48 replies to this topic

[Banditman]

In the original entries in the Mechwarrior series, recoil didn't happen. When you got hit, you just got hit. NBD. With MW3 however, certain hits began to cause recoil against the target, throwing off aiming. This was universally hailed as a "realistic advancement". Mechwarrior 4 took this effect a step further, and with the advent of force feedback joysticks, you not only saw the hit, but you felt the hit as well. Once again, universally hailed as "realistic advancement". I can't argue that it's probably realistic.

However, I think this feature is harming the franchise. I'll have to start with some basic background.

So, in game, you have various "sizes" of weapons. Quite a variety in fact. Lasers come in three basic sizes, two basic types, and that doesn't even consider things like PPC's and Flamers. Autocannons come in various sizes. Missiles come in various sizes. All this weapon diversity exists, and yet in practice, it's become increasingly uncommon to see anything but the biggest weapons, even on the smallest mechs.

Why?

People often debate this point, but I think honestly most of them are really missing the real reason. Recoil is your culprit. I know, it's hard to see the connection. Here it is.

Let's take two hypothetical mechs of the same weight, same armor, same speed. Identical mechs. Equally skilled pilots. However, one mech is armed with medium lasers that give a theoretical maximum DPS of "X". The other mech is armed with Autocannons with an identical theoretical maximum DPS of "X". Let's go a step further and say that these theoretical weapons systems have an identical recycle time, to make it even easier to see the problem. These mechs are identical in every way, with the exception of one mech causes recoil on it's target and the other does not.

In every case, the mech which causes recoil on it's target will win. It's very simple. The mech that fires and causes recoil is lowering the hit rate of it's opponent. That opponent is spending more time simply struggling to keep it's sights on the target, and less time manuevering and otherwise staying situationally aware.

Recoil, effectively, lowers the DPS of the target. It's actually one of the best defensive mechanisms in Mechwarrior. If your enemy can't hit you, he can't kill you.

Now, consider the arms race. Larger weapons cause more recoil than smaller ones. Thus, even while the pilots don't realize it, they are subconsiously realizing that not only are larger weapons better at causing recoil, they are *also* better at minimizing the effect of incoming recoil! Larger weapons recycle more slowly, giving the pilot more time to recover from being hit.

A pilot with slower recycling weapons needs less time with his target under his crosshairs to do his maximum damage. He not only has more time to line up his shot, he has more time to be situationally aware. Go back and look at our two hypothetical mechs again. Everything is equal between these mechs, including overall damage output. However, mech 1, still using medium lasers has to land two shots every 5 seconds to do all his damage, where mech 2, using an autocannon has to land only one shot every 5 seconds to do all his damage.

See where this is going? These pilots are equal, meaning they land equal numbers of shots in a perfect world, but now the laser pilot is dealing with getting knocked around and forcing misses, and he's having to aquire targeting twice as often as his counterpart.

This, in my opinion, is one of the most outstanding and least understood reasons why larger weapons have become more prevalent in later titles in the Mechwarrior series. Pilots felt and understood this at a visceral level, without actually being able to understand or express it concsiously. We gravitated to the larger weapons, even in situations where range was not an issue.

I hope that the developers will consider this issue seriously. I personally want to see weapon diversity, and I think everyone really wants that if they're being honest. Understanding the impact of recoil on weapon diversity needs to be a priority for the Dev team.

Thanks for your time.

[ManDaisy]

No I'm pretty sure it was because of the damage nerfing that made small weapons unviable due to the damage to "hard point" ratio. (MW4 I'm looking at you)

[Kaemon]

I'm alittle confused, recoil is when the shooter fires the weapon, which causes him to have to adjust his aim after every shot.

Impact would be when the round strikes your mech, causing you to have to adjust your aim after every shot that hits (deflections to a lesser degree).

Gauss and PPCs should have the same mechanic, Lasers are a bit different, but are offset a bit by their heat buildup (which ideally would cause your aim to become slightly more difficult due to optic distortion,heat effects on the pilot, etc...)

So really you could make the case that ALL weapons have recoil/impact, and they should all be handled a bit differently, but still have their positive and negatives.

No weapons should be 'always on' target...except mine.

[Adridos]

Banditman, on 22 May 2012 - 08:54 AM, said:

Let's take two hypothetical mechs of the same weight, same armor, same speed. Identical mechs. Equally skilled pilots. However, one mech is armed with medium lasers that give a theoretical maximum DPS of "X". The other mech is armed with Autocannons with an identical theoretical maximum DPS of "X". Let's go a step further and say that these theoretical weapons systems have an identical recycle time, to make it even easier to see the problem. These mechs are identical in every way, with the exception of one mech causes recoil on it's target and the other does not.

So he traded that raw power for: no problems with ammo explosions, no ammo bills, infinite number of uses in a match, smaller cost and weight.

I don't see a reason why should he be equal in a head to head theoretycal engagement.

[Banditman]

Kaemon, on 22 May 2012 - 09:36 AM, said:

I'm alittle confused, recoil is when the shooter fires the weapon, which causes him to have to adjust his aim after every shot.

You are getting caught up in sematics, and not delving deep enough into the actual issue. To quote the dictionary, recoil is "to spring or fly back, as in consequence of force of impact or the force of the discharge, as a firearm."

Adridos, on 22 May 2012 - 10:16 AM, said:

So he traded that raw power for: no problems with ammo explosions, no ammo bills, infinite number of uses in a match, smaller cost and weight.

I don't see a reason why should he be equal in a head to head theoretycal engagement.

It's not about being equal. It's about the fact that recoil is devaluing lower "caliber" weapons of all types because the lack of recoil puts a pilot at a distinct disadvantage.

Edited by Banditman, 22 May 2012 - 10:52 AM.

[Adridos]

Banditman, on 22 May 2012 - 10:51 AM, said:

It's not about being equal. It's about the fact that recoil is devaluing lower "caliber" weapons of all types because the lack of recoil puts a pilot at a distinct disadvantage.

The smaller weapons have bigger range, better accuracy, etc.

[Banditman]

Accuracy is a completely table top concept that has no place in this game. Your weapons are as accurate as you, the pilot, make them. If you pull the trigger at the wrong time, you miss. Pull the trigger at the right time, you hit. Simple as that. Size of the weapon is irrelevant.

As far as range goes, I assume you're talking specifically about Ballistic weapons, since clearly the smaller Beam weapons have less range.

With Ballistics, yes, you have more range, but your theoretical DPS is still lower. Again, viscerally, all pilots feel this already and move to the bigger weapons due to their tremendous recoil advantage.

Edited by Banditman, 22 May 2012 - 01:03 PM.

[canned wolf]

Wrong on so many points its hard to keep up.

Here are the highlights.

Lasers and AC's aren't equal. AC's weigh more than lasers and consume ammo. Lasers produce more heat. AC's shells take time to get to the target introducing lead as a a factor in aiming. Some fire in bursts causing spread to be a factor too.

The AC's on the Hunchback and Atlas are shortbore. If you don't know what that means, go to the firing range, place your target at 200 feet then fire a rifle at it a couple of times. Now pick up a pistol, any pistol and try and match your rifle accuracy. You won't, because pistols even the ones that fire the same ammo, have shorter barrels and less accuracy. So, no, its not just about where the player points and clicks.

Lasers implemented the way you're talking about are just as dangerous, if you know anything about tactics. People will ignore laser boats doing more damage to go for the guy with the AC's because he's frustrating. If you're not monitoring your HTAL closely you might ignore the little red flashes on your damage display because of incoming missles and AC fire. Then your left torso blows out because you were ignoring a Nova Cat.

[cinco]

Banditman, on 22 May 2012 - 10:51 AM, said:

You are getting caught up in sematics, and not delving deep enough into the actual issue. To quote the dictionary, recoil is "to spring or fly back, as in consequence of force of impact or the force of the discharge, as a firearm."




It's not about being equal. It's about the fact that recoil is devaluing lower "caliber" weapons of all types because the lack of recoil puts a pilot at a distinct disadvantage.

and you need to learn english. recoil, in the context of warfare involving big guns, is the kickback from firing such weapons.

how do we delve into the issue when you can't properly convey what you mean?

[eZZip]

Banditman, on 22 May 2012 - 01:03 PM, said:

Accuracy is a completely table top concept that has no place in this game. Your weapons are as accurate as you, the pilot, make them. If you pull the trigger at the wrong time, you miss. Pull the trigger at the right time, you hit. Simple as that. Size of the weapon is irrelevant.

I doubt that the devs have made every weapon 100% accurate like Quake. ACs aren't hitscan in the videos, either.

Banditman, on 22 May 2012 - 10:51 AM, said:

It's not about being equal. It's about the fact that recoil is devaluing lower "caliber" weapons of all types because the lack of recoil puts a pilot at a distinct disadvantage.

Recoil isn't the major factor; the DPS to mass ratio is the problem. You can spam AC/2s on a 100 ton mech and it will be much less effective than a 100 ton mech with AC/5s, which is less effective than gauss rifle spam, and it's certainly not because of recoil as much as damage. Recoil is an advantage, but it's nowhere near the biggest one (especially since with mouse aim, it is not so hard to counter it and hence nullify it).

[Pht]

Kaemon, on 22 May 2012 - 09:36 AM, said:

I'm alittle confused, recoil is when the shooter fires the weapon, which causes him to have to adjust his aim after every shot.

Impact would be when the round strikes your mech, causing you to have to adjust your aim after every shot that hits (deflections to a lesser degree).

Gauss and PPCs should have the same mechanic, Lasers are a bit different, but are offset a bit by their heat buildup (which ideally would cause your aim to become slightly more difficult due to optic distortion,heat effects on the pilot, etc...)

So really you could make the case that ALL weapons have recoil/impact, and they should all be handled a bit differently, but still have their positive and negatives.

No weapons should be 'always on' target...except mine.

Recoil is not a big issue in battlemechs. They compensate for it quite well.

[Belisarius1]

As other people have said, what you're talking about is not recoil. Recoil is an effect that the shooter feels, and is detrimental in most cases. The impacts felt by a guy being shot up by an AC are generally called "knockback" or "rock".

Your main point is just as false. If one weapon causes rock and the other does not but they're otherwise identical, it's obvious that the rock weapon will win. That doesn't make rock special. If two weapons are identical in every way except that one has a faster recycle, the faster weapon will also win. Does that mean fast recycle times are overpowered? Of course not.

Rock is just one more weapon attribute you have to factor in when comparing weapons. Lasers don't have rock, but they have other advantages like being ammo-less and not requiring lead times. If it's a real problem, just boost their dps a little to compensate.

Edited by Belisarius†, 22 May 2012 - 05:08 PM.

[Vulpesveritas]

The main thing is with recoil is if it's done properly, it gives ballistic weapons an equal edge versus energy weapons, as they can be implemented defensively better, despite the ammo problem.

[Roland]

Quote

[color=#959595]So, in game, you have various "sizes" of weapons. Quite a variety in fact. Lasers come in three basic sizes, two basic types, and that doesn't even consider things like PPC's and Flamers. Autocannons come in various sizes. Missiles come in various sizes. All this weapon diversity exists, and yet in practice, it's become increasingly uncommon to see anything but the biggest weapons, even on the smallest mechs.[/color]

[color=#959595]Why?[/color]


[color=#959595]People often debate this point, but I think honestly most of them are really missing the real reason. Recoil is your culprit. I know, it's hard to see the connection. Here it is.[/color]

This wasn't really the case, at least not in MW4.

The most widely used weapons in MW4 were lasers.. and the ones used were the Large lasers. Not because of knock to the target, but because they dramatically outranged smaller lasers.

Another advantage was that they allowed for large, precise alpha striking capability.

And, finally, the biggest reason why they became so widely used compared to non LL weapons was that they had no travel time. Network latency didn't affect them. Prior to the first patch of MW4, where hit detection moved from client to server side, you actually saw a much wider variety of weapons.

We ran various configs which focused on knocking the target around, but you traded off large pinpoint strikes for this. Examples would be LBX brawlers who could chain fire their guns to keep knocking a target around at close range, or chainfiring 100 LRM's into a mech. There were some effective pulse configs which could achieve a similar effect (primarily the XPulse, which you could mount on the Catapult which was immune to knock). But again, you needed to keep your reticle on target to focus damage, because you had to fire more often rather than just putting 6 or 7 ERLL's onto a target and pulling the trigger, vaporizing that panel.

[Pht]

Belisarius†, on 22 May 2012 - 05:05 PM, said:

As other people have said, what you're talking about is not recoil. Recoil is an effect that the shooter feels, and is detrimental in most cases. The impacts felt by a guy being shot up by an AC are generally called "knockback" or "rock".

Recoil forces are larger than forces imparted by incoming kinetic fire and battlemechs have multiple systems to handle the recoil AND the incoming fire; MW is not like most video games in that respect; recoil and knock are not a big issue, if at all, to battlemechs... they simply dish it out and absorb it until they fall to the ground in tatters.

The pilot gets shaken around like an ice cube in a shaker when taking fire because his mass is tiny relative to the mass of his mech; a feather tickle to a mech is a giant jump to the pilot.

The much mentioned "balancing factor" that recoil/knock imparts is simply not necessary in an MW game; there are other factors that a good robust mw video game has going on that make such un-necessary.

[syngyne]

canned wolf, on 22 May 2012 - 02:57 PM, said:

The AC's on the Hunchback and Atlas are shortbore. If you don't know what that means, go to the firing range, place your target at 200 feet then fire a rifle at it a couple of times. Now pick up a pistol, any pistol and try and match your rifle accuracy. You won't, because pistols even the ones that fire the same ammo, have shorter barrels and less accuracy. So, no, its not just about where the player points and clicks.

Just to nitpick, all the length of the barrel does is affect velocity of a round. It doesn't affect actual accuracy (but you'll have to compensate a lot more for elevation due to lower velocity). You can hit a target at long range better with a rifle because it's easier to hold steady.

[S3dition]

1) Penetration and evacuation are not semantics. You don't say a bullet makes two entry wounds, one into the body and one into the air behind the target. Ergo, Kaemon is right. It's recoil and impact. If everyone called this semantics, we would have one word for everything.

2) Accuracy is not determined solely by the marksman. Think there is a reason the nations of the world spend hundreds of millions on targeting systems and barrel design? I guess you could give them a call and set them straight.

3) The barrel of a weapon does effect accuracy. It absorbs micro tremors better than shorter barrels. Also, bolt flex can change accuracy. The crown can change accuracy, whether the barrel is hot or cold can change accuracy. Even the temperature of the air and angle of the shot effects it.

4) I believe the OP is taking a very roundabout way of saying that heavier rounds have an additional bonus of causing impact effects, like destabilization. Of course, in MW4, a cluster of lighter weapons could cause the same thing because it was strictly based on damage taken in a very short amount of time, probably within 1 second, from a single source.

Of course, this is also untrue, as all heavier weapons reload less frequently, so it's really the smaller rounds that have the advantage in that system.

[Havoc2]

Except that what weapons can you think of that have the same weight and size of a laser, but uses ammo and causes knockback?

Knockback is what happens when a solid mass strikes another solid mass. Small caliber weapons such as machine guns and light ACs should not be considered large enough caliber to cause significant impact to adjust the MUCH larger mass of a BattleMech.

Guass rifles and larger ACs (10 and 20) do. They also weigh a LOT more and take up much more space than their smaller counterparts. This is an additional benefit to these weapons and in some cases can affect the reason they're chosen.

Edited by }{avoc, 22 May 2012 - 08:33 PM.

[Siilk]

Recoil is killing MW franchise? Now that's hilarious!

[Creepy]

Recoil doesn't have to be that tremendous, tbh. A lot of kinetic weapons in this game is probably going to be some variation of AP at a guess, and the energy transfer tends to be less with that kind of ammunition. Anyway I think it's more about how the damage model is done rather than the recoil -which, I guess, should probably include a little recoil for the shooter as well as long as we're discussing it.