140 replies to this topic

[Ethan Kell]

Christopher Dayson, on 05 May 2012 - 04:01 PM, said:

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.

Something else to consider is that even though lasers are pinpoint accurate as to the relation of the direction the barrel is pointed, there's a lot going on between the pilot's hand and the end of that barrel. Actuators, servos, the mounting hardware itself, and likely a number of other things I'm not imaginative enough to think of. So where your HUD is saying something is going to go may not be exactly where it ends up.

If different weapons are generally calibrated to perform best at different ranges then IMO it stands to reason that they should be more difficult to use outside of those optimum ranges.

It's just a thought. It's not like it even matters at this point anyway, because I'm sure they've already made these decisions and are pretty well set in the direction it's going.

[GaussDragon]

I'm not sure if it was in this thread or the other one where someone said that missiles in MW4 spread their damage around. That's not really true, the missiles landed across the mech in areas where your cross-hair was aiming when you fired the salvo. Since the salvo unloads over the course of a second or so, you could actually choose where to spread the damage by aiming while it fired. UACs worked the same way.

I don't really agree with the statement that other FPS games all have some sort of RNG element. 'Spray' or 'walk' that weapons exhibit when firing is not analogous to a COF system. Why? Because weapon walk can be controlled. I've played many hours of games like Counter-Strike and BF3 and good players learned what is commonly called "controlled spray". Every player, to varying degrees, learns the bahaviour of the weapons they use and they start to automatically control for the effects of weapon spray. Really good players compensate for it really well. A COF (Cone of Fire) system is not analogous because you can't actively compensate for spread, the shot will simply land where it lands within the area.

In the TT, there are hit modifiers for movement to account for the fact that a pilot would have a harder time trying to hit something while on the move. The game itself accounts for that because you are the pilot, you experience that yourself when you play the game, you don't need a modifier for something that's already happening. To add a modifier in-game is essentially compounding an aspect of the game that's already there.

In MW4, to consistently hit the CT of a mech that is moving at long range with weapons that have travel times was a skill that took time to master and the fact that many pilots could pull it off was a testament to their skill. I don't want to see a return to the MW4 snipe-fests that dominated because I want all the weapons in the game to have their uses, that way it will be far more interesting of a game. But to implement things like RNGs for aiming would be to compress the distribution of skill, making the game uninteresting for a lot of us since the single most important factor in any game where you have to aim, is, of course, your aim. You'd be nerfing the single most important factor that differentiates pilots.

EDIT: In the third paragraph the filter incorrectly caught the space between the 's' on "there's" and "hit" as the word for excrement. Took out the contractions.

Edited by GaussDragon, 05 May 2012 - 05:22 PM.

[Torrix]

Rejarial Galatan, on 05 May 2012 - 03:14 PM, said:

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?

I've played some form of Mechwarrior computer game since 1989. Ditto table top Battletech. Read most of the novels, owned most of the source books and rpg, but have never read any of the Dark Age stuff because I think it's ridiculous. None of this matters in the end because what I've posted that I would like to see is based on what is in the table top game and in ALL the books, which is what has been done wrong in all the "simulator" games.

What it seemed to me is that you were still asking for that not to change, to keep the pinpoint accuracy which by that function got so bad in the last Mechwarrior games that the multiplayer became a sniper fest. (As posted by another forum member, the maps certainly didn't help, as they actively encouraged long range only mechs) At least in Mechwarrior 2 series games as well as 3, the lag of the internet due to either a complete lack (MW2) or almost complete lack (MW3) of broadband availability made the only pinpoint accuracy possible be between 2 stationary mechs, otherwise you had to learn to "lag" shoot.

Now, in your post above that this post responds to, you seem to have backed off of that slightly. Now if you have the knowledge of "Mechwarrior" from something other than the games, you'll know that indeed, crosshairs bounced around constantly and pinpoint accuracy was not possible 90% of the time, even on low deflection shots. I'm posting and reiterating my opinion that MWO should go this route so to not create another scenario where it becomes a sniper fest.

Nobody should be able to be on the backside of a ridge, jump jet up, alpha strike someone perfectly in the cockpit or chest at 800-1000 meters, ditto with any other kind of movement.

When I first started playing/reading Battletech, it took me a little while to wrap my head around the fact that according to the lore of the game, the targeting abilities and weapons ranges of the Battletech universe, more than 1,000 years in the future, were in fact far, far inferior to what exists today. I was in the Army at the time, and our M1A1 tanks could make shots with the main gun dead on and at full speed at 2.5x the range of anything in the Battletech universe. A 70 ton MBT at the end of the 20th century with the engine governor disabled could outrun nearly every mech in the Battletech universe weighing only 20-30 tons. (Aerotech is worse, as we've had air to air missiles since the 70s that could hit a supersonic target at 150 miles max range, and the aerotech in Battletech is still bound by the 1000 meter max range limit). We have laser weapons being researched right now that can hit an airborne target at over 16,000 meters.

Then I got it. It's the way they wanted the game to be and I needed to play the game as designed and not allow myself to be miffed or confused about the descrepancies and stop trying to compare Battletech to real world stuff. In the Battletech universe in which we play, targeting is supposed to be difficult, not dead-on accurate. If it becomes dead-on accurate as with previous games, and delivering all the weapon's damage to one precise spot, the game will become a sniper fest that will ruin it. Finally, I do NOT wish for any sort of implementation of a "pilot skill" system where aiming gets better based on amount of time played. We don't need it, I'll rely on my own skill.

[Torrix]

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.

I couldn't agree more.

[AlphaKale]

I think some degree of randomness will be necessary to keep the game from turning into a snipe-fest, mainly due to the limits on cockpit armor. Regardless of the size of your mech, you are capped at 9 points as per TT rules, so one PPC hit or a pair of medium lasers can ruin your day in short order if you can hit with pinpoint accuracy.
At the very least there should be a spread envelope that scales with the speed of your mech, both if you are walking/running and/or turning. This would represent your gyros etc working to slew all the mass of your mech around whilst trying to keep things stable. For projectile weapons, there will always be a bit of drift off the aim point due to issues like barrel-flexing, vibration etc. Lasers should in theory be pinpoint accurate, but I'm not faithful that I.S. optics would be up to the task, and would probably suffer the same vibration and slew issues as projectile weapons, albeit to a lesser extent.
This would mean that you could still be a good shot, but you would have to fight tactically to minimize issues of terrain and manoeuvring to get the best firing solution.

[Torrix]

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.

This^^^

[Mims]

Ok.... dont judge things based on old games, let them go where ever they want with the weapons. I personally wont play a game that is just a scattergun fest. just take all skill out of the game will ya. a person still has to be able to hit you from 800M away through trees, terrain, and fellow squad members while possibly dodgeing air strikes and the enemies long range attacks. Some how you seemed to be confused on what personal skill is. your saying make everyone conform to your style to make it fairer..... that sounds like whineing to me.

[Ethan Kell]

Surely there's a middle ground here. The weapons should be slightly imprecise if/when appropriate, but if they're so difficult to use that just getting a hit is a challenge then maybe that's taking things a bit too far.

[EDMW CSN]

I believe convergence only helps with pin point strikes, the longer you converge, the more accurately your shots will land on a specific area like a arm or torso.

Snap fire with minimum time for convergence to take effect will have your shots landing on target but the damage could be scattered all over.

[JackRabbtT]

Ok just sayin, if this ---> <--- can happen in 2008 how accurate will it be in 3025?

Edited by JackRabbtT, 05 May 2012 - 06:25 PM.

[GaussDragon]

Torrix, on 05 May 2012 - 05:50 PM, said:

What it seemed to me is that you were still asking for that not to change, to keep the pinpoint accuracy which by that function got so bad in the last Mechwarrior games that the multiplayer became a sniper fest. (As posted by another forum member, the maps certainly didn't help, as they actively encouraged long range only mechs)

It's easy to point at pin-point accuracy as the root of the problem when you're not as concerned about firing accurately. Having played countless hours of MW4 (as a sniper no less) I can tell what the main problems were that allowed sniping to become so prevalent.

1. 3rd person view (Something I don't really have a problem with)
2. No LOS radar
3. Mechs with fast acceleration
4. Maps with open, flat terrain
5. Steep slopes that made natural barricades (mostly in the case of ground-based snipers like Nova Cats, less so for jump-jetters)

All these things compounded to make the environment in MW4 very sniper-friendly. I wrote a very long thread post about the whole thing months ago. I am intimately familiar about how it all worked because I was someone who sniped all the time, and I was very good at it. In MW4, all the obstructive terrain like trees and your lance mates didn't matter when you could just jump-jet high enough and essentially have a clear line of sight to your target every time. Being able to dictate when you and the enemy engage is incredibly advantageous, and in that environment, being caught out in the open is tantamout to suicide.

Simply changing the radar mechanics (which PGI has already done), making it FFP (which PGI has already done), making mechs accelerate slower and adding reticle-shake to mechs while they're firing their jump jets would all do a lot to negate the problem. Doing away with pin-point accuracy is such a crude way to try and fix something that was the result of so many other factors (listed above). Sniping is a valid tactic and adds to variety of tactics in a player's arsenal but it should be balanced against all the other ones so that it doesn't rule the battlefield like it did in MW4. You don't need to get rid of pinpoint accuracy to accomplish that.

[Ethan Kell]

JackRabbtT, on 05 May 2012 - 06:24 PM, said:

Ok just sayin, if this ---> <--- can happen in 2008 how accurate will it be in 3025?

Because if you start asking those questions almost every aspect of combat in the Battletech universe falls apart.

[Torrix]

Ethan Kell, on 05 May 2012 - 06:11 PM, said:

Surely there's a middle ground here. The weapons should be slightly imprecise if/when appropriate, but if they're so difficult to use that just getting a hit is a challenge then maybe that's taking things a bit too far.

Hehe, please, make no mistake (if in fact you were replying to me), I am most definitely *not* wanting things to be made artificially difficult. Put as simply as possible: I do not want MWO to be Call of Duty: Battletech, where whereever I have my crosshairs when I squeeze the trigger is where all my weapons hit. I would like weapons telemetry, ballistics and trajectories to be a factor in where I'm going to hit, factored in by my range-to-target, movement of the target, and movement of my firing platform.

For the guy who posted above you who somehow thinks that ANYBODY wants random number generators to play a part at all...dude, if you were in fact replying to me, trying actually reading my post.

Here's the best example I can give to make it clear for everybody. Take a pistol and get in a pickup with your buddy. Go out 4 wheeling somewhere safe where you won't hit anyone, but set up just some stationary targets and try to hit them driving by them at varying speeds, over ruts and rough terrain. When hunting season comes around, trying taking a running, hopping deer with a rifle from that same moving pickup. ..see how it works out

In MWO, we'll have "targeting computers" to make it not nearly so bad, but now you get the idea Do I want it as bad as my pickup scenario above? Of course not, but a mech is bipedal (the ones we'll be using anyway) and when you walk you bounce (some more than others *cough*). The devs have the ability (hope they don't) to make MWO just like nearly all FPS games, where the crosshairs are dead on. I'm saying this should be a simulation, and not a shooter, so player skill matters 100%. I don't want RNGs or some artificial skill increase for the amount of time in my mech etc.

[JackRabbtT]

Ethan Kell, on 05 May 2012 - 06:33 PM, said:

Because if you start asking those questions almost every aspect of combat in the Battletech universe falls apart.

very true, got me there

[Ethan Kell]

JackRabbtT, on 05 May 2012 - 06:39 PM, said:

very true, got me there

Torrix made a few good points concerning this exact topic in another thread, and I think the one that most simply and easily highlights this point is Aerotech fighters versus modern day fighters....

Aerotech fighters can only reach out to what? 1000 meters tops? The F-14 was capable of putting steel on target at 200 kilometers.... in the early '70's.

[RedHorseman]

I think that you need a main targeting reticule, then each weapon has its own aim point. If you didn't move all aim points will be centered on your reticule. every time you move, even a tiny torso twist/elevation change will require all weapons to re adjust to to new reticule position. For torso weapons this will be quick as they moved with the torso, with limbs they will take longer to re adjust. If moving limb weapons will be bouncing around as. However you will always know exactly where the weapons will hit whether they are centered or not. So with good timing and some skill you will be able to hit what you want. This should help stop long range sniping matches as trying to follow a moving target will result in your weapons constantly re adjusting as you move to follow your target. Obviously with skill you will still be able to hit a moving target but it will introduce a "cone" of accuracy when trying to alpha strike or use multiple weapons while still retaining pinpoint accuracy of weapons.

[Urza Mechwalker]

Weapons must be very accurate or this game will not survive for more than 2 weeks. It needs to be so player skill has ANY relevance. The hit lcoation tables on table top was not there because made the game better, was there because its the best level of abstraction you can do in a table top without makingit too complicated.

On the argument that they have worse computers than today..

WW2 german tanks with optica range finders could hit a single man stationary at 2km and hit another tank at 3+ km. Imediate post war shermans had very good gun stablizers that could allow you to fire quite accurately in movment as long as the terrain was nto tooo bumpy.

Simply make that gusn go accurate when you are standign still and wobble when you move or turn torse (just like in WoT but scaled for this game of course). If I have a mech whose head is filling my WHOLE aim reticle and when I shoot I hit his feet, I am NOT gonan play this game and I can bet 90% of the players that could play this game will not also.

[Gun Bear]

First we have weapons convergence to consider, it may take several seconds for all your weapons to be pointing at the same spot. Second we have the fact that people will be moving to consider. Third we also have the fact that even if all weapons are pointing in the same direction they are not all pointing at the same spot - the developers have mentioned that weapons on a mech shift slightly up/down/left/right depending on the angles and distances you are attacking from. They have also mentioned that lasers do damage over time, so you'd have to keep lasers pointed at the same point for a half second or so to deal max damage, and missiles don't all converge on the same area, they swarm a target and hit them all over.

All things considered you are attacking a moving target from a moving platform with weapons that are constantly re-altering the angle to fire where the reticule sits take time to deal max damage or swarm a target to hit it wherever it can and require a few seconds to converge on target. You will in all likelihood never see a perfect shot - 100% accuracy is totally out of the door in this game and if people start landing alpha shots on enemy cockpits with regularity they are almost certainly cheating.

I predict that just like in TT most people will run around plugging at each others torso since they are the biggest target on the enemy and only be using direct damage weapons (Autocannons, Guass Rifles, and PPCs) to try and hit specific areas like legs, arms, and heads.

Edited by Gun Bear, 06 May 2012 - 04:13 AM.

[Cruxshadow]

JackRabbtT, on 05 May 2012 - 06:24 PM, said:

Ok just sayin, if this ---> &lt;--- can happen in 2008 how accurate will it be in 3025?

Nice video but it didn't show the results of the shots. What was the size of the targets, where on the target was the hits, was there any hits at all.

The accuracy should depend on factors like how fast you are moving, how fast your target is moving,how long you have taken to dial in your shot. Even with you stationary and your target stationary there should be some margin of error. The main point of your gunnery should be to make that margin of error as small as possibly. The diffaculty isn't going to be hitting a target the size of a small barn, the diffaculty is going to be able to put shots into places that matter.

Hopefully they will have a point of aim icon that gets smaller/more accurate as you diminish factors that would effect your shot.

[LackofCertainty]

Urza Mechwalker, on 06 May 2012 - 03:32 AM, said:

On the argument that they have worse computers than today..

WW2 german tanks with optica range finders could hit a single man stationary at 2km and hit another tank at 3+ km. Imediate post war shermans had very good gun stablizers that could allow you to fire quite accurately in movment as long as the terrain was nto tooo bumpy.

Whenever people talk about how super-hyper-mega accurate tanks are nowadays, it always reminds me of this one episode of Brainiac.

A Stationary Challenger 2 Tank firing at a safe that is 900m away.



If you notice, the first round misses, the 2nd round is a glancing blow, and then they switch to high explosive and hit the dirt infront of the safe. (although the explosion destroys the safe anyway)

Edit: Actually watching it again, they show 4 distinct shots, 2 kinetic and 2 explosive. It's a bit hard to tell with them showing different angles on the shots and such, but you can see that after the explosive round that hit the dirt infront of the safe, they show one more shot where the safe already appears to be partially cracked. (at 1:49, right after the spinning logo gets out of the way) Although from the way the officer says "We're going to fire another three" it suggests to me that they actually fired at least 6 rounds total. (3 kinetic in the first batch, and then 3 explosive in the 2nd batch)


I have no problem with weapons being -slightly- inaccurate, as long as my beams/bullets/missiles stay within the cross hairs. I think there's enough deviation in that little space that (combined with ballistic drop and travel times) should feel satisfying without being too hitscan-y (other than lasers, which still have the DoT thing and convergence to balance them)

Edited by LackofCertainty, 06 May 2012 - 06:55 AM.