140 replies to this topic

[Cruiser]

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.

You dont need a system for that. People with less skill in mechwarrior has a harder time keeping the reticule on the enemy, giving the ones with enough skill to actually "run-and-gun" the advantage. No need to implement any artificial system.

[Torrix]

Rejarial Galatan, on 04 May 2012 - 08:01 PM, said:

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.

Either you're only familiar with shooters or you're not very familiar with Mechwarrior, lore or games.

Having familiarity with the past games, but Mechwarrior 4 Mercs specifically (it was the last), the multiplayer turned into nothing more than a snipe fest at maximum range, and it didn't matter what league you were in. The *only* weapons anyone brought (once they learned how it was going to go) were ER Large Lasers, Gauss rifles, LRMs etc. Everybody loaded up on them and could barely see the enemy across the map, jump jet above the ridge line, alpha strike with all their long range stuff, cool down, rinse repeat. If your weapon loadout wasn't long range, you were a fool.

In the table top and in the novels, that's not how it worked. This game needs to hold to that and not the old pc game way of doing things. I guarantee you more people will leave if it becomes a sniper fest than those like you who will stay if that is how it is. All weapons need some viability, with no single "right" way you must have to go in order to succeed, with weapon choice being made based on the role you're going to play in a tactical battle, *not* a twitch-fest Call of Duty with battlemechs.

Personally, not only would I love a lot more wobbly crosshairs the further away your target is, but I'd like the crosshairs to be hyper-sensitive so that targeting truly takes skill *and* is by no means exact unless you are face to face with an enemy at point blank melee range. That is how it should be.

[Cruiser]

#10 It didn't help either that most maps in MW4 and Mercs was flat as a golf course and pretty much invited playing with long range weapons, since there was almost no way you could approach an enemy while in cover.

[Atlai]

8100d 5p4tt3r, on 04 May 2012 - 06:08 PM, said:

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.

You mean its not going to be like Mechassault and i actually have to aim?!


JK lol

[Sleeping Bear]

Following the old board game rules would just make some sense here. Moving incurs penalties to hit, as does heat levels, damage to pilot levels and also crits to gyros and actuators. It would make sense that the Centurion standing stock still at the end of the street would have steady crosshairs on the Dragon charging down the street. In the Dragons cockpit, the stock still figure of the Centurion should be bouncing around due to the impacts of his mad dash to close the range. Movement would play a huge role in targettability, with motionless mechs being the straightest shooters and conversely the easiest targets. While a mech tearing *** across a city boulevarde would make an incredibly hard moving target while consequently being unable to hit the side of an Overlord.

But what do I know, this is just my 2 cents.

[Zylo]

Sleeping Bear, on 05 May 2012 - 06:10 AM, said:

Movement would play a huge role in targettability, with motionless mechs being the straightest shooters and conversely the easiest targets. While a mech tearing *** across a city boulevarde would make an incredibly hard moving target while consequently being unable to hit the side of an Overlord.

But what do I know, this is just my 2 cents.

This is what I would expect if there is some sort of pilot skill level that increases with battle experience in a specific mech. A pilot character with a high level of experience in a mech might be able to target easier while moving and have a reduced chance to miss but not as accurate as the guy standing still.

I can't help but think each time a player purchases a new mech the pilot character will need to train for that mech somewhat like the WoT crew training system, although if we only get 1 pilot I suspect such a system would add to the list of mechs the pilot is trained to operate.

Edited by Zylo, 05 May 2012 - 10:43 AM.

[Inappropriate359]

Haakon Valravn, on 04 May 2012 - 07:54 PM, said:

2- We're talking about targeting computers 1047 years in the future.

If you were a little more familiar with the lore, you'd know technology hasn't exactly advanced in the manner that you assume here. In fact, the Inner Sphere doesn't even have 'targeting computers' of the sort you describe in the timeframe of the game's release.

More information: http://www.sarna.net...geting_Computer

[Ethan Kell]

Haakon Valravn, on 04 May 2012 - 07:54 PM, said:

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.

You're right, but as was pointed out technology has progressed in a way that is not consistent with how technology has actually developed. Not only that, but if we had legit fire control computers how much fun would this game actually be? You select a target and let the computer figure out the best way to dismantle it at the greatest possible range; the game would be less about skill as an individual pilot and more about playing the rock-paper-scissors game with a lot more focus on maneuver and less focus on gunnery.

For this game to be what we all seem to want it to be, we have to be willing to accept that the technology is what it is and not ask too many questions.

[Yeach]

Haakon Valravn, on 04 May 2012 - 07:54 PM, said:

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....

We also don't want the opposite where the advantage for "accuracy" goes to the stationary mech making the game into turret-warrior.
My suggestion is reducing the torso-twist, arm twist rate to half of what it would be if normally moving for a stationary mech.

Something similar to Star Trek Online (and probably other car racing games) where you can not turn as fast if you are at zero speed as oppsoed to as 1/3 speed.

Edited by Yeach, 05 May 2012 - 12:58 PM.

[Zylo]

Yeach, on 05 May 2012 - 12:48 PM, said:

We also don't want the opposite where the advantage for "accuracy" goes to the stationary mech making the game into turret-warrior.
My suggestion is reducing the torso-twist, arm twist rate to half of what it would be if normally moving.

I think just the concept of LRMs would prevent the "turret-warrior" playstyle from happening, especially if more hits are scored on a stationary target. I don't think changing arm or torso twist movement speeds will be needed.

Edited by Zylo, 05 May 2012 - 12:57 PM.

[Ravn]

Alpha striking with any weapon that involves recoil should be inherently inaccurate unless you can guarantee that every single AC round has the exact number of grains of accelerant that some how miraculously burn at the same rate... Or that your PPCs/Gauss Rifles are calibrated to accelerate their particles/slugs at the exact same rate. Just because something is computed to be exact, doesn't mean it will physically act in an exact way. No computer system can overcome the random nature of the physics of real objects.

Someone who cycles their shots should be more accurate than someone who habitually alpha strikes.

[Vollstrecker]

Jun Watarase, on 04 May 2012 - 05:51 PM, said:

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?

http://mwomercs.com/...-catapult-pics/

Looking at these screenshots (and the one for the Screenshot of the Week), I think there will be enough terrain features to limit this sort of behavior. Add to the fact that you have the limited ability to 'boat' a 'mech with the 'mechlab and I think we might have a decent chance for all designs to have their place on the battlefield.

I also didn't mean to imply that standing still should grant perfect accuracy, it should just be less troublesome than while walking/running/jumping. I personally cannot wait to see how it plays out on Beta, and adjustments can be made there if playtesting reveals problems.

[eZZip]

Jun Watarase, on 04 May 2012 - 05:46 PM, said:

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.

Then the game shouldn't have stupid maps that are flat for 1 km then. It is no accident that long range weapons dominate at long range, so to give closer range weapons a chance, break up the line of sight. People don't play CoD, CS, Quake, etc. with a super long range, because otherwise, sniper rifles/railguns would always dominate, and a similar situation will arise in MWO depending on the maps.

Ravn, on 05 May 2012 - 01:30 PM, said:

Alpha striking with any weapon that involves recoil should be inherently inaccurate unless you can guarantee that every single AC round has the exact number of grains of accelerant that some how miraculously burn at the same rate... Or that your PPCs/Gauss Rifles are calibrated to accelerate their particles/slugs at the exact same rate. Just because something is computed to be exact, doesn't mean it will physically act in an exact way. No computer system can overcome the random nature of the physics of real objects.

If lasers are DoT, then alpha striking with other guns mixed in will be inherently disadvantageous for them (probably a good thing).

Jun Watarase, on 04 May 2012 - 05:55 PM, said:

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.

Unsurprisingly, the games that rely the most on their competitive communities have less randomness in aiming. Among the FPSs listed above, Quake has 100% accuracy (except with SG/MG and maybe others I forgot depending on the game) and CS has predictable spray patterns. Targetting may be difficult, but at some point, you have to remember that this is a game and nobody wants to play a game where they mysteriously hit and miss for reasons found only in fluff that they didn't read.

[Rejarial Galatan]

Torrix, on 05 May 2012 - 05:24 AM, said:

Either you're only familiar with shooters or you're not very familiar with Mechwarrior, lore or games.

Having familiarity with the past games, but Mechwarrior 4 Mercs specifically (it was the last), the multiplayer turned into nothing more than a snipe fest at maximum range, and it didn't matter what league you were in. The *only* weapons anyone brought (once they learned how it was going to go) were ER Large Lasers, Gauss rifles, LRMs etc. Everybody loaded up on them and could barely see the enemy across the map, jump jet above the ridge line, alpha strike with all their long range stuff, cool down, rinse repeat. If your weapon loadout wasn't long range, you were a fool.

In the table top and in the novels, that's not how it worked. This game needs to hold to that and not the old pc game way of doing things. I guarantee you more people will leave if it becomes a sniper fest than those like you who will stay if that is how it is. All weapons need some viability, with no single "right" way you must have to go in order to succeed, with weapon choice being made based on the role you're going to play in a tactical battle, *not* a twitch-fest Call of Duty with battlemechs.

Personally, not only would I love a lot more wobbly crosshairs the further away your target is, but I'd like the crosshairs to be hyper-sensitive so that targeting truly takes skill *and* is by no means exact unless you are face to face with an enemy at point blank melee range. That is how it should be.

I can sit here and tell you how long ive been playing, but, seems you have your opinion and think me lacking in the knowledge department, so i wont bother trying to fill a cup thats full. BUT, if your xhairs are wobbling, then your targeting computer is broken OR your arms are flailing around. There is 0 reason IF you have the visual accumen to actually SEE where your hitting <IF your not paying attention to the dmg display> that if you have a stream of bullets or a laser than you cant walk that weapons point of impact around on a mech your hitting. heck if said mech is moving, its probably going to be walking around on it in the first place, especially if you shot ahead and it moved into it. BUT, your cups full, so, why should I bother trying to fill it?

Edited by Rejarial Galatan, 05 May 2012 - 03:14 PM.

[Kenyon Burguess]

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

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.

yup, have been reading alot of the old books too and was extremely pleased to see the devs are going to DOT route for weapon systems. i see a few of the others are still pushing for more of a RPG element but i think relying on player skill to dictate hit or miss is the way to go with a sim.

[Ethan Kell]

What I would love to see is the accuracy of weapons varying depending on range. For example, to simulate the idea of a minimum range for a PPC or small caliber autocannon the reticule size could drastically increase and the shot could randomly go anywhere within that reticule. For notoriously short range weapons the inverse could be true, making shots beyond the weapon's normal effective range more difficult or less precise.

[JazzySteel]

Ethan Kell, on 05 May 2012 - 03:27 PM, said:

What I would love to see is the accuracy of weapons varying depending on range. For example, to simulate the idea of a minimum range for a PPC or small caliber autocannon the reticule size could drastically increase and the shot could randomly go anywhere within that reticule. For notoriously short range weapons the inverse could be true, making shots beyond the weapon's normal effective range more difficult or less precise.

I agree partially. I think that at extreme ranges ballistic and missile weapons should be less accurate. but energy weapons like lasers and PPCs would still be pin sharp past their optimal range, but their energy should start to dissipate and make them do less damage. I believe that would be the most cannon way to do it.

[Ethan Kell]

JazzySteel, on 05 May 2012 - 03:43 PM, said:

I agree partially. I think that at extreme ranges ballistic and missile weapons should be less accurate. but energy weapons like lasers and PPCs would still be pin sharp past their optimal range, but their energy should start to dissipate and make them do less damage. I believe that would be the most cannon way to do it.

Sure, and if lasers are being designed to do damage over time the major factor in accuracy is going to be your hand. They're going to be somewhat inherently more difficult to use than single click weapons as you don't have to perfectly track your target over time.

I don't recall the exact reason why PPCs were considered to be less accurate within a certain range.

[Sassori]

Ethan Kell, on 05 May 2012 - 03:52 PM, said:

Sure, and if lasers are being designed to do damage over time the major factor in accuracy is going to be your hand. They're going to be somewhat inherently more difficult to use than single click weapons as you don't have to perfectly track your target over time.

I don't recall the exact reason why PPCs were considered to be less accurate within a certain range.

There was no official reason given other than: These are long ranged weapons, and have trouble targeting up close. Same with AC 5 and AC 2 and LRM's. The novels tried to make up stuff, but then, they made up /so much/ stuff they cannot be considered valid for game purposes.

[Marric]

My personal feeling on this subject is that if we supposed to be the pilot, it is our ability that should determine whether we hit or miss. As for weapons limitations, lasers have limitations due to defocusing of the beam. Projectile weapons have to deal with bullet drop, windage, recoil, etc. Long distance sniping with AC2's should be fine but just like any other projectile weapon you have to account for all of the variables. PPC's have minimum engagement ranges and within that minimum engagment, they either won't fire or they are completely unpredictable, possibly being a danger to the mech firing them. In the board game, target movement had an effect on hits. While improved C3 systems and targeting computers may improve targeting, in the end, the pilot (the gamer) is the one directing the shots. Money can buy better targeting systems, etc, but even the best gun in an inexperienced persons hand is still inaccurate.