Some BT fan you claim to be if you simply refuse to even test the latest game (and only one we have had in TEN YEARS) just because you think that a decision made by the devs will ruin everything.
----
Sorry to tell you, but TT games do not perfectly translate into FP computer games. It is unfortunate, but something almost everyone acknowledges. Min/maxes exists and will exist in any multiplayer game, so it is going to exist here. The devs do what they can to make a balanced game and so far they are doing a damn fine job of it if you ask me and most of the rest of the players. Sorry that you feel that this game is doomed, reghardless I will try to address your points.
When they implement a wholly new combat system that requires them to completely destroy the central combat gameplay mechanic... it's not invalid to point this out.
----
First of all... who has posted that "TT games perfectly translate into FP computer games" ...? Heck, even I haven't posted that. Second, can you actually give an example, even just one - from the BT TT system that won't translate into a FP video game format? Or will you be one of the mob that is content to make this claim and yet never back it up?
Significant deviations from BattleTech canon for weapons (ML, LL, ACs, LRMs, SRMs, etc) including damage/heat making individual weapons weak relative to armor
Yeah because we all know tabletop, was perfect, flawless, and made total sense and was ideal to fit into an FPS game where people would love to wait 10 seconds for every shot to cycle.
----
... and QUIT being hobbled by this asinine idea of what the rules should be exactly like.
----
Mechwarrior is the UNIVERSE. Mechwarrior is a PPC bolt being blue and doing lots of damage, not pushing your tape-repaired glasses up your acne-covered nose and quoting the exact numbers.
----
Adhering to the tabletop rules has caused nothing but problems. What exactly, pray tell, does adhering strictly to the TT rules bring to the game? Can you name ONE REASON why they should?
If you can't refute it ... post something different than what he posted but cleverly word it to seem the same to people who don't spend the time to know what the other person really said. Than you can put any handy thing in someone's mouth so you can pummel them, and afterwords you can even be brash enough to expect everyone to look at you as the honest one who knows the topic better than the other guy!
----
Than I can have my KILL EVERYTHING insta-win button, right? Because, hey, that's what small lasers are supposed to do, right? I mean, if the rules don't mean squat, we can do anything we want! Nothing has to make ANY sense!
I know, let's make MechWarrior into third-person jousting matches between midgets on tricycles in times-square using styrofoam lances! Hey, if the rules are a dead letter and we should ignore them, you can't say this is wrong!
----
MechWarrior is not "the universe." MechWarrior is a video-game simulation of what it would be like, in real time and first person, to pilot a BattleMech from the Battletech Lore in combat. And that section of the Lore - how BattleMechs "do" combat is defined by the TT rules and a couple of authoritative "fluff" writeups (which, themselves, conform to the TT rules).
If you don't believe me: here's the answer, from the official BT site, in the subforum that's designed specifically to get official answers from the people that control, maintain, and know the lore.
Quote from: Pht on 15 January 2013, 18:14:14
Hey, first of all, thanks for your time & reading this. file:///C:/Documents%20and%20Settings/Administrator/Desktop/-%200%20-/-%20REPLY%20-/-%20TT%20VS%20MW%20-/mech%20behavior-performance%20etc_files/afro.gif
The question is:
What written BattleTech materials are considered canonical and used to form the boundaries in which novelists and sourcebook writers stay?
The rule for continuity review of new material is that:
1) Rules take precedence
2) Fluff and novels are next
3) Artwork is lowest on the continuity food chain
4) Newer material overrides conflicting earlier publications
5) The Line Developer has final say. All hail the Herb.
So, if the writer of a new novel turned in a draft to fact checkers that said, "The MechWarrior plotted his next shot with the cockpit's Ouija board," the fact checkers would, by default, turn to Tech Manual for its description of how BattleMech fire control works and provide proper references for the author to correct his error.
Now, if the writer pointed out that a (hypothetical) rule in Total Warfare specified BattleMech fire control was to be handled with a Ouija board, then the rules would take precedence over the fluff. But until contradicted by the rules (or overridden by someone at a higher pay grade), the "fluff" of Tech Manual, Strategic Operations, etc., is very much enforced during continuity reviews.
Quote[indent]
Quote
For example, are the Tech Manual "fluff" descriptions of how a BattleMech's targeting and tracking system and diagnostic interface do the grunt work of aiming 'Mech weaponry something that novelists and other writers would have to adhere to? Or can such "fluff" be ignored at will by novelists to provide their versions of how BattleMech's perform and behave?
[/indent]
That fluff of Tech Manual would be adhered to by default. I can and have pointed out mistakes in control descriptions in BattleCorps stories and referred the author to the Tech Manual for the correct descriptions. (Not directly - such continuity commentary is subject to editorial / line developer oversight. See point 5, above.) As it stands, Tech Manual has the current descriptions of how BattleMech weaponry and movement is controlled and writers stick to that.
----
Quote
Despite all that I said, I agree. I don't know why people are so terrified of weapon cones of fire. People seem to have this asinine idea that a cone of fire means you shoot your small laser, and it comes out 90 degrees to the side.
How ironic. It's also equally asinine to think that using the to-hit mechanic and the hit-location mechanic means you can indicate to your 'Mech that it should shoot it at toe but instead what happens is that your small laser blasts him in the face; which is IMPOSSIBLE in the TT combat system.
Not, apparently, that anyone will ever spend the time to read just those two sections of the TT combat system. Or even ask that someone would post them, if they don't have access to the books.
Posted 22 January 2013 - 01:32 AM
RNG in any game reduces the skill-level and frustrates players looking to improve.
There is nothing inherent in RNG that means it can't be implemented in *any way* without reducing "player skill level."
Maybe instead of only posting (what I suspect is) the conclusion of some ideas you have, you should actually post those ideas up that drove you to this conclusion.
...
And you should know that not everyone trying to address the weapons convergence issue wants a CoF implementation - or unpredictable RNG that produces uncontrollable combat gameplay that reduces player skill.
Posted 22 January 2013 - 03:24 AM
Straight up... i dont want to play a game that actively alters the shot i made because you think its not good i spent tonnage on two of the same.
It's not "your shot." In Mechwarrior you're not directly in control of a weapon. You're directly in control of a BattleMech. It's the BattleMech that's directly in (physical) control of the weapons aiming and it's also the BattleMech that handles the convergence of those weapons. Yes, you, the MechWarrior do directly tell the 'Mech where to aim by the use of a joystick that controls an aimpoint indicator on the main hud - and you do have to track the targets and decide when to fire. But you don't calculate convergence (the 'Mech does this) and you don't actually physically aim the weapons... and no, BTU 'Mechs are not capable of getting multiple weapons to all hit a single armor panel on a mobile target 'Mech.
Here's why we know that BattleMechs handle the physical aiming chores and calculating the convergence:
TechManual, pg 42 said:
BattleMechs are very capable and smart robots, with most of their intelligence embodied in the DI computer network. But they are not truly autonomous. Partly because they have so much firepower and could cause so much destruction if something went wrong, virtually all of the higher decisions are left in the hands of MechWarriors. MechWarriors decide when the BattleMech moves, where the BattleMech moves to and whom the BattleMech shoots.
...
But BattleMech computers do handle an incredible amount of lower-level decision-making. The T&T system, for instance, sorts, processes and interprets sensor data for the MechWarrior, who only has to look at his screens or HUD to get a concise picture of the battlefield. When targeting, a MechWarrior merely uses a control stick to aim a crosshair on a display that shows the enemy. It is up to the BattleMech to actually aim the weapons with all the calculations that entails.
It is also mostly up to the BattleMech to compensate for the recoil of its autocannons or the blasts of hostile fire while moving in the direction a MechWarrior sets. Yes, a MechWarrior can correct the BattleMech on its balance, such as telling the BattleMech when to ride with the blasts rather than leaning against them, or when to throw itself off-balance and into another BattleMech, but a lot of the decision-making gets done by the DI computer.
In your specific example of handling their own weapon recoil, yes, BattleMechs can handle that without too much MechWarrior input. As noted in Tech Manual, the Diagnostic Interface computer is pretty good about keeping a BattleMech upright. It will be especially good about its own weapons since it knows their recoil values, from what angle and elevation the recoil will occur, and knows when the recoil will occur - the DI computer is, after all, the computer that is overseeing the activation of the weapons once the MechWarrior points-and-clicks with the trigger.
Posted 22 January 2013 - 03:44 AM
My first experience with BT was the old Crescent Hawks' Inception game, and I still remember all of the mech modifications made sense. In particular, one of them was to take an SRM 6 and yank the ammo and plug each tube of the missile rack with a small laser. That made some sense. I always envisioned those six lasers firing parallel to each other with no convergence at all.
This reply goes for *everyone* who thinks that torso mounted weapons (and even the arm mounted weapons if the arms cant' swing) can't converge:
Rules wise, in the TT, even though it would be *obscenely* rare, it's theoretically possible that you could have every single weapon you fire hit a single single armor panel on a target 'Mech that's standing right in front of you (but not chest to chest with you) ... and now that we *know* that the TT stuff controls the lore and the novels; all that's required (if one wants more reasons) is to illustrate how this is possible in the BT lore.. and that's actually easy.
Lasers can converge by the means of focusing optics (which, btw, explains how their aim can be "thrown off" when the weapon takes damage, per the expanded critical damage rules)... other weapons converge by the means of servo/stepper motors mounted to them inside the 'Mech's chassis. This would also explain why the advanced targeting computer works so well; it adds not only more computing power, but it actually adds extra equipment to make it easier for the 'Mech to converge each individual weapon (again, per the fluff on the rules for the advanced TC).
Because BT is based off of random dice rolls, and it sucks bum to have your mech explode before doing anything because the dice came up against you.
There is no dice roll for "blow up before you do anything." If you meant something other than what you've actually posted here ... why didn't you post it?
There have been numerous video games before this, all of them pretty damn good and were going to pick now in mechwarrior 5 or mwo to start saying shots SHOULDNT go where I want them to?
What HRR Insanity IS trying to say is that there should be imitation in this game of a 'Mech's ability to hit whatever target you're indicating for it. To which I would add, imitation how external and internal conditions affect your 'Mechs ability to hit whatever you have under the reticule.
Which basically boils down to wanting a Game about combat in BattleMechs to imitate ... what combat is like in a BattleMech ... instead of a game that imitates ... what it would be like if your spirit posessed a 'Mech and ran around with it... which is what we currently have ... magical nonsense direct-aiming control of every weapon, instead of direct control of the 'Mech, and the 'Mech has the direct control of the weapons.
ability to combine weapons into firing groups is a core tenant of the franchise and has existed since it's inception.
Just because the previous MW video games did it that way doesn't mean it's right to do it that way; and nobody else accepts this line of reasoning in virtually any other category.
All weapons "go" where the 'Mech actually aims them, as it is in the process of trying to get them all to hit what the 'Mech's pilot is indicating with the reticule on his HUD.
at this point I wish they had never put the mechwarrior name on this game it is becoming very clear that the TT fanbase has no clue what so ever as to how to make a online game and will work there hardest to sabotage this game in a crusade to have to mimic the TT in everyway
Yeah! And this is true only because you say so! No other reasons necessary for belief, like, say, giving some reasons why what you're saying is right!
22 January 2013 - 02:23 PM:
cof would do nothing but annoy noobs. Do NOTHINg to stop me from pinpointing ur as. As Id just fire singly in succession.. Oh... the macros that would be created too..
Read original post. Your 'workaround' is directly addressed.
No, your OP doesn't address his workaround. As I've already pointed out, all he'd have to do would be wait for the timer to run down to have super-accurate shots - and he is right; a simple Key-stroke macro with a timer would make it utterly brainless to do - it would just tie the keystrokes and add a timer. Again, even if you make the super-accurate chain fired shots 30 seconds apart, it will still lead to horrid gameplay consequences. Even putting the shots 60 seconds apart still won't cure the problems that allowing that level of precision would give rise to; and that's not even counting team-work into the picture. It's just not tenable to break the Combat Mechanic of the TT system like this, and you should realize this, because it's the exact same class of problems you addressed in your OP - a combat system breaker.
To save posting space, here's a direct link to a post that lists in detail why allowing this kind of precision of fire for even a single weapon would break the game pretty badly: http://mwomercs.com/...ost__p__1723304
Do cntrl-f and search for " I have to say, even though I've considered this idea and " and you'll get directly to the part that addresses it.
And a spoiler fold for those who don't care to use the above link:
Spoiler
-------------------------------------------------------------------
HRR Insanity said:
2. Because single weapons fired sufficiently apart (subject to balance, probably 0.5-1 second gap to prevent macroing) are NOT subject to weapon spread (read the above carefully), this idea does NOT make the game into a random number generator. If you fire one weapon at a time, you are still pin-point accurate. Good gunnery still matters, the proposed solution just allows you to use big weapons to maximum effect. If you fire groups, then you suffer the consequences (as intended by the fix).
-------------------------------------------------------------------
I have to say, even though I've considered this idea and how to possibly implement it, the more I think about it's consequences in gameplay the less I like it, and the more I realize that it would make for miserable, un-fun gameplay.
The end result would be people stacking on as many long-range hard hitting weapons as they could possibly get, and always aiming for the CT, Legs, and if at all possible, the cockpit. The only time this wouldn't be the best tactic is on any map where long-range targeting isn't viable, in which case, people would stack on the hardest hitting close range weapons - AC20s, and aiming for the CT, Legs, and Cockpits. This result would happen even if we bumped the required time between Super-Precise Chain Fired shots up to 30 seconds - you would need to bump the SPCF spacing up to the point where, on the longest ranged maps, any non-SPCF player could have the time to get close enough to dish out enough spread style damage to put you down... that is, they'd have to bump the time up between SPFC style shots if they wanted to see something besides everyone doing super-precise chain firing.
... And if they did bump up the time between the Super-Precise shots to what the long-range maps would require for non-whackamole gameplay, there would be virtually no point to having the ability. You'd be limited to one shot; you'd better hit the cockpit every time, or you'd be screwed, because you'd have just revealed yourself to everyone on the map; who would all be instantly gunning for you... and they'd probably be prone to strip your 'Mech and leave it, so even in respawn games, it would suck to try and use the skill even in this semi "balanced" form. Nothing generates more hatred than sporadic sniper style fire hitting you or your unit.
Because the heavy and assault class 'Mechs would be the only classes that could carry a decent amount of singular heavy hitting weapons they would become prevalent for the less experienced players; which would result in the light 'Mechs as a class being non-viable to any but the most determined, persistent, and experienced pilots - scouting at any range would be a quick way to die. Medium 'Mechs would be forced into a hit-hide hit-hide style of gameplay - and Heavy 'Mechs would fall into the black hole of being incapable of carrying as many weapons to chain fire as assaults, or capable of carrying nearly as many heavy weapons but having far less armor - Essentially, the weight classes would be forced out of their roles of lights normally as scouts, mediums as the workhorses that pin down the things the scouts find, heavies as the closer/cleanup forces that finished off what the mediums have pinned down, and assaults as the premiere defensive units, capable of holding ground and repulsing heavy attacks.
The game would reduce into an MW4 style "Palace Gates" game - nearly everyone in an assault, hiding behind something, waiting for someone, anyone, to reveal themselves... and any players not in a chain-firing assault that tried anything else would be scrapped the instant they left cover.
Wholly besides the gameplay problems, 'Mechs in the lore have never been that capable, even with a single weapon, versus mobile 'Mech sized targets. The combat system simply isn't balanced for even a single weapon being that precise - Imagine if, in Megamek, you could take a pillager and always put both of it's Gauss rounds into any part of a target 'Mech you wanted. This is just like what you're pointing out about the "weapon x(#)" problem vs single armor panels. The system just can't handle having the heaviest hitting weapons be that accurate AND precise.
In the TT system a 'Mech with even just a single Heavy Gauss being able to put that 25 points of damage into any part of a target desired, even if the target was mobile is combat system breaking... because the TT armor values allow a absolute hard limited max of 62 points on the CT (that's if you have ZERO rear armor and put it all to the front) - just three shots from the HG would strip all of that armor and get into the internal structure on the third shot. Even going to full frontal hardened armor doesn't really fix the problem, as it would only take five HG shots to remove all of that armor... and in BT terms, the 124 pts of armor is an utterly obscene amount of armor. In fact, with full hardened armor on the front CT and full reinforced internal structure, it would still only take eight HG shots to totally destroy the 'Mech. Yes, normal Gauss rifles "only" do 15 points of damage, but they do it at long range; and you can mount more than two (no 'Mech can mount more than 2 HGr's) on a 'Mech. And just to top it off, using the very desirable expanded critical hit and critical damage rules from TO (pg 75), (these make the critical hit system much more intuitive and "correct"), these huge-damage in a single salvo/round shots would have a far greater chance at destroying internal equipment and structure, even VS pristine armor (Gauss slugs have a habit of just outright penetrating armor panels at times).
This isn't even beginning to take in what it would be like to be attacked by a coordinated team using SPCF with heavy hitting weapons all aimed at your CT.
What's worse, is the most heavily armored assaults don't have nearly that much armor on their CTs - the Behemoth(stone rhino) has 46 up front , the Atlas only has 46 up front, ditto the Berserker - and these are the 'Mechs known for being seriously heavily armored - and it would take all of 2 HG shots to completely destroy their CT front armor and get into their internal structure - 4 for normal Gauss, but that's at long range.
It's an interesting idea, but it just won't work. Never mind the fact that it would break the TT gaming system (converted for VG format or native)... the gameplay results alone would be disastrous. We'd be back to MW4 - the all long range, only long range on most of the maps, and on the close range maps, it would be an AC20 fest... and overall, only heavy hitting single weapons in chain fire if you want to kill with any consistency would be the rule for gameplay - you simply could not get close enough most of the time vs an equally skilled player if you didn't use SPCF.
Half the TT people want to the broken heat system, which was designed only for turn-based action, ...
----
...and all the damage and weapon settings exactly as they are, but then want to remove the key balancing component, which was the inaccuracy. The other half of the TT people want the inaccuracy along with it.
----
The entire reason the game is broken-feeling is because of over-adherence to TT rules.
----
the sooner we drop this useless anchor that is "BT purism", the better.
The TT heat system isn't "broken," and it converts to real-time directly. In ten seconds one single heatsink dumps 1 point of heat; one double heatsink dumps 2 points of heat in 10 seconds.
----
You'll not find me in the lot that doesn't realize that you need the to-hit mechanic (minus the pilot's gunnery rolls) and the hit-location tables if you use the TT values.
Necessary and constructive language quibble - Accuracy: the ability to get any single weapon to hit a desired point. Precision: the ability to get any group of weapons to hit a single point. BT BattleMechs are quite accurate - they can hit a 'Mech sized target on the horizon. They *aren't* obscenely precise, though, against mobile 'Mech sized targets. They're significantly more precise vs immobile 'Mech sized targets than they are vs Mobile 'Mech sized targets, though.
----
Which TT rules are the reason this game is "broken feeling?" ... Do you even *know* any of said rules? Or are you blowing smoke?
----
Yes! Free us up to convert the game into sudoku online!
Cone of fire? I'm not controlling a person that is holding a weapon, I'm piloting a machine that has weapons mounted onto it. The combined use of recoil buffers and gyro stabilization makes it possible to shoot quite accurately when it comes to the real deal. I expect the same or better out of machines based on superior technology.
That's not to say that all weapons should be sniper precision. A coax fired machine gun still doesn't put round after round through the exact same hole at 300m. Then again, in what universe does a .50 cal machine gun have a maximum range of 200m? Oh that's right, the BattleTech universe.. lol.
You do realize that the fact that a BattleMech can't get every weapon to hit a single armor panel is the reason why "epic combat" can happen in the BTUniverse based games, right? Otherwise, they'd be insta-death games.
On the range quip - you haven't read the rules from max-tech or tactical ops about extreme or los range, have you? The ranges are no longer short if you don't want them to be.
so the solution is to go on and mess with 3 core balance pilars just to see if it works....
----
of course the DEVs tried normal armor, of course they tried 10 secs delay on each weapon before implementing the changes
I remember reading it somewhere BTW
And they got to the conclusion it wasnt fun, that it wouldnt be profitable,that it wouldnt be a great game.
----
They dont go around changing TT rules just to **** people off for no reason
In fact I bet they avoid with all they strengh to mess with any TT rule just so they dont have to deal with the rage
... which is why I posted that instead of building an entirely new CoF combat mechanic, they should use the TT combat mechanic, which has 29 years of testing on it.
----
... and they *didn't* use the combat mechanic that those numbers were built for. They stuffed them into a combat system that wasn't built for them.
----
Of course they didn't do it for no reason - they changed it because their combat mechanic they put the values into produced horrible results. TT armor values weren't balanced for a combat system that allowed for easily hitting a single armor panel with multiple weapons - and much less the ability to do so repeatedly.
In case you haven't noticed, not everyone who thinks the TT combat mechanic should be used is a "post rager." Besides, it wouldn't be easy to post with your eyes all full of blood like that, and you'd probably break the keyboard...
Nothing would frustrate me more if I want to finish an Atlas at point blank range, so I alpha... suddenly my guns go haywire and shoot in all directions and i'm DED.
It is actually possible to imitate in a MW video game how well or poorly a 'Mech can get the weapons aligned onto whatever the pilot is indicating with the reticule without producing uncontrollable and nonsensical combat: http://www.mwomercs....different-idea/
Are you aware of the capability of the weapon systems?
[Redacted] If a modern tank moving at top speed can hit a target while it moves across deferential terrain, at range why cant a future robot?
A BTUniverse BattleMech is not an Abrams tank, and there is not in the lore any information that would allow for a valid comparison between the two. Also, a BT Battlemech is not a "future robot" - the BT lore was not built to be "realistic," it was built to be fun and playable, and to give an escapism factor. You're making an apples to oranges comparison.
how are they bracing while running? Bracing implies using a stationary stance.
Using the arm and torso gyros........
BattleMechs don'thave arm and torso gyros. They only have one and it is in the center torso and it only handles gross movement balancing: http://mwomercs.com/...post__p__126882
A mech should be able to achieve weapon convergence. A mech should be knocked over, by other mechs and other forces. A mechs weapon systems should affect a mech. Never said that it shouldn't, again, your assertion.
'Mechs can converge their weapons, but they can not, in anything other than "bench combat theory" get them all to converge onto a single armor panel vs a mobile target 'Mech. That's just how it works in the lore.
To the anti-CoF crowd - I'm with you, maybe not for the reasons you're against CoF, but I'm with you.
To the pro-CoF crowd - the *basic foundational nature* of a CoF implementation in a MechWarrior video game is a horribly complex disaster: - the problems listed in the linked post aren't extraneous - they list the *inherent* problems in the CoF implementation.
Details in this spoiler fold:
Spoiler
Downsides of the COF idea - for starters, the back-end implementation the COF system would be overly complex - It would require a huge amount of entirely new, scratch-made conditional rules and calculations, which would result in unintended gameplay consequences.
In particular:
Conditions of your own 'Mech that would have to be considered:
----
The volume of the cones has to be altered to emulate the effects of your 'Mech running hot (heat makes the 'Mech's myomers resistive and less predictable, causes aiming trouble).
The volume of the cones has to be altered to emulate the effects of damage to your 'Mech's arm actuators (Joints & their associated Myomers).
The volume of the cones has to be altered to emulate the effects of damage to your 'Mech's sensors (sensors give info to the 'Mech's Targeting computers, be they the normal built in TC's or the extra and more complex TC).
The volume of the cones has to be altered to emulate the effects of of damage to each individual weapon (and for multiple stages of damage, if using the much desired expanded critical damage rules from TO, pg 75)."TO" = Tactical Operations, the advanced combat rules.
The volume and shape and offset of the cones has to be altered to emulate the effects of your 'Mech's movement (i.e., if you're running laterally your misses should usually spread behind or ahead of your target, instead of above or below, so the cone has be be squashed into an oval and offset so some of the oval's area is placed to the appropriate "missed shots go here" direction, behind or in front of your target.)
The volume of the cones has to be altered to emulate the effects oft he accuracy of varying weapons and ammo types at varying ranges (large spread for cluster ammunition, larger spread for weapons like clan heavy lasers, smaller spread for pulse laser weapons, PPCs not focusing at close range).
The volume of the cones has to be altered to emulate the effects of the environment - forest fires, heavy smoke, extreme rain, heavy fog, extreme windstorms, sandstorms, earthquakes, hurricanes, tornadoes (and hey, who doesn't want an interactive changeable environment at some point in the future?)
The volume of the cones has to be altered to emulate how being underwater affects each individual weapon in use and what type of weapon it is. (lasers have shorter ranges underwater, etc)
Conditions of the targeted 'Mech that would have to be considered:
----
The volume and shape and offset of the cones has to be altered to emulate the effects of the target's movement on your 'Mech's ability to aim at it.
The volume of the cones has to be properly calculated to emulate the effects of the target's range differently for almost every weapon and even for some ammo types.
The volume of the cones has to be altered to emulate the effects of what kind of cover or concealment the target is behind (more chances of missing targets moving through sporadic cover/concealment).
The volume of the cones has to be altered to emulate the effects of trying to target more than one 'Mech at a time.
The volume and shape and offset of the cones has to be altered to emulate the effects of the target 'Mech's attempts at evasion (TO, pgs 18-19).
The volume of the cones has to be altered to emulate the effects of your target being underwater.
The volume of the cones has to be altered to emulate the effects of targeting an immobile 'Mech - the cones have to be shrunk down to nearly nothing to emulate the fact that you can pretty much pick your part and hit it vs immobile targets.
The volume of the cones has to be altered to emulate the effects of targeting 'Mechs with relatively "thin" or "tiny" profiles from the front or the side (Vulcan, Marauder).
----
What's even worse is that these rules will combine with and modify each other on a continuous basis - you're literally having to build an entire combat system from scratch and you'll not be able to fully predict how it will work out in gameplay - in fact, you likely won't even be able to tell how many different results that could crop up.
But wait, there's more!
The volume and shape of the cone has to be made to work to make your hits and misses make intuitive "sense," in every situation. For example, you're shooting at a fast moving target at long range for the weapons you're using; say, a bunch of medium lasers (identical performance) - and the target is moving laterally across your FOV - your shots should mostly miss behind something that's moving to fast for your 'Mech to physically track. If this isn't accounted for, and you miss in a circular pattern, you've got nothing to go on as clues as to how to "fix" the problem... and vice-versa applies to hits with a plain circle in this situation - you can get a hit that makes no sense as to why it happened.
----
Yes, I realize that our computers most likely could run all of these computations in real time; and they might even get it to work in the netcode - but that's not the main problem. The problem is that nobody could humanly predict the gameplay outcomes from this bunch of rules and calculations, and there's no way they could beta-test the game long enough to predict all of the outcomes. That means that the players would eventually find a way to Munch-out the system, and pretty badly - ever-lovin' unintended consequences.
For an example of this unintended consequences effect in action, witness the character building in anarchy online, about as complex as it can get - I once watched one of my friends running his level 60 (it may have been lower) engineer with a fully legit, non-bugged build, who could call/spawn the top hunter bot (lvl 200)... and he ran it through the temple of the winds (that area was capped to level 60 characters or lower), and that bot insta-ganked everything in there. All of said engineer's implants were put in by the means of self buffs - I forget the QL of the implants, but I think they were all maxxed. The really funny part was that in tower battles he would just have his engineer hide, and issue his bot the command bot/hunt ... the thing would insta-gank anyone anywhere near his level... but the level 200's who *could* handle his bot couldn't touch him due to PVP level restrictions, even though his bot could grief them. Unpredictable gameplay results = very, very, very bad.
To the "Skill can only be in the game if we have totally human controlled aiming" crew: Imitating how a BattleMech behaves in combat doesn't remove human player skill from the game - it actually adds more player skill.
Spoiler
As for using the TTR combat system in the manner I've just mentioned and player skill - it doesn't eliminate player skill. It does change the necessary skills. It doesn't make it either obscenely easy to do combat, or obscenely hard to do combat... or even obscenely hard to achieve high levels of effectiveness in combat if you're willing to put in the time to get the experience.
What changes as far as skills? With direct control over the weapons in use (FPS style combat), the skills necessary mostly relate to knowing how to handle the behavior of your target, with a little bit of knowledge necessary to use the weapons. With MW style combat (which is what porting over the TTR combat system in the way I've just mentioned gives you), the skills necessary mostly relate to knowing how to handle your 'Mech, and knowing how well your 'Mech can handle whatever conditions are occurring when you pull the trigger.
For the "RNG IS THE SPAWN OF THE DEVIL!" types: the claims for this position (I have never seen anyone go beyond just making this claim) have grosslymisrepresented how the TT combat mechanic works and how it would work in a first-person real time video game.
Spoiler
"BUT, BUT .... RANDOMIZATION = NO SKILL!"
No, it doesn't, but first:
First of all, the dice rolls in TT combat system don't allow for stupid things like shooting at a target's foot and hitting it's cockpit. The randomization effect only exists inside of a predictable range as a means of representing varying things - the hit-location table dice rolls simulate the ultimate limit of the 'Mechs ability to get its weapons fire concentrated under the reticule on a mobile 'Mech sized target; the weapon's individual to-hit dice roll modifiers represent the accuracy of each weapon; the to-hit modifiers for self, target, and environmental conditions represent the 'Mechs ability to handle those conditions.
For the pro-COF group, if this sounds a lot like what the cones are supposed to represent ... yes, it does. In fact, inside of the volume of the cones... the shot is and must be random... so, it's invalid to say that the COF system isn't ultimately probabilistic - it's just that it uses a different mechanic to represent that probabilistic spread.
How does this relate to skill? ... as I've already pointed out, the skills in an MW video game are different than normal FPS combat skills - in the MW game, "skill" is knowing how well or poorly your 'Mech can handle whatever conditions - all that these dice rolls do in the TT combat system is to simulate the 'Mech's capabilities within a set range.
Combat skill in MW is different than combat skill in your run of the mill FPS game.
... and lastly, for the "Well, if you think CoF is bad, and you don't want the combat to be utterly random nonsense, just what DO you think should be done?" group: http://www.mwomercs....different-idea/
No spoiler for this one; link is for an entirely different thread.
i kind of like the idea the op has, putting in spread like the tabletop, but keeping pinpoint single fire. a perfect example of why this could make things more interesting is the hunchback. it can show a number of reasons.
the first example the hunchback gives is in it's variants. which would you use, the 30 damage per volley variant with 2 mediums and an ac/20, or the 40 damage per volley one with 8 medium lasers? well, the 40 damage one of course. no ammo limit, hell, no ammo to put CASE on. simple choice with pinpoint accuracy.
the second example given is this: in as much of the tabletop as i've seen hunchbacks in, i don't see the right torso go almost invariably first. why? weapons spread. it can't be targeted with a ******** number of stacked lasers. same goes for an atlas's ac/20, or a catapult's ''arms''. in this case, its more rewarding to have an ac/20 or a gauss to target that specific spot, and in this case, atlasses and annihilators are just damn scary because you can't blow up half their firepower right away.
so, lets throw in weapons spread (single fired weapons having pinpoint accuracy as was suggested by the op). you've got 40 damage that'll go wherever it pleases, or you've got 20 damage you can place at your preferred location. now the choice isn't nearly as easy as it was before. are both viable? sure. one does more raw damage, the other does more precise damage. at that point it becomes more about preference than viability.
hopefully this example helps explain the thought behind it all. you don't have to agree with the idea, i just want you to understand it. and we don't have to hate oneanother just because we disagree. also- i wouldn't be surprised if someone already posted this. i saw maybe 2 or 3 posts of reasoned discussion and then flaming and insults so i skipped to back here, so give me a break if its been said.
It was said a dozen times by a dozen x dozen people, but still there is no answer.
It don't have to be a probabilistic spread...and maybe it should still be possible to hit a single location with all your 12 medium laser on a Mech. But it should come for a price, buy modules - don't move the crosshair, or keep the crosshair at the targets location.
Even if the OP said MWO ist doomed when no weapon spread is implemented... i don't think so.
Reasons are simple
first and foremost i can remember that there was a poll about this, shortly before even the first in game video was published.
in this poll you had the option:
weapons spread in a weapon cone
pin point weapons as they are actual
no aiming at all - a targeting computer does the job - hits are probabilistic
well the poll was close between option 1 and 2, even if i believe that option 1 was winning.
Wholeheartedly support the OP, and all the trolls who insult him for suggesting a very well thought out idea are a shame to this community. The devs SHOULD consider this proposal because it will save them a lot of time and money in the long run.
Having to chain fire for perfect accuracy is a great idea. It gives time for the mech being hit to maneuver and take cover. If the mech that's being hit just sits there not moving and takes it, you can chain fire every single weapon into the exact location you want to hit. But if that other pilot is sensible, he'll get the chance to be twisting and turning to allow hits to land on other locations. Instead of just being blown to bit suddenly.
Thought of posting something just like this about a month ago. Glad it's an issue that someone else has seen. This may be late, but--bump. (which in forum terms is truly better late.)
Any chance the original poster is willing to repost this in the Suggestions section?
Locationplaying some other game that's NOT PAY TO WIN
Posted 21 February 2013 - 10:40 PM
OMG. Did the OP seriously suggest stupid random cone-fire CoD style? Because I will NEVER play a shooter with that crap. That is the worst **** you can throw in a shooter. It removes all real skill from it and turns it into nothing but spray-and-pray fest.
Edited by Doc Holliday, 21 February 2013 - 10:42 PM.
Doc Holliday, on 21 February 2013 - 10:40 PM, said:
OMG. Did the OP seriously suggest stupid random cone-fire CoD style? Because I will NEVER play a shooter with that crap. That is the worst **** you can throw in a shooter. It removes all real skill from it and turns it into nothing but spray-and-pray fest.
Real skill isn't determined by how inaccurate your guns can be. It's determined by a ton of different options.
For instance, you can have a more twitchy, reaction-based system of pinpoint accuracy ALA Quake that favors people with extreme motor control. You can have a CoF system by itself that favores people who know how or where to generally aim, and more favors position and how you engage than raw precision of aiming. You can have systems that converge at a given point that, again, favors positioning over raw precision.
The more inaccurate it is, the more it starts to favor location and timing over motor skills. And frankly, I prefer the skill to be in positioning, engagement location, timing, and so forth over "I can shoot an atlas in the eye at 500m with 4x zoom 90% of the time" that we "have" now. (If anyone can do that, that'd be impressive).
Regardless, I don't care between CoF or Convergeance as to which system is used. I personally believe in attacking the problem from multiple angles. Convergeance is a big one. Every weapon should fire slightly off based on location. Mechs without arms should have very limited traverse on their stubby little arms, mechs with arms should have perfect convergeance from arm-mounted weapons. The aimer should always attempt to converge everything.
From there, I believe that there should be a CoF based off of heat and number fired. The number fired should be anything above 2, with a heavy emphasis on heat being the prime contributor. The reason for 2 is, some mechs like the Catapult K2 would stand to suffer a lot from just the convergeance change, while they are intended to run multiple weapons that would now have convergeance issues except at longer ranges and would see some severe problems if they had CoF on top of convergeance.
From there, the people who suffer the most from this would be people who simulfire pretty much any weapon that builds up heat rapidly. If you're point blank, you might not care. If you're not, those sniper PPCs will become a burden very quickly. And that's fine.
Ultimately, every weapon should have some convergeance, between .5 and 5 degrees as balance dictates, except arm weapons, which should have perfect convergeance when aligned with the torso weapons. And then punish boat builds (admittedly a favorite regardless of this change if it were done) for firing more than their heat sinks can sustain. Heat should be the limiting factor for sustained accurate fire; For boat builds, it can be explained with "The massive electromagnetic buildup and discharge of so many weapons firing simultaneously has an effect of distorting the trajectory of the weapons" or some such.
Doc Holliday, on 21 February 2013 - 10:40 PM, said:
OMG. Did the OP seriously suggest stupid random cone-fire CoD style? Because I will NEVER play a shooter with that crap. That is the worst **** you can throw in a shooter. It removes all real skill from it and turns it into nothing but spray-and-pray fest.
Individually fired weapons would be perfectly accurate. Groups of weapons or weapons fired in close temporal proximity would be subject to a cone-of-fire that was modulated by things such as movement, heat, and incoming damage.
Edited by HRR Insanity, 22 February 2013 - 12:34 AM.
Fundamentally, CBT is a game of luck whereas MWO is a game of skill. Not to say that there is no luck in MWO or no skill in CBT, but the dominant governing factors for each game pretty much spell that fact out.
No one wants to play a luck based multiplayer oriented videogame, therefore every idea you suggested is a bad one. Sorry.
BattleMechs don't have arm and torso gyros. They only have one and it is in the center torso and it only handles gross movement balancing: http://mwomercs.com/...post__p__126882
Sorry, arm ACTUATORS, not gyros.
But a FUTURE robot, which is what they are, because they are in the FUTURE, should be able to obtain weapon convergence. Once again, if we have been doing it with flying machines for 100 years so far, why can't robots, from the future, do it?
They have muscles, they have gyros and actuators, and they have the ability and agility to use "JumpJets" and run and climb gradients.
Weapons convergence should be set in the mech bay.
You should be able to set 4 convergences, those for the arms and side torsos. You should then be able to control the angle of fire to converge your weapons for ranges you like to engage at. Or choose to have your weapons all fire in a straight line. If you set it for 270m, and a mech gets within 80m, tuff, deal with it.
I don´t understand. You want the weapons to have more spread? I think we have much spread already (enough?). SRMs and LRMs hit all over the place. Have I missed something?
Locationplaying some other game that's NOT PAY TO WIN
Posted 22 February 2013 - 06:36 AM
HRR Insanity, on 22 February 2013 - 12:31 AM, said:
Individually fired weapons would be perfectly accurate. Groups of weapons or weapons fired in close temporal proximity would be subject to a cone-of-fire that was modulated by things such as movement, heat, and incoming damage.
I was aware of that. It's a terrible idea. Cone-firing is the worst concept ever introduced to shooters.
Locationplaying some other game that's NOT PAY TO WIN
Posted 22 February 2013 - 06:40 AM
Onyx, on 22 February 2013 - 12:21 AM, said:
Real skill isn't determined by how inaccurate your guns can be. It's determined by a ton of different options.
For instance, you can have a more twitchy, reaction-based system of pinpoint accuracy ALA Quake that favors people with extreme motor control. You can have a CoF system by itself that favores people who know how or where to generally aim, and more favors position and how you engage than raw precision of aiming. You can have systems that converge at a given point that, again, favors positioning over raw precision.
The more inaccurate it is, the more it starts to favor location and timing over motor skills. And frankly, I prefer the skill to be in positioning, engagement location, timing, and so forth over "I can shoot an atlas in the eye at 500m with 4x zoom 90% of the time" that we "have" now. (If anyone can do that, that'd be impressive).
Regardless, I don't care between CoF or Convergeance as to which system is used. I personally believe in attacking the problem from multiple angles. Convergeance is a big one. Every weapon should fire slightly off based on location. Mechs without arms should have very limited traverse on their stubby little arms, mechs with arms should have perfect convergeance from arm-mounted weapons. The aimer should always attempt to converge everything.
From there, I believe that there should be a CoF based off of heat and number fired. The number fired should be anything above 2, with a heavy emphasis on heat being the prime contributor. The reason for 2 is, some mechs like the Catapult K2 would stand to suffer a lot from just the convergeance change, while they are intended to run multiple weapons that would now have convergeance issues except at longer ranges and would see some severe problems if they had CoF on top of convergeance.
From there, the people who suffer the most from this would be people who simulfire pretty much any weapon that builds up heat rapidly. If you're point blank, you might not care. If you're not, those sniper PPCs will become a burden very quickly. And that's fine.
Ultimately, every weapon should have some convergeance, between .5 and 5 degrees as balance dictates, except arm weapons, which should have perfect convergeance when aligned with the torso weapons. And then punish boat builds (admittedly a favorite regardless of this change if it were done) for firing more than their heat sinks can sustain. Heat should be the limiting factor for sustained accurate fire; For boat builds, it can be explained with "The massive electromagnetic buildup and discharge of so many weapons firing simultaneously has an effect of distorting the trajectory of the weapons" or some such.
Which is all a bunch of bollocks. Cone-firing was introduced in games like CoD to lower the skill ceiling, pure and simple. It's purely a gimmick to allow newbies a small chance of killing the best players too. It's a crap system and I'll never play a shooter again that uses it. If they want me to quit MWO for sure and never come back, that's one guaranteed way to achieve that.
Which is all a bunch of bollocks. Cone-firing was introduced in games like CoD to lower the skill ceiling, pure and simple. It's purely a gimmick to allow newbies a small chance of killing the best players too. It's a crap system and I'll never play a shooter again that uses it. If they want me to quit MWO for sure and never come back, that's one guaranteed way to achieve that.
Eh, that's not really the case. It was not added in simply to "lower the skill ceiling". They added it because it adds additional depth to the gameplay, enabling things like differences in accuracy among weapons.
And if you aren't ever going to play a game with any kind of weapons spread, then that means you aren't going to play any shooters again.. ever. Because every modern shooter incorporates such things.
12
