012 - 10:27 PM, said:

I agree for the most part that weapons should go where the reticule is pointing, but i think that the balance should come into play in that certain chasis turn slower, and have slower torso twist and therefore, their reticule does not track the fast targets quickly (imagine being in a heavy tank in WoT trying to kill one of those french lights dancing around you)
In short, the weapons should be accurate, but the mech's should have limits that are logical to account for balance and anti-sniping.

Just my 2 cents.

Unlike tanks mechs don't have turrets that rotate 360 degrees, the have arcs of fire and safety limiters to prevent them from shooting themselves. The HUD system highlights or subdues weapons systems depending if they can bear on target or not.

No matter what kind of stabelization the weapon system has there will be some inaccuracy. Factors like your movement, target movement, weapons tracking, and the environment will increase said inaccuracy, expanding or contracting the estimated impact zone.

Edited by Cruxshadow, 08 May 2012 - 05:49 PM.

[Tincan Nightmare]

Well I know from the TT and the books that damage always got spread out over a target, but I would prefer the accuracy of putting my shots on target myself with a reticule. It would be interesting though if there was a TT game mode where you selected a target with your sights but when you fired wether you hit or not was based on your gunnery skill, range, and all the other TT rules and each shot that hit was placed randomly. Might make for a fun 'optional' rule on occasion, though I wouldn't want it to be the norm.

[Euphor Kell]

TheRulesLawyer, on 07 May 2012 - 11:45 AM, said:

You're looking at it wrong. Battlemechs display a stabilized aim point, not where the barrels are pointing. The mech's computers are trying to hit that point. Once you wrap your head around the fact that where the barrels are points and where the recticle is aren't always the same place it all make sense.

couldn't agree more.
there is a reason weapon sights are located on the weapon, its because once you remove your point of view from the weapon then things become distorted.
essentially, your mech is almost always (head mounted weapons excepted) shooting ''from the hip''
I ask you, do you think its possible to have much accuracy if you are aiming your gun from your hip like mechs do? Go play laser tag or paintball, then think about it, if the gun isn't in line with tyour eyes and the target, then you're relying on your instincts. A computer's instincts are nowhere near what a humans could be, and even if they were, hydraulic rams, servo motors and myomer muscles are all going to have some lag time induced when they are used, not unlike a clumsy chld.

Oh, and there is still a point to have a sight there, even if the weapons won't always hit the middle of it, it still points you in the direction you are facing, and from that you can guess where the weapons should hit (thus the more skill means better ability to judge where the shots will land - no blaming a RNG)

as to the super computers that they should have in a thousand years, in just the last 50 years, it was predicted we would have flying cars, and live on mars by now. That hasn't happened, who's to say we don't advance computers per moore's law for the next thousand years, and ecen what we do, we destroy most of it in the succession wars.

[Kvidar]

Cruxshadow, on 08 May 2012 - 12:22 AM, said:

Unlike tanks mechs don't have turrets that rotate 360 degrees, the have arcs of fire ans safety limiters to prevent them from shooting themselves. The HUD system highlights or subdues weapons systems depending if they can bear on target or not.

No matter what kind of stabelization the weapon system has there will be some inaccuracy. Factors like your movement, target movement, weapons tracking, and the environment will increase said inaccuracy, expanding or contracting the estimated impact zone.

I'm fully aware that the majority of mechs do not rotate 360 degrees, (though the Mad Dog/Vulture begs to differ) and you completely missed the point. I was making the WoT reference just to prove the point- not as a perfect analogy.

An atlas who turns their torso and mech to try and move their reticule onto a jenner sprinting to their right will most likely be unable to get the jenner in their reticule, then when you add in the discrepancy between where the reticule is and where the weapons are pointing, aforementioned atlas will not be able to hit the jenner with anything- and thats how the balance of weapon accuracy should be handled- through proper positioning and maneuvering of your mechs' and proper use of well designed environments.

If your reticule And weapons are pointed on a target, then your weapons should fire on that target, at the reticule (also i'm not talking about damage being spread out across the target, thats a separate topic)

And yes, movement and other factors most definetly should influence the reticule's location- but your guns should still shoot exactly on the reticule so long as your weapons have had time to get with the reticule. If you are running at 1/2 speed, and the reticule dances around the center of your screen evenly with your steps, and you- the pilot- account for this movement and fire at the proper time to land a shot, that is fair, you shouldn't be punished by a random "you're shots didn't go to the reticule" factor.

For those of us who shoot guns in real life, think of when you're holding your firearm, you get into your breathing cycle. The iron sights bob in time with your breathing- and you choose when to pull the trigger based on a certain time of the cycle. Provided that your gun is functioning normally, your gun does not decide to shoot somewhere Near where the iron sights were pointed, it shoots exactly where they were pointed when you pulled the trigger- Mech guns should work the same

[benwarrior]

your mech rocks as it moves so therefore your targeting reticle should move you the player adjust this yourself with the mouse. if your stationary the weapons sholud be near enough point and click but take into account for any affects like some one mentioned heat, on mw4 your HUD display didn't like it when you got hit by a ppc or if your heat was overly high, your not in the mech so therefore heat should affect accuracy as your probably not going to be sweating like a young boy in vatiacn city when your engaged in combat. the game has to alter certain aspects to make it more realistic. big weapons will also rock your mech when your hit. if any of this seems unrealistic then go play battlefield or call of duty. got the maximum tech rule book here for table top it takes it all into account so why shouldn't MWO

[GaussDragon]

benwarrior, on 08 May 2012 - 06:13 AM, said:

got the maximum tech rule book here for table top it takes it all into account so why shouldn't MWO

'
Because MWO is a computer game, not a tabletop game. I doesn't need to copy every last thing wholesale.

[neodym]

I want total accurancy, why?






BECOSE WINNING WHEN YOUR AIMING SUCK AND LOOSING WHEN YOU AIM PERFECTLY IS BAD mkay

Edited by neodym, 08 May 2012 - 08:53 AM.

[Rejarial Galatan]

Did anyone take into account that, iirc the devs themselves point out there WILL be a lag between when your targeting computer catches up? Like, if your in cover behind a wall, your TC adjusts your weapons collimation to HIT the wall right where the reticule is, then when you step out from the wall, the TC is STILL focused like 5 meters off your 'nose' and your enemy is more than 5 meters away, your weapons arc until the TC can catch up to the new distance will converge well before the mech under your reticule.

[Arbhall Sommers]

As long as I can get a targeting computer, and shoot folks arms and legs off i dont care. Just give me a mech to ride and a reasonable amount of accuracy from a multi ton, three story tal,l mech hurtling across the landscape at 60+ kph....Ill be just fine thank you.
I want to be a three story tall storm trooper running and gunning cause I have gyros guided my my own inner ear, and a targeting system and weapon arrangement that allows me to use my weapon effectively.
I also want to shift gears and use this storm trooper like a sniper, when i know Ill need to be one.
The Commando and the Centurion are looking good in that regard.
Just have to strip off those clumsy non energy weapons first.

[Melissia]

I hope that they are accurate, but rather, your aim is thrown off by movement, being hit, heat, etc-- not by having a degree of scatter, but by actually moving the crosshair around (with the crosshair always being accurate).

[Rejarial Galatan]

Arbhall Sommers, on 12 May 2012 - 09:01 PM, said:

As long as I can get a targeting computer, and shoot folks arms and legs off i dont care. Just give me a mech to ride and a reasonable amount of accuracy from a multi ton, three story tal,l mech hurtling across the landscape at 60+ kph....Ill be just fine thank you.
I want to be a three story tall storm trooper running and gunning cause I have gyros guided my my own inner ear, and a targeting system and weapon arrangement that allows me to use my weapon effectively.
I also want to shift gears and use this storm trooper like a sniper, when i know Ill need to be one.
The Commando and the Centurion are looking good in that regard.
Just have to strip off those clumsy non energy weapons first.

SOME ballistic weapons can be scary accurate and deadly. SOME.

[Deathz Jester]

Scenario: You're piloting an Awesome, since so many people here love PPCs. Lets say you see a juicy Raven with ECM run by, and you go to alpha strike it, then wham! a salvo from a catapult slams into you, the enemy hunchback hit you with its AC20, and a centurion lays into you with its autocannon.


Im inclined to think being focused kind of hinders your aim just a weeee bit.

[Rejarial Galatan]

lack of situational awareness and target vision will end up killing a lot of people.

[Arbhall Sommers]

Rejarial Galatan, on 12 May 2012 - 09:29 PM, said:

SOME ballistic weapons can be scary accurate and deadly. SOME.

You talking about Gauss weapons?
Cause I think those should be almost surgical.

[Yeach]

I'm going to go at this in another angle.
In general I think the more shots you take, the harder they are to hit on the same area.

My simple example.
Medium lasers per TT rules 5 damage per 10 seconds; lets say 5 damage per 10 second recycle per se
Lets say you have 4 medium lasers on your mech.
TT rules indicate that if you fire all 4 medium lasers, theres a high chance that all 4 medium lasers would hit different places.

Perhaps the best way to simulate this is to quarter the damage to 1.25 dmg and quarter the recycle time 2.5 seconds. (In 10 seconds real time this still equals TT)

Each GROUP shot does 5 damge
So your first grouped shots would hit one spot, your 2nd hits another, your 3rd shot hits another and your 4th hits another.

This would be one interpretation of the distrubution of shots in TT translated to simulated live-firing.

It would also mean that firing a headshot kill from a gauss or AC20 is very hard (the TT 1/36 chance) not because of each shot being hard to hit a specific place; but that multiples shots to hit a specific spot is hard.

Edited by Yeach, 13 May 2012 - 08:30 AM.