140 replies to this topic

[AC]

Running ALREADY takes that into account. Your running and will have to lead targets or account for rough terrain. There is no need to artificially make weapons inaccurate. We are human beings and we do that ourselves. Table Top is played with dice, there is no human error to account for targeting. That is the only reason for the range and movement modifier hit numbers. We take care of all those modifiers ourselves because we are actual people.

[Inappropriate359]

Conceptually it makes sense that directed energy weapons would be perfectly accurate while missiles and projectile weapons will naturally have some measure of dispersion since their trajectories are influenced by factors outside the pilot's control (e.g., ambient atmospheric conditions). Otoh, we also note that lasers don't lose damage output over range due to beam attentuation as happens in real life either. Hard to say if these things need to be in the game since (in theory) the TT rules have already balanced them. Beta playtesting will show whether these need to be adjusted.

But as the OP pointed out, when I checked out MW4 MP it was all snipefests, including my personal favorite: 100 ton mechs hiding behind cover, using jumpjets to pop over and snipe with as many PPCs as they could strap on. This got old pretty quickly.

Edited by jesus, 04 May 2012 - 03:12 PM.

[Ethan Kell]

ZnSeventeen, on 04 May 2012 - 12:06 PM, said:

The MWO forums are a little short on math today. 2 points is 1/4 of 16.

Dude..... no.

16 / 2 != 4

[Vollstrecker]

AC, on 04 May 2012 - 03:06 PM, said:

Running ALREADY takes that into account. Your running and will have to lead targets or account for rough terrain. There is no need to artificially make weapons inaccurate. We are human beings and we do that ourselves. Table Top is played with dice, there is no human error to account for targeting. That is the only reason for the range and movement modifier hit numbers. We take care of all those modifiers ourselves because we are actual people.

The human error for targeting is built into the pilot's gunnery skill. There are still to-hit penalties for player movement and target movement.

Frankly, a moving 'mech should not be a terribly stable firing platform. Take a paintball gun, run full-speed and fire it one-handed with your torso twisted to one side at a target 30 feet away. You're not going to manage any sort of pin-point accuracy. Then try it again walking, and then standing still.

[Orzorn]

Vollstrecker, on 04 May 2012 - 03:40 PM, said:

Frankly, a moving 'mech should not be a terribly stable firing platform. Take a paintball gun, run full-speed and fire it one-handed with your torso twisted to one side at a target 30 feet away. You're not going to manage any sort of pin-point accuracy. Then try it again walking, and then standing still.

Yeah, because I'm a mech with a metric ton of computer equipment and targeting data...

[eZZip]

Vollstrecker, on 04 May 2012 - 03:40 PM, said:

The human error for targeting is built into the pilot's gunnery skill. There are still to-hit penalties for player movement and target movement.

Frankly, a moving 'mech should not be a terribly stable firing platform. Take a paintball gun, run full-speed and fire it one-handed with your torso twisted to one side at a target 30 feet away. You're not going to manage any sort of pin-point accuracy. Then try it again walking, and then standing still.

A tabletop game isn't the same as a multiplayer game. Projectiles should go where a reticle is, and if moving needs a penalty, then instead of making weapons rely on a RNG for accuracy while moving, make the reticle wobble more—timing firing so that the reticle is on the target will be harder and will take more skill, yet will be more removed from luck (I imagine that the wobbling, would happen in a somewhat constant pattern assuming the player moves at a constant speed and doesn't turn their torso or change the slope they're moving on, so even that wouldn't be completely random). It's also possible that the penalty to hitting an enemy stems from no longer being stationary and therefore having to account for turning the mech, turning the torso, etc., so that shooting on the move is already more difficult.

Your paintball example is pretty irrelevant to any game not going for utmost realism, and making a game be like that would definitely be detrimental unless you want to encourage mass camping, where moving anywhere means you get to shoot inaccurately while being sniped or you get to stand still in the open and get destroyed instantly. A few milsims can alleviate this somewhat by having concealment, but I think it's pretty hard to conceal a mech, and you'll have to crest a hill eventually.

Edited by eZZip, 04 May 2012 - 04:00 PM.

[Vollstrecker]

Orzorn, on 04 May 2012 - 03:47 PM, said:

Yeah, because I'm a mech with a metric ton of computer equipment and targeting data...

That was more of a quick example, but it shows the point. I don't see why not, either, since there are a few weapons in Battletech that do not utilize computer-assistance in firing, such as SRMs and MRMs.

Also, if you've got enough computing power to compensate for the pitch and roll of a 'mechs strides, why even have the pilot present to press the trigger? Why not just have the computer fire when it is optimal? Why do they have people manning the weapons blisters on Dropships? The whole setting just falls apart, really.

[Thomas Hogarth]

Battletech computers are demonstrably underpowered compared to today's computers. Futhermore, all the targeting computers in the world won't help the fact that weapons at the end of arms are at the end of a large number of relatively slow-traversing servos. Similarly, torso-mounted weapons are subject to quite a bit of torso movement while walking/running, which the built-in gimbal-type aiming systems aren't 100% up for compensating for.

I'd like to see weapons 99.99% accurate in relation to their barrels. Those barrels should be quite accurate when not moving. Start running, and your aimpoint should sway a little bit.

[Torrix]

This post is a response for another (good) thread that I didn't want to get lost in the shuffle. (Yes, in my excitement waiting for this game to get going, I've broken out all my battletech books and am voraciously reading them now; at this point almost done with Lethal Heritage)

As much as I loved all the previous Mechwarrior games, they did get it wrong because those games wrongly applied all the damage from a given weapon to one exact spot, instead of spreading that damage out as it should have been.

One of the most important things to remember: In the books, when lasers hit, they hit at their aiming point but then due to movement of both the target and the shooter the damage from said laser was spread out over a much larger surface area, in other words "tracing a line" of damage across the surface during the laser's firing time. Pulse lasers "stitched a line". Autocannons depended on the size of the autocannon but performed basically like a pulse laser as far as damage placement.

This would apply to any weapon that did not deliver all of it's damage in one hit, even and especially missiles of any type (how can 20 missiles all hit in the exact same spot?). The only weapons that would not have this apply would be the PPC, gauss rifles, and LBX auto cannons (although by nature of being a big shotgun their damage should be spread out a little more by default but still more concentrated than a laser).

I don't know how PGI plans to apply the various damages but judging from the videos I've watched, it truly does look like they're on a much more right path with the lasers at least. While the "firing time" is still quick, it doesn't look "instant" and applying all the damage to one pinpoint area as in the past games. No more outfitting a heavy mech with 15 small or 10 medium lasers and chopping someone's legs off in 2-3 shots, and that's a good thing

I think the dual reticles will help with this, but the floating reticle, in my mind, doesn't float enough. Piranha, if you're reading this, I don't mind if you want me, heck REQUIRE me, to have dual joysticks (as in the books) rather than just one, if it makes it so battles are really tactical and not a sniper fest.

[Jun Watarase]

eZZip, on 04 May 2012 - 12:05 PM, said:

Agreed. It's plain annoying to miss a crucial shot not because you suck, but because the game decided that you suck. It's superior design to miss shots because of lack of skill and not a RNG.

That would simply mean that everyone would pick mechs with AC2s and PPCs because they are the most accurate, direct fire long ranged weapons. Then you would have games comprised nothing but mechs sitting in the most open part of the map and gunning down closed ranged mechs before they can do any useful.

Nobody uses LRMs in MW4 multiplayer because they do cluster hits. A sniper config can easily two shot most mechs...a longbow with the max amount of LRMs have trouble killing mechs in 4 volleys.

And if you played MPBT 3025, at the end of the beta, mods were giving everyone assaults. Guess what happened?

People were using AC2s to kill atlases at 1000 meters by shooting their heads, and walking backwards to prevent the atlas from being a threat.

Max cockpit armor is 9 pts, IS is 3 pts, 2 AC2s = 4 damage, meaning a BJ-1 kills an atlas in 4 volleys. That's some pretty amazing balance there...

There is a reason most FPS games do not have 100% accurate weapons.

SideSt3p, on 04 May 2012 - 12:17 PM, said:

Guess I'll throw down in here with how I think it could look.

Again, I'm not working with anything solid here, just pure abstract thought.

But, based on what I've read and what I'd expect out of 'Mechs, there is always one principle: Heat. So what I think PGI could be working on would be this:

• We have Weapon Convergence (see prior posts)
  
• We have a heat curve which can lead to bad things (ammo explosions, slower move speeds, etc)
  
• We combine these to and as your 'Mech heats up, your computers start acting funny (Like Real-Life) and you have targeting/performance deficincies within your 'Mech.
  
• Together we get a pretty dynamic where you want to push your 'Mechs heat curve in order to pump out damage but you also want to keep it under control so you can hit what you're aiming at.

That's just my 2cents

Im not sure how a heat curve prevents sniper fests. Theres a heat curve in MW4 too, and that just encourages people to bring uber sniper configs that are low on heat sinks, since they can alpha strike and then hide behind something to cool down. Also people would just end up sniping with AC2s.

chewie, on 04 May 2012 - 12:22 PM, said:

The issue with 3025 wasn't weapons being 100% accurate, it was weapons that maintained lock being able to damage you before then hit you.

eg

a swarm of lrms would hurt you due to lag or would come through a hill and hit you as you ran for cover, because the system has already decreed that you have been hit and damaged for x amounts of points of armour loss.

And yes, I definitely want my lasers to be accurate, same goes for my ppc.

I get enough bollox shots in WoT where my rounds go high, wide or low just because the RNg hates my ***, and the opposing guy gets all his shots on target.

If your in my reticule (and the dot is on a part of your mech), and stood still, and I fire, i expect my laser to hit a part of you (not neccessarily where i think i am hitting, eg aim for CT, roll a 1 and hit left leg), and stay on that part until either you or I move, thus changing the point of aim.

I know there is issues with server side reticle in WoT, and where you aimed isnt where you hit, but that only counts when you or the opponent is mobile as far as MWO goes..

We don't need wind deflection (for autocannon shots) or dispersion (for when its raining, refracting your laser beam) to affect our weapons fire, thank you very much.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with weapons damaging you due to an anti-lag mechanism. Would you prefer that people living in other countries have a serious disadvantage instead, where they are unable to compete because all their shots miss due to lag?

I dont know what world of tanks is like, but random accuracy is a very common feature of games for a reason.

Im guessing you are not a fan of classic battle tech.

Edit : I forgot to mention, if all weapons are 100% accurate, weapons like AC20s are useless because 4 med lasers weigh 4 tons and generate 12 heat, while a AC20 with 2 tons of ammo weighs 16 tons and generates 7 heat...which was also what made BJ-1s so popular, they had a AC20 in the form of 4 med lasers in addition to their AC2s.

Edited by Jun Watarase, 04 May 2012 - 06:09 PM.

[Aelos03]

Torrix, on 04 May 2012 - 05:39 PM, said:

This post is a response for another (good) thread that I didn't want to get lost in the shuffle. (Yes, in my excitement waiting for this game to get going, I've broken out all my battletech books and am voraciously reading them now; at this point almost done with Lethal Heritage)

As much as I loved all the previous Mechwarrior games, they did get it wrong because those games wrongly applied all the damage from a given weapon to one exact spot, instead of spreading that damage out as it should have been.

One of the most important things to remember: In the books, when lasers hit, they hit at their aiming point but then due to movement of both the target and the shooter the damage from said laser was spread out over a much larger surface area, in other words "tracing a line" of damage across the surface during the laser's firing time. Pulse lasers "stitched a line". Autocannons depended on the size of the autocannon but performed basically like a pulse laser as far as damage placement.

This would apply to any weapon that did not deliver all of it's damage in one hit, even and especially missiles of any type (how can 20 missiles all hit in the exact same spot?). The only weapons that would not have this apply would be the PPC, gauss rifles, and LBX auto cannons (although by nature of being a big shotgun their damage should be spread out a little more by default but still more concentrated than a laser).

I don't know how PGI plans to apply the various damages but judging from the videos I've watched, it truly does look like they're on a much more right path with the lasers at least. While the "firing time" is still quick, it doesn't look "instant" and applying all the damage to one pinpoint area as in the past games. No more outfitting a heavy mech with 15 small or 10 medium lasers and chopping someone's legs off in 2-3 shots, and that's a good thing

I think the dual reticles will help with this, but the floating reticle, in my mind, doesn't float enough. Piranha, if you're reading this, I don't mind if you want me, heck REQUIRE me, to have dual joysticks (as in the books) rather than just one, if it makes it so battles are really tactical and not a sniper fest.

well you dont move two reticles you move one and other follows thats good thing we dont want this game too complicated then new people will give up fast

[Oswin Aurelius]

So far they've got it so lasers do damage over time instead of instantly, so you've got that part right. Other than that, we know missiles spread their damage as usual, which isn't a problem, and autocannons look to still fire just one shot each time they are fired, BUT follow the laws of physics such as bullet drop over long ranges, etc.

I agree with you, I think they're on the right track, and I also agree that I don't want hyper-accurate weapons unless they're specifically designed like that. Hell, even a PPC is supposed to "wash over" an area when it hits a target, but I don't mind that seeing as different torso sections and whatnot are large enough to accommodate for such.

[Jun Watarase]

Vollstrecker, on 04 May 2012 - 02:44 PM, said:

I would like movement to play more of a factor with accuracy than in previous iterations, in line with the tabletop rules. I don't mind if you're running high accuracy shots while standing there, but running or jumping should be giving you some jitter with your targeting.

Having perfect accuracy while standing still while simply result in the same problem as in MW4 and MPBT 3025...people would take alpha boats with the longest ranged weapons, walk forward JUST within max range, alpha strike, and then quickly try to walk backwards to move out of the enemy's max range before they could alpha strike back.

Now try to imagine if every MWO trailer released simply featured two lances of sniper mechs doing this. That wouldn't be a very exciting trailer would it?

AC, on 04 May 2012 - 03:06 PM, said:

Running ALREADY takes that into account. Your running and will have to lead targets or account for rough terrain. There is no need to artificially make weapons inaccurate. We are human beings and we do that ourselves. Table Top is played with dice, there is no human error to account for targeting. That is the only reason for the range and movement modifier hit numbers. We take care of all those modifiers ourselves because we are actual people.

There is no human error in shooting during a computer game either, unless you think that moving your reticle over a mech and clicking mouse button 1 is difficult, which MW4 (and MPBT 3025) proves isn't.

Nobody takes anything smaller than an assualt in MW4 online because running at 100 kph in a medium doesn't make you harder to hit.

Edited by Jun Watarase, 04 May 2012 - 05:53 PM.

[Jun Watarase]

eZZip, on 04 May 2012 - 03:57 PM, said:

A tabletop game isn't the same as a multiplayer game. Projectiles should go where a reticle is, and if moving needs a penalty, then instead of making weapons rely on a RNG for accuracy while moving, make the reticle wobble more—timing firing so that the reticle is on the target will be harder and will take more skill, yet will be more removed from luck (I imagine that the wobbling, would happen in a somewhat constant pattern assuming the player moves at a constant speed and doesn't turn their torso or change the slope they're moving on, so even that wouldn't be completely random). It's also possible that the penalty to hitting an enemy stems from no longer being stationary and therefore having to account for turning the mech, turning the torso, etc., so that shooting on the move is already more difficult.

Your paintball example is pretty irrelevant to any game not going for utmost realism, and making a game be like that would definitely be detrimental unless you want to encourage mass camping, where moving anywhere means you get to shoot inaccurately while being sniped or you get to stand still in the open and get destroyed instantly. A few milsims can alleviate this somewhat by having concealment, but I think it's pretty hard to conceal a mech, and you'll have to crest a hill eventually.

Almost every FPS (computer games) have random accuracy built in.

Its also been pretty much established in the fluff that targetting is difficult, targetting moving targets is even more so.

[Ursus_Spiritus]

The LBX is an "area" weapon as it is devided up across the hit locations of the target.

So in that, you get that effect in TT at least.

As where the U/AC is a single location hit. Unless it punches through or a location is no longer valid then it moves to the next location, so in that you get the effect of the damage transferring across mulitple surfaces.

Though from what I understand given the two recticles. One indicating torso aim and the other for arm mounted weapons. That will in and of itself make things a little more difficult to line up shots, unless you are being completely ignored, or hiding in ambush, but the chaos of mobile mech combat. I see that linining up every weapon consistently being something that will prove a challenge.

your mech movement, the torso independent of the arms, heat fluxuation, target movement, physics of you receving damage, and other variables. It should prove to make giving damage not that easy.

Edited by 8100d 5p4tt3r, 04 May 2012 - 06:12 PM.

[Haakon Valravn]

1- Today we have 65-ton tanks that can go 65km/h over broken ground, engage and destroy enemy armor at distances measured in kilometers... All at the same time. A properly programmed computer can effectively all but guaranty a perfect hit, with in the mechanical capabilities of the weapon. See Accuracy First for such systems in use, today, enabling a human sharpshooter to effectively engage a target with 100% second shot accuracy at over a kilometer. The only reason the first shots are not as accurate is because of human error, mostly in judging wind.
2- We're talking about targeting computers 1047 years in the future. Being used with weapons that are generally not even employed beyond half a kilometer. At such ranges, with targets the size of BattleMechs, even rapidly changing winds will have almost no appreciable effect on projectiles the fired from an AC/2 or moving as swiftly as those fired by a Gauss rifle. Even most machine guns' projectiles will be effectively unimpeded by such conditions. Especially those likely to be mounted to a BattleMech.

That being said, establishing lead on a moving enemy is something that is very much up to human judgement. If an enemy is moving, especially if the shooter is moving, it should be difficult to hit the enemy 'Mech with precision. Further, as a 'Mech takes damage, the near absolute precision of its weapons should degrade as barrels are damaged, mounting hardware comes loose, &c. (This applies to both energy and ballistic weapons. But not missile weapons.) It may also be appropriate for accuracy to degrade as the 'Mech heats up, due to loss of computing power brought on by the heat, although the reticle should open up to show a 'zone of high hit probability', so the MechWarrior is not left completely in the dark as to how their machine stopped zapping mosquitoes at half a klick.

ETA: Examples.
If 'Mech A is stationary and its heat sinks are not dumping excess heat while engaging a stationary 'Mech, it should have a 100% hit probability with 99% precision against point targets down to the target 'Mech's head in size.
If 'Mech A is moving at any speed and not generating excess heat while engaging a stationary 'Mech, it should have a 100% hit probability with 50% precision against point targets down to the size of the target 'Mech's head.
If 'Mech A is stationary and generating 50% of its total possible heat output (before the 'Mech shuts down) while engaging a stationary enemy 'Mech, it should have (arbitrary number) no greater than a 75% chance of hitting the enemy 'Mech with point targetting impractical or impossible.

The ability of 'Mech A to successfully engage a moving target, whether stationary or moving, will be a matter of the MechWarrior's ability to properly lead the target, complicated by any excess heat generated by 'Mech A, any damage that may or may not have been sustained to its weapons and/or weapons mounts, and the ability of the target to dodge, duck, dip, dive, and dodge. It goes without saying that it is easier to hit a moving target while stationary, but given that a stationary target is an easy target....

Edited by Haakon Valravn, 04 May 2012 - 08:15 PM.

[Rejarial Galatan]

I do want to see accurate weapons or this games gonna get old, but, unless the weapon is designed with SURGICAL precision in mind, hitting the mech and guiding your shots into where you want? Id like that, especially with stream type weapons, ie lasers and machine guns.

[DirePhoenix]

I'd like it if our mechwarriors had some sort of skill that progressed as we "level up", sort of like World of Tanks where the more experience you get with a tank, the tighter your targeting reticule gets. Green pilots would have a much greater chance to miss (their intended target) than Elite pilots.

[pursang]

DirePhoenix, on 05 May 2012 - 12:09 AM, said:

I'd like it if our mechwarriors had some sort of skill that progressed as we "level up", sort of like World of Tanks where the more experience you get with a tank, the tighter your targeting reticule gets. Green pilots would have a much greater chance to miss (their intended target) than Elite pilots.

Yeah... that sounds perfectly fair and balanced...

[Oswin Aurelius]

DirePhoenix, on 05 May 2012 - 12:09 AM, said:

I'd like it if our mechwarriors had some sort of skill that progressed as we "level up", sort of like World of Tanks where the more experience you get with a tank, the tighter your targeting reticule gets. Green pilots would have a much greater chance to miss (their intended target) than Elite pilots.

Because that totally wouldn't give anyone who's been playing the game longer than you an unfair advantage.