140 replies to this topic

[Jun Watarase]

Oh and on the topic of weapon convergence...wont this just encourage players to stack as many weapons as possible in either the arms or torsos, to make them converge easier?

Remember MW2? Completely free customization, and the best place to put the weapons were in the torsos since the arms had less armor and were almost always the first body part to be destroyed.

And the most powerful config was as many med lasers as you could put on the side torsos on a decently fast mech. Long ranged shots were really difficult since even lasers had significant travel times.

[GaussDragon]

Jun Watarase, on 07 May 2012 - 01:39 AM, said:

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.

Yes it does matter, for all the reasons I listed that you just managed to blatantly ignore.

Jun Watarase, on 07 May 2012 - 01:39 AM, said:

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

Really? You sure about that? Then why did I go through the trouble of making this:

http://mwomercs.com/...-steep-terrain/

[EDMW CSN]

Jun Watarase, on 07 May 2012 - 02:07 AM, said:

Oh and on the topic of weapon convergence...wont this just encourage players to stack as many weapons as possible in either the arms or torsos, to make them converge easier?

Remember MW2? Completely free customization, and the best place to put the weapons were in the torsos since the arms had less armor and were almost always the first body part to be destroyed.

And the most powerful config was as many med lasers as you could put on the side torsos on a decently fast mech. Long ranged shots were really difficult since even lasers had significant travel times.

You can't cram weapons into the arm unless you have the requisite hard point.
For example a Centurion at the moment, will only have a single Ballistic hard point to it's arm. So you can't magically turn the AC-10 crits into half a dozen machine guns or medium lasers.

So that portion has being covered. Anyhow arms are by far the the most exposed portion of any part of the mech and have less armor on average. So it will be a trade off.

Faster convergence = weapons being easier to disable due to arm's weak armor.

Edited by [EDMW]CSN, 07 May 2012 - 03:37 AM.

[Brandon Mallard]

This is amusing. This came from a table top game. The rules, weapons, and designs were all based on that. Setting this up and trying to correlate this to real life aspects doesn't work. You want pin point accuracy you're gonna have snipe fests. You want to be able to customize loadouts, you're gonna have snipefests.
If you guys remember in the table top there was specific location targetting...at a +4 to hit. As a true fan you should be more focused on the core game. Focus on unit tactics, obtaining objectives. Losing the rules so everyone can have "control" of where their weapons hit will always turn mw into a snipe fest. You'll see a bunch of assault mechs squaring off against one another from LR. Lame.
We all know that all the great houses field nothing but assault mechs anyway so why not head down the same path as all the previous on line versions.

[RedHairDave]

i also dont want 100% accuracy. if your at full speed there should be some sort of accuricy bloom. its just to easy to keep the mouse on target. when stationary there should be really good accuracy, when moving it should be less.

[DaZur]

Okay... Maybe I'm just dense (There's a lot of argument for that case...) but Isn't this all a circular argument that's already been addressed?

• All ballistic weapons have inherent "time-to-target" penalty already in place. Distance to target automatically multiplies the difficulty.
  
• Energy-based weapons are beamed weapons, which means to reap the full damage payout, the beam would need to stay focused on-spot for the duration of the discharge... So unless you're both standing still, it's highly unlikely max damage will be inflicted with the shot. Again, distance to target automatically multiplies the difficulty.
  
• Missiles like always, either require lock or are fired like a ballistic weapon, requiring a little "Kentucky windage"...

Long and short, IMHO... nothing needs to be nerfed as the weapons already have their inherit deficits in place?

[ice trey]

Personally, I hope that the throttle level that the 'mech is travelling at affects the accuracy of the weapons.

A stationary 'mech should have a much more stable spread than a 'mech that is jumping.

If you're talking "Accurate" as in "Accurate to the tabletop", then I'm firmly in the "The closer to the tabletop rules we stay, the better the game is bound to be" camp. I'm actually hoping that MWO will give every weapon the same recycle time - MW4 proved to us that a weapon system made weaker in favor of faster recycle times is a pittance compared to a weapon that hits hard once, allowing you to hide behind cover until it recharges.

Small laser time = medium laser time = large laser time. Just vary the damage output and ranges. These core components were very well balanced from the get-go.

[DirePhoenix]

ice trey, on 07 May 2012 - 06:46 AM, said:

Personally, I hope that the throttle level that the 'mech is travelling at affects the accuracy of the weapons.

A stationary 'mech should have a much more stable spread than a 'mech that is jumping.

If you're talking "Accurate" as in "Accurate to the tabletop", then I'm firmly in the "The closer to the tabletop rules we stay, the better the game is bound to be" camp. I'm actually hoping that MWO will give every weapon the same recycle time - MW4 proved to us that a weapon system made weaker in favor of faster recycle times is a pittance compared to a weapon that hits hard once, allowing you to hide behind cover until it recharges.

Small laser time = medium laser time = large laser time. Just vary the damage output and ranges. These core components were very well balanced from the get-go.

I'd be down for this. Standard weapons have a 10-second cycle time. Pulse lasers can have a shorter cycle time, at the cost of lower damage per shot (or maybe the "pulse" is essentially the that it can fire like a normal laser, just at a higher cycling time, instead of rapid-firing like a machine gun)

[Havoc2]

Pin-point accuracy != click and hit.


NO ONE is saying that because you shoot a PPC or AC2 that has a 0.25s flight time if you aim at the head of a Raven traveling across your screen at 120 km/h you'll hit it every time.

Pin-point accuracy means that your weapons shoots where you aim it. If you're a skilled enough pilot to lead the Raven appropriately and shoot, your weapon will hit the head. Not a 15% chance to hit its leg, foot, arm whatever.

If you have the skill to hit what you're aiming at, you should be able to hit what you're aiming at not hoping for a good roll when you pull the trigger.

[BeforeLife]

Tekkiller, on 04 May 2012 - 11:22 AM, said:

lolwut?

1000meters in 3 secs = 333 m/s

333m/s = 20,000m / minute

20,000m / minute = 1,200,000 meters/hour

1,200,000 meters/hour = 1,200 kilometers /hour


That is ONE FAST JENNER!!!

I do belive I managed to get a locast to go 1/3 that at 400 km/h with MASC, a supercharger, and the biggest XXL engine posible on the thing. It had almost no armor and iirc no weapons. I might have gave it ECM and a tag though. Not sure.

[TheRulesLawyer]

I still concerned about the potential for abuse the convergence system gives. Any time you give a player that kind of accuracy you enable things like aim bot being super helpful. I also don't like it because it throws away several mechanics for balance that could have been used. It also doesn't fit with canon as well as a cone of fire type system would. It also doesn't fit with real physics as well. That cone of fire RNG people hate so much is a real thing. Even with static mouted weapons. Its why guns are rated in MOA for accuracy. Real life guns aren't perfectly accurate.

[Rear Admiral]

You know what game had the best mech sway/gunfire mechanices so far?

Battlefield 2142.

Thats right, its not even a MW game. But it was perfect as far as mech sway went while walking/shooting. Your walker would jostle back and forth as it ran/walked and your weapon fire would go all over the place if you didnt adjust your fire to compensate for the bouncing. The mechs actually swayed from side to side as they walked, unlike every other MW game i've ever played, where balance was not simulated at all. Riding in mechs in all the old MW games was the smoothest ride you've ever been in.

Just check out the walkers in BF2142, specifically the relationship between how they move to how accurate they fired.


Have a nice day.

[Samuel Maxwell]

GaussDragon, on 06 May 2012 - 10:28 AM, said:

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.

Yet accuracy when walking/running/jumping is supposed to decrease compared to standing still according to the TT. Regardless, my suggestion wasn't to copy CS's model exactly as it is. Say 'Mech A is standing still and aiming at still 'Mech B. 'Mech A will have pinpoint accuracy (reticule less than 1 mm diameter or what-not). If 'Mech B moves, 'Mech A will still have pinpoint accuracy. Also, recoil plays little role.

Now suppose 'Mech A starts walking. 'Mech A's targeting reticule goes from 1mm to, say, 1.6 mm. Not too big of a difference at all unless the target is far. The reticule will still hit wherever you target because it's still small enough to shoot anything at a close-range setting.

At this stage, 'Mech A starts running. The targeting reticule goes from 1mm to 2.5mm. It's still pretty accurate at close range, but it's a little off at farther range. It will still hit the target at medium range, but it may goes from the center-right torso to the right torso.

I'd like to think that what i suggest isn't too drastic of a change when it comes to accuracy but still enough so that it's not 100% accurate.

NOTE: The numbers are just for reference. I'm sure the developers would make more sense of it if the system was ever included.

Edited by Samuel Maxwell, 07 May 2012 - 08:02 AM.

[Chuckie]

No matter how accurate.. there will be recon to deal with.. and it won't be easy hitting a moving target.

Unless Recon has you spotted and the Catapult launches to LRM15s locked on target

It's all a matter of skill, and speed, and fighting style..

See WOT.. I create all sorts of havoc in my T2 scout in T9 battles Especailly if I have good arty support. I see it working a lot that way. Be hard to snipe without team support and recon.

[Mike Silva]

}{avoc, on 07 May 2012 - 07:04 AM, said:

Pin-point accuracy != click and hit.


NO ONE is saying that because you shoot a PPC or AC2 that has a 0.25s flight time if you aim at the head of a Raven traveling across your screen at 120 km/h you'll hit it every time.

Pin-point accuracy means that your weapons shoots where you aim it. If you're a skilled enough pilot to lead the Raven appropriately and shoot, your weapon will hit the head. Not a 15% chance to hit its leg, foot, arm whatever.

If you have the skill to hit what you're aiming at, you should be able to hit what you're aiming at not hoping for a good roll when you pull the trigger.

A Battlemech is a very complex machine with a variety of weapon systems all linked to, per canon, targeting systems that are not exactly high tech. To expect all of the weapon systems to effectively mimic the pinpoint accuracy you might find with a sniper rifle in a first person shooter seems to be an unrealistic expectation (IMO). Some weapons may have this level of accuracy, but I would like to think that most weapons would not, and would function like most other weapons you'd find in a first person shooter that maintain a cone of fire that varies depending on conditions (walking, running, in cover, etc).

I would be disappointed if all weapons went exactly where the targeting reticule said they would 100% of the time. I'm not saying that the spread should be so wide that weapons become unreliable in all conditions, but it should be borderline impossible to land consistent shots on a single point on an enemy 'Mech at 600 meters using an A/C-2 while both you and the target are moving at flank speed.

[wwiiogre]

I hope they will not be 100% accurate, with convergence this seems to be addressed some, hopefully with Heat issues this will also be addressed. Then again damage to the cockpit or hud might also cause problems. We really don't know until the game comes out. Also I hope the PGI dev's will make piloting problems such as running at full speed in urban areas or roads have a curve/power/mass ratio such that a mech pushing its speed to fast when trying to turn may fall over or skid as they do in table top. What this means is don't run to fast in the city or you may crash into the side of that building, causing it damage, causing you damage and possibly dropping the building on your own head.



chris

[DaZur]

Still not getting it...

I understand the premise proposed that travel speed should effect accuracy, but I think many are missing the point that it's inherent and does not need to to be nerfed in. Seriously... If I'm standing enxt to you the a/c round is going to literally be instantaneous... no argument there. At 200m sure, I can point right at your cockpit, but if either you, I or both of us is moving, the likely hood of me hitting you drops dramatically due to ballistic flight-time and movement penalty. Conversely... yes, a laser is instantaneous, but I have to train that laser on that spot for the duration of the discharge to receive max damage... Something I suspect is next to impossible unless both you and I are stationary.

I think way too much assumption is being drawn from past MW game iterations...

Just watching the recently release videos demonstrates (if you watch closely) how widely dispersed the damage effects are and how difficult if is to hold your piper on target, let alone perform surgical shots...

[Havoc2]

Mike Silva, on 07 May 2012 - 08:40 AM, said:

. . . targeting systems that are not exactly high tech.

Stopped reading here.

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

What's the point of the firing computer at all then? Are we to think that the firing computer and target computer don't talk to each other at all so that the weapons are being constantly calibrated to hit a target at XX metres because the targeting computer says that's how far away the target is?

The TT used dice and to-hit rolls etc etc because there was no way of properly simulating pilot accuracy in a board game. This is a mechanized simulator that puts hits and misses in the pilot's (your) hands. If you aim at something, you should hit it. Period.

What I'd like to see is movement making it harder to aim at what you want to hit, not harder to hit at what you're aiming at.

Edited by }{avoc, 07 May 2012 - 10:49 AM.

[TheRulesLawyer]

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

What I'd like to see is movement making it harder to aim at what you want to hit, not harder to hit at what you're aiming at.

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

[Havoc2]

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

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

No, I'm not.

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

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

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