140 replies to this topic

[Brandon Mallard]

Not sure if this has been thrown in yet but didn't see it in this thread so gere goes. We all have to agree we like playing games because they are fun. The longevity of a game is also based on fun. I've played battletech since it came out. The pc games always left me wanting. Didn't really stick to the core of the game. The best experiences ever playing came from the muse/mux. Get rid of human aiming and let the "roll of the dice" determine your fate. It levels everything on the field.

Won't elaborate to much. I just know it gets rid of all the things that people complain the most about and the game actually becomes enjoyable.

[FaustianQ]

Brandon Mallard, on 06 May 2012 - 06:57 AM, said:

Not sure if this has been thrown in yet but didn't see it in this thread so gere goes. We all have to agree we like playing games because they are fun. The longevity of a game is also based on fun. I've played battletech since it came out. The pc games always left me wanting. Didn't really stick to the core of the game. The best experiences ever playing came from the muse/mux. Get rid of human aiming and let the "roll of the dice" determine your fate. It levels everything on the field.

Won't elaborate to much. I just know it gets rid of all the things that people complain the most about and the game actually becomes enjoyable.

Longevity of most computer games is measured by how long the endgame game crowd continues to care about the game, and the endgame players are almost always interested in skill based games, not luck based ones. Throwing in randomization and removing elements from player control are bad design decisions. It works for TT because it's abstracting it the best it can (unless of course you want to throw darts to determine hit locations...). Weapon accuracy should be entirely within player control, meaning neither 100% accurate nor 50% accurate, simply that a players actions determines the accuracy. More accuracy should mean more vulnerability, and vice versa. I'll give PGI credit and say they can accomplish that.

As to actually targeting via computers - do realize you have mechs upwards of 100t that are balanced by computer systems controlling a gyro over rough and uneven terrain while firing weapons and twisting about in multiple places with often uneven weight distribution, yet modern computers struggle with simple balance tasks. Attempting to figure out why they can't use this level of computing power for targeting computers will make ones head explode.

[Toothman]

Torrix, on 05 May 2012 - 06:02 PM, said:

This^^^

I could hit a standing or kneeling person easily at 30 feet while running with my marker. :-) Of course I no longer run so fast and paintballs are only ballistically acceptable on paper so pinpoint accouracy isn't possible. Probably why we don't use paintballs in warfare.

[Samuel Maxwell]

eZZip, on 05 May 2012 - 01:37 PM, said:

... 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.

MWO can follow the CS model, then. Accurate enough to make lots of sense, but random enough to not guarantee precision when the target is far away and you're running towards them.

EDIT: This sounds like it'll satisfy both camps, too.

Edited by Samuel Maxwell, 06 May 2012 - 07:16 AM.

[Sym]

As much as I hate what WoT has done with it's RNG, I still believe that there will always be variables no matter how small that would ensure that MWO will not be 100% guarantee precision. Especially with ballistic type weapons. With armor angles, wind, gravity, and the human factor nothing should be 100% guarantee hit at 100% damage. Shots should be able to miss, bounce or graze.

That being said...I strongly feel that skill should be foremost in determining hits with a little randomness to make things interesting.

[RedHorseman]

[EDMW]CSN, on 05 May 2012 - 06:22 PM, said:

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.

Exactly. I see no problem with having time for weapons to converge. This can be visually represented by having individual aim points for weapons/limbs. So you can see exactly where your shots should hit regardless of how converged the actual aim points are.

This would mean that arm weapons can be made take longer to converge depending on weapon weight. A single micro laser in the arm of a nova cat will take a lot less time to converge on the main reticule than say a single ppc in the other arm due to the pure mass of said Pcc.

This could even be coupled to an aim system similar mw3 where you could unlock the reticule to allow weapons to move and aim independent of the torso.

Obviously when ever your mech moves, torso twists, elevates,is hit or fires various limbs and weapons will have moved slightly and will need to converge again. The amount of movement will depend on the severity of the movement. Firing a micro laser would do squat all,footing 2 lrm20's will rock your mech quite severely. Walking would have your weapon aim points swaying gently, running will have them bouncing around. Obviously the amount would need to be tested to make everything balanced and workable but I think it neatly solves the major part of the problem.

[RedHorseman]

Samuel Maxwell, on 06 May 2012 - 07:15 AM, said:

MWO can follow the CS model, then. Accurate enough to make lots of sense, but random enough to not guarantee precision when the target is far away and you're running towards them.

EDIT: This sounds like it'll satisfy both camps, too.

No sorry, I couldn't agree less. The recoil/cone of fire mechanics for cs are horrible. They were awefull then and Ten years later have barely changed. Don't get me wrong I've played a lot of cs, but it's still terrible mechanics.

[Yeach]

Heres another idea for the AC20.
Getting that 20 damage headshot should be difficult
and each Battletech turn is 10 seconds.

For the heashot you in BT have to roll a 12 or 2D6 or 1/36 chance to get it.
So the idea for the AC20 is take recycle time as 5 seconds and damage per shot is 10.

Hitting a target once is easier but its much harder to hit the target twice in the same place explaining the 1/36 chance for getting the headshot. You have to hit the head consistently twice (for the headchop)

Yes I know its not explained in the novels as such; but I think this mechanic makes more sense to explain the difficulty in targetting. (ie hitting the same place or hard to hit areas)

[Ghost]

Merging this thread with the other one to keep the discussion in one place.

[EDMW CSN]

Tanks are accurate enough to land a shot on target, but does it really hit a specific spot of the target where the Gunner is aiming ??

Definitely not. Tank gunners respond to "Gunner Sabot Tank", "Identified" "Up" "Fire" and "On the way" in a span of 4 to 6 seconds. The Gunner will aim for the largest centre of mass and just to land the 1st shot because the other enemy tank WILL be doing the same.

Gunners themselves will snap their reticle over a target but they are not caring whether the shot strikes the glacis, track or turret. They only care if the shot actually HITS and is the target still operational within a very short span of time. So much for pin-point accuracy huh ? In addition many modern tanks are incapable of making pinpoint strikes into the same location after the 1st shot.

So don't expect pinpoint accuracy even on modern systems.

What I do hope in MWO is that the longer you converge, the better chance you have of accurately hitting a certain SPOT on a mech. Snap firing with minimum waiting for convergence, will not give your weapons enough time to converge on to a single spot, but you will still land your shots on target.

So everything is a trade off, do you gamble for your weapons to perfectly align for that crippling shot or you just quickly blast off and hope you throw off the PPC / Gauss sniper's aim ?

Edited by [EDMW]CSN, 06 May 2012 - 09:38 AM.

[GaussDragon]

Torrix, on 05 May 2012 - 06:36 PM, said:

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.

I was replying to thread in general, these threads are not new and have a way of (generally) separating into two major camps.

Torrix, on 05 May 2012 - 06:36 PM, said:

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

The fact that the game limits the range of lasers and gauss rifles to around a KM give or take for the sake of gameplay (If you wanted it to be... realistic, then you'd have the biggest snipe-fest in history because all the weapons would be able to shoot well past the horizon) makes these kinds of real life examples so totally worthless.

Torrix, on 05 May 2012 - 06:36 PM, said:

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.

Granted a reticle that bounces in a set pattern while you move is not the same as a CoF, you have to consider the implications of this mechanic. If it is punitive towards accuracy to move while shooting, what does that encourage the player to do? It encourages them to stand still and shoot. What kind of tactic dominated MW4 where you stayed in the same spot a lot of the time? Do you start to see the problem with penalizing people for moving? This mechanic only works to encourage sniping and camping, something a lot of people on these forums hated about MW4.

Samuel Maxwell, on 06 May 2012 - 07:15 AM, said:

MWO can follow the CS model, then. Accurate enough to make lots of sense, but random enough to not guarantee precision when the target is far away and you're running towards them.

EDIT: This sounds like it'll satisfy both camps, too.

Like I said, the CoF model and the weapon spray/walk model of shooters are not really analogous. Most of the weapons in MW4 are not rapid-fire automatics so this wouldn't apply in the same way.

[Euphor Kell]

its a simulation.
i remember when i used to play mech 2 all those years ago, there is one thing i distinctly remember and i think that they got it RIGHT: if i wanted that laser in my right arm to hit the enemy at close range, i aimed LEFT of the target because of weapon convergance, most weapons were "Fixed" forward to converge at a certain range, which means that they shoot straight ahead, and the reticle was a guide in which direction the shots would go. IMHO, it should be like this. (considering that the mechs arms in mech 2 were locked)
if your weapon is in your right torso and you aim directly at the enemy mech that is directly in front of you, the weapon should hit their left torso because you've told your mech to essentially shoot "straight ahead"
this goes further to say, you have a few weapons in each torso, then they should hit their respective location on the enemy mech depending on where they are mounted.

now look at arm (or limb) weapons, they can converge on targets in real time, so they should be able to hit where the reticle is aiming, after you give them time to converge.
for example, you have a target at 500m under your reticle, and the arms have converged, you should be able to hit with near-pin point accuracy should you be standing still. however, should that target suddenly be at 200m (ie, you were shooting at something in the distance, and someone else moves under your crosshairs) the shots should hit towards the outside (or possibly pass around the mech, depending on size and stuff) because your weapons are aimed to converge at the pervious target at 500m, and on the flip side, should that enemy at 500m disappear (say, used his jump jets) and the target behind him was at 800m, then your shots should converge in between you and the new target, possibly missing him altogether (the right arm weapons would pass left of him, and the left arm weapons pass right of him)

all of the above is considering you are standing still.
add moving to the equation, and your crosshair starts to sway, your arms are constantly trying to converge bwtewwn the ground your aiming at (or straight ahead should you be looking over the horizion) and the enemy mech you want to hit (considering the ground behind them will be at a different distance to them) and the fixed forward weapons in your torso, very few of your shots should land under your crosshairs, however, the distance they are off should be predictable (ie: left torso weapons should be slightly down and to the left of the crosshair, centre torso weapons should be close to, or if anything, a little under, while dorsal weapons may be slightly higher, and arm weapons will be converging depending on what direction you just turned and how long you've had the mech under your reticle)

this would mean actually hitting an enemy mech wouldn't be random at all, but would also require you (the pilot) to compensate for where your weapons are mounted and how fast your arm weapons converge, meaning to place shots in the same spot you would have to stagger the weapons, or have them all hit different parts of the mech...

just my 2c

[Yeach]

Major Tom, on 04 May 2012 - 11:35 AM, said:

Oops, convered to "turns" in my brain, then farted.

129kph = 28 seconds to travel 1000 meters

Back to the scenario
Blackjack firing dual AC2s at 960 range (32 hex extreme range) at a Jenner.
Even with the Jenner running at full speed, the BJ can get 3 (4 if backpedalling) shots on the Jenner
Lets assume the BJ mechwarrior is crack-shot; thats 4 x 4 (2AC shots) which would equal 16 pts which in turn is 1 ton of armor which is 1/4 the amount of armour the Jenner carries (4 tons 64 pts).
The end.

[zirkonflex]

Just my thoughts on this, rip it apart boys.

I really, really hope the accuracy of the weapons will be dynamic, it really should be.
The weapon should fire into the dead-center of the reticule(s), but those reticule(s) should be dynamic and moving -> avoid the discussed "why the **** did I miss!?" effect.

Speed, acceleration, damage(!) and the place of mounting should be responsible for its movement -> no "full throttle madness".

Speed and acc. is fairly obvious, mechs are humanlike and rock about upon movement, no machine can compensate that perfectly in an instant, it should create little alteration on its own.
Mechs could have a multiplier to determine their "stability" for balancing sake, would be cool to have small, nimble mechs relatively accurate upon moving, with giant boats having to settle down for a sniping shot.
It could also be affected by the pilots experience (a perk to increase running stability for scouts for example, to compensate for the pilots "natural" abilities).

JJs should drastically effect the aim, -> we need to avoid poptarding.

Damage should increase all of these factors, it could probably be generalized so we don't need a reticule for each weapon -> damage should alter a mechs offensive capabilities, it's mentioned in the novels about a gazillion times and makes sence.

Being hit should be the biggest thing, it should throw off your aim/rotate your torso around etc. (thinking about the MW4 intro here ).
Only on the top-tiers should pilots be able to lessen these effects -> ambush strategies (especially by lighter machines) should be viable, someone alone in a big mech shouldn't be able to rape a group of smaller machines like he does in previous games.

All of this has been done to create immersive and fun shooter-experiences since decades, and with MW's slower approach it because all the more important.

[Rejarial Galatan]

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

The MWO forums are a little short on math today. Jenners go 1200kph.

UH 1200 KPH? that jenner is moving impossibly fast, especially since, in the SS of the week, the jenner in the pic <from the cockpits view from said jenner, throttle was at 100% and was doing only 130 or so KPH....

[Urza Mechwalker]

[EDMW]CSN, on 06 May 2012 - 09:32 AM, said:

Tanks are accurate enough to land a shot on target, but does it really hit a specific spot of the target where the Gunner is aiming ??

Definitely not. Tank gunners respond to "Gunner Sabot Tank", "Identified" "Up" "Fire" and "On the way" in a span of 4 to 6 seconds. The Gunner will aim for the largest centre of mass and just to land the 1st shot because the other enemy tank WILL be doing the same.

Gunners themselves will snap their reticle over a target but they are not caring whether the shot strikes the glacis, track or turret. They only care if the shot actually HITS and is the target still operational within a very short span of time. So much for pin-point accuracy huh ? In addition many modern tanks are incapable of making pinpoint strikes into the same location after the 1st shot.

So don't expect pinpoint accuracy even on modern systems.

What I do hope in MWO is that the longer you converge, the better chance you have of accurately hitting a certain SPOT on a mech. Snap firing with minimum waiting for convergence, will not give your weapons enough time to converge on to a single spot, but you will still land your shots on target.

So everything is a trade off, do you gamble for your weapons to perfectly align for that crippling shot or you just quickly blast off and hope you throw off the PPC / Gauss sniper's aim ?

Tansk CAN aim at a general part of another tank. Its just hat its not much worth to do that since on overall theprotection level is same. ALso a tank is a much smaller tager than an atlas. An atlas is more like a 5 store building and you may be 100% sure a tank can at 2 km decide wich of the apartments it will hit with a very high accuracy on that.

On the vide showing a challenger fire.. that concrete block is WAY smaller than the standard target deviation (2m.. that is what militarys call a person sized target) Even so the secodn shot was a glance and the firt one passed less than a feet of the target. That is FAR FAR more precisont hat you need to decide if you are aiming for the leg ofr for the torso of a mech.

[LackofCertainty]

Urza Mechwalker, on 06 May 2012 - 02:30 PM, said:

Tansk CAN aim at a general part of another tank. Its just hat its not much worth to do that since on overall theprotection level is same. ALso a tank is a much smaller tager than an atlas. An atlas is more like a 5 store building and you may be 100% sure a tank can at 2 km decide wich of the apartments it will hit with a very high accuracy on that.

On the vide showing a challenger fire.. that concrete block is WAY smaller than the standard target deviation (2m.. that is what militarys call a person sized target) Even so the secodn shot was a glance and the firt one passed less than a feet of the target. That is FAR FAR more precisont hat you need to decide if you are aiming for the leg ofr for the torso of a mech.

Safe, not a concrete block.

Also, I think that the safe in question is comparable to the head size of mechs (at least the better designed ones that have a properly shielded cockpit)

Also, Also, hitting a 1m target at 900m is similar to hitting a 2m target at 2km.

Also, Also, Also, the challenger2 is way more accurate (or at least should be) than any WW2 tank.

Tanks are surprisingly accurate, but they're not pinpoint accurate, and they're certainly not pinpoint accurate at the ranges some people talk about.

Also, Also, Also, Also, the Atlas may have thunder thighs, but if you look at some light mech legs they are quite slender, not to mention that they will most likely be moving at 90-120 kmph and not sitting perfectly still like the safe was.


I gotta say though that Euphor Kell has the right of it

Euphor Kell, on 06 May 2012 - 12:01 PM, said:

its a simulation.
i remember when i used to play mech 2 all those years ago, there is one thing i distinctly remember and i think that they got it RIGHT: if i wanted that laser in my right arm to hit the enemy at close range, i aimed LEFT of the target because of weapon convergance, most weapons were "Fixed" forward to converge at a certain range, which means that they shoot straight ahead, and the reticle was a guide in which direction the shots would go. IMHO, it should be like this. (considering that the mechs arms in mech 2 were locked)
if your weapon is in your right torso and you aim directly at the enemy mech that is directly in front of you, the weapon should hit their left torso because you've told your mech to essentially shoot "straight ahead"
this goes further to say, you have a few weapons in each torso, then they should hit their respective location on the enemy mech depending on where they are mounted.

now look at arm (or limb) weapons, they can converge on targets in real time, so they should be able to hit where the reticle is aiming, after you give them time to converge.
for example, you have a target at 500m under your reticle, and the arms have converged, you should be able to hit with near-pin point accuracy should you be standing still. however, should that target suddenly be at 200m (ie, you were shooting at something in the distance, and someone else moves under your crosshairs) the shots should hit towards the outside (or possibly pass around the mech, depending on size and stuff) because your weapons are aimed to converge at the pervious target at 500m, and on the flip side, should that enemy at 500m disappear (say, used his jump jets) and the target behind him was at 800m, then your shots should converge in between you and the new target, possibly missing him altogether (the right arm weapons would pass left of him, and the left arm weapons pass right of him)

all of the above is considering you are standing still.
add moving to the equation, and your crosshair starts to sway, your arms are constantly trying to converge bwtewwn the ground your aiming at (or straight ahead should you be looking over the horizion) and the enemy mech you want to hit (considering the ground behind them will be at a different distance to them) and the fixed forward weapons in your torso, very few of your shots should land under your crosshairs, however, the distance they are off should be predictable (ie: left torso weapons should be slightly down and to the left of the crosshair, centre torso weapons should be close to, or if anything, a little under, while dorsal weapons may be slightly higher, and arm weapons will be converging depending on what direction you just turned and how long you've had the mech under your reticle)

this would mean actually hitting an enemy mech wouldn't be random at all, but would also require you (the pilot) to compensate for where your weapons are mounted and how fast your arm weapons converge, meaning to place shots in the same spot you would have to stagger the weapons, or have them all hit different parts of the mech...

just my 2c

Even though it's a lot of text I quoted it again, because it deserves repeating.

[Deathz Jester]

LULZ MAI PPC'S ALWAYS HITS THEY TAHGETS I NEVUR MISS



But really, it would be nice if there were some X factor that made a chance to miss. So i can run around in a Raven right by an Atlas and hope that his gauss rifle misses. otherwise, if his reticle is on me, then i'm dead 100% of the time.

assuming he has a gauss rifle.

Edited by Iron Harlequin, 06 May 2012 - 04:52 PM.

[Jun Watarase]

Mims, on 05 May 2012 - 06:04 PM, said:

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.

You have ignored every single point raised in this thread...

I still fail to understand how there is any skill at moving your mouse over a huge mech and pressing mouse 1. Especially if there are no penalties to shooting at a mech running at 100 kph.

GaussDragon, on 05 May 2012 - 06:32 PM, said:

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.

You play as a sniper in MW4 mercs and you want pinpoint accuracy in MWO. I think we see the problem here.

It doesnt matter what gets changed, if weapons are still pinpoint accurate then players will find the largest open space in the map and sit in it with the heaviest mechs with the longest ranged weapons, forming a giant kill zone where they can focus fire any mechs down to dust before they can close within short range.

And as already explained, weapon balance goes out of the window if weapons are pinpoint accurate instead of spreading all over.

4 med lasers vs an AC20, if all 4 med lasers hit the same spot? Med lasers win.

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

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.

All your points were already addressed several pages ago.

[Cruxshadow]

I don't know how many other people here play World of Tank, but I like how they handle the shot varience. Factors like your speed how fast you are traversing and how long you take to aim effect the potential impact zone. You have your aiming reticle and potential impact some. Things like stabelizers, using energy weapons, and other equipment could possiabley reduce the size of the projected impact zone.