57 replies to this topic

[Dendrobium]

Adjusting LBX to have possible knock down would be great also or, something to make it more worth taking on. It's fun to play with on the current trial mech. When it comes down to numbers on a purchased mech though, it loses to the 20 hands down.

[HC Harlequin]

Dendrobium, on 19 January 2013 - 10:55 PM, said:

Adjusting LBX to have possible knock down would be great also or, something to make it more worth taking on. It's fun to play with on the current trial mech. When it comes down to numbers on a purchased mech though, it loses to the 20 hands down.

I think people would be looking for something about a combined amount of damage in a specified amount of time.

[MoonUnitBeta]

voted for ac20's to possibly knock down, but only on mechs 35t or lighter. 40-50t i expect a stagger and some serious screen shake for them. anything heavier, just screen shake.

Edited by MoonUnitBeta, 20 January 2013 - 12:54 AM.

[Yokaiko]

MoonUnitBeta, on 20 January 2013 - 12:54 AM, said:

voted for ac20's to possibly knock down, but only on mechs 35t or lighter. 40-50t i expect a stagger and some serious screen shake for them. anything heavier, just screen shake.

Classically speaking any mech that takes 20 points of damage in a round has to make a piloting check. Fail that roll you get knocked over.

That would be a bit extreme in a live fire game, 40 may be a lower end 50 would be more like it.

Edited by Yokaiko, 20 January 2013 - 02:08 AM.

[HC Harlequin]

Well. Something to benefit the AC20.

[VXJaeger]

First things first, IMHO convergence should be fixed first and fast.

[HC Harlequin]

VXJaeger, on 21 January 2013 - 10:47 AM, said:

First things first, IMHO convergence should be fixed first and fast.

one of the issues is how to fix it.

[VXJaeger]

HC Harlequin, on 21 January 2013 - 12:12 PM, said:

one of the issues is how to fix it.

Automatic to primary "R"-targetted mech.

[HC Harlequin]

VXJaeger, on 21 January 2013 - 01:37 PM, said:

Automatic to primary "R"-targetted mech.

The only problem with that is ECM covered non "R" targettable mechs.

[VXJaeger]

HC Harlequin, on 21 January 2013 - 03:36 PM, said:

The only problem with that is ECM covered non "R" targettable mechs.

Maybe, but that's another problem and to be dealed another way. BAP buff etc?

[HC Harlequin]

VXJaeger, on 21 January 2013 - 09:41 PM, said:

Maybe, but that's another problem and to be dealed another way. BAP buff etc?

That would be included in enhancing ECM counters.

[The Mecha Streisand]

I have a couple small problems with ballistics, NONE of which was addressed in the poll.

First, how in the world do machineguns have only a 90-meter effective range? Again, I realize that we're talking about folks in the 30th-31st Centuries with about 18th Century know-how. Got it. But seriously, I can reach out WELL beyond that with any $100 .22LR rimfire rifle, and some pistols of the same caliber. I've qualified dozens of times with an M-16, M-60, or M-249, at ranges of 50-600+ meters. And the 31st Century machinegun can't even scratch the paint at 200 meters, at a mass of give/take 440 kilograms?!?!?!?!?!?!?! The LORE is at fault here, as are original TT rules. Got it. PGI is not bound by blood and stone to that. Just sayin'... (The Browning M2 .50 MG can EASILY tag a car-sized target at 3/4-mile--our AC/20 cannot, nor can the AC/10...)

Second, bullet drop. If a round fired from a ballistic weapon is reaching the farther end of its range in flight, eventually sir Isaac Newton asserts himself. A tenth-grade (I was a VICTIM of our public school system, IMHO) understanding of physics tells me that the projectile, not accounting for aerodynamic considerations, should have fallen ~9.8 meters from its original line of fire per second of flight time, assuming a gravity equal to that of Earth (tons are a WEIGHT measure, in our case, not MASS--just sayin'). And yeah, other games built on CryEngine account for this, with varying degrees of realism.

Is MWO a pure simulator? Doubtful. So ultimate realism is out of the question, and I understand that. But it stand to reason that if I have to lead my target anyhow, then SOME physics have been considered in ballistic projectile trajectories and whatnot. So, are we seeing a step-by-step implementation of them, or is it that what we see is ALL that we get? Or something else?

I'm really just wondering, not criticising per se.

I <3 MWO!

God save the Queen!

Something!

[HC Harlequin]

30plusRAbbi, on 21 January 2013 - 11:32 PM, said:

I have a couple small problems with ballistics, NONE of which was addressed in the poll.

First, how in the world do machineguns have only a 90-meter effective range? Again, I realize that we're talking about folks in the 30th-31st Centuries with about 18th Century know-how. Got it. But seriously, I can reach out WELL beyond that with any $100 .22LR rimfire rifle, and some pistols of the same caliber. I've qualified dozens of times with an M-16, M-60, or M-249, at ranges of 50-600+ meters. And the 31st Century machinegun can't even scratch the paint at 200 meters, at a mass of give/take 440 kilograms?!?!?!?!?!?!?! The LORE is at fault here, as are original TT rules. Got it. PGI is not bound by blood and stone to that. Just sayin'... (The Browning M2 .50 MG can EASILY tag a car-sized target at 3/4-mile--our AC/20 cannot, nor can the AC/10...)

Second, bullet drop. If a round fired from a ballistic weapon is reaching the farther end of its range in flight, eventually sir Isaac Newton asserts himself. A tenth-grade (I was a VICTIM of our public school system, IMHO) understanding of physics tells me that the projectile, not accounting for aerodynamic considerations, should have fallen ~9.8 meters from its original line of fire per second of flight time, assuming a gravity equal to that of Earth (tons are a WEIGHT measure, in our case, not MASS--just sayin'). And yeah, other games built on CryEngine account for this, with varying degrees of realism.

Is MWO a pure simulator? Doubtful. So ultimate realism is out of the question, and I understand that. But it stand to reason that if I have to lead my target anyhow, then SOME physics have been considered in ballistic projectile trajectories and whatnot. So, are we seeing a step-by-step implementation of them, or is it that what we see is ALL that we get? Or something else?

I'm really just wondering, not criticising per se.

I <3 MWO!

God save the Queen!

Something!

Been thinking about how to respond to this. And I think I got it. There is a difference between being behind the iron sights of a weapon and trying to aim via tracer fire or coax. Even in the best of situations with a correctly bore sighted coax weapon using computer controlled ballistic compensation and laser range finding the rounds will impact a certain distance away from point of aim.

Additionally the effect of MG fire on an armored vehicle is negligable at best.

[HC Harlequin]

cross thread
http://mwomercs.com/...on-convergence/

[Rizzelbizzeg]

HC Harlequin, on 23 January 2013 - 05:56 PM, said:

cross thread
http://mwomercs.com/...on-convergence/

Thanks for crossing these, HC Harlequin. I'll join the discussion here.

I do agree that the easiest way to fix convergence would be to set it to the targeted mech. Easy mode. However, like others have said, ECM shouldn't foul up ballistics which it most definitely would do if targeting would set convergence.

I proposed a solution in the thread above. In a nutshell, your reticule would know whether you are moused over terrain or over a mech. Once converged on a mech, if you then moused over terrain (to lead the shot) there would be a delay that would hold onto the mech convergence value for some amount of time before starting to reset convergence to the terrain. Going from terrain to mech, you'd immediately start to acquire the convergence to the mech, but going from mech to terrain, you'd hold the mech value for a short duration before setting to the terrain to allow proper leading.

I imagine they'll start looking at convergence a lot more as the netcode gets more stable. Kinda worthless to find a solution that works on a broke system.

[Rofl]

HC Harlequin, on 22 January 2013 - 01:42 PM, said:

Additionally the effect of MG fire on an armored vehicle is negligable at best.

Depends on the gun and ammo. Tandem charges work pretty well against even reactive armor!

[Kazly]

Eh, all this stuff I can compensate for. Fix the problem when I shoot my ballistic...something hiccups and the weapon doesn't fire. That ****** me off more than anything as when I want to fire, I want to fire - not wait for the slight delay, loose my shot, and realize that the damn weapon never fired.

[CarnifexMaximus]

I am fairly happy with ballistics at the moment. I was really bummed with the latest ask the devs the question regarding weapons convergence at target distance not crosshairs location was shot down with just "no".

The LBX needs some love though. It is lots of fun to use and I enjoy using it, but it just leaves a bit to be desired. I have been running two on an atlas and find that marginally better than 1. I know the spread has been tightened a few times over the course of development but as. It is now, I still don't feel like using them less than 180 meters.

Aesthetically (and this really isn't important with everything else this game needs), I wish they were represented as they are in the novels. I don't have my books with me ATM but I seem to recall Stackpole describing Kai Allard-Liao's test run with YLW during the first Blood of Kerensky book as firing "a stream of depleted uranium projectiles" and that each "shot" of the auto cannon consisting of a cartridge of rounds that fire in a rapid burst and then reloads a new cartridge.... If memory serves, MW2 and 3 sorta represented them this way.