1063 replies to this topic

[Doc Holliday]

Roland, on 22 February 2013 - 09:41 PM, said:

Just out of curiosity, what experience do you have with firearms?
Because most folks who have done long range shooting would tell you that there's more to putting a round on target then simply pointing the gun at the target.

Of course there is. But cone-fire crap isn't used just for long range shooting, it's also used for close range shooting, where putting a round on a target really is simply pointing the gun at the target. It's not all that difficult to hit something human-sized 10 feet away, even firing from the hip if you've got practice. My personal experience with firearms includes rifles, shotguns, and handguns. The only firearm I own myself is a .22 semi-auto rifle, which is a lot of fun using for target practice as it has virtually no recoil at all.

Roland, on 22 February 2013 - 09:41 PM, said:

I mean, aside from various slight alterations caused by defects in the rounds and mechanical components of the firearm itself, there are all kinds of other factors such as atmospheric affects.

And no games make even a pretense of simulating that, so why bother bringing it up at all?

Roland, on 22 February 2013 - 09:41 PM, said:

This is kind of moot though, as it's not really about necessarily trying to make the firearms "more real". It's more about an aspect of gameplay which you don't really see in most other shooters on the market.. which is, essentially, the ability to essentially combine a bunch of different weapons into a single super weapon.

I think that perhaps you've missed this aspect of the discussion, and why the suggestions are being made, and think that folks are suggesting just introducing randomness for the sake of randomness, with no thought given to actions taken by the pilot themselves.

Even in the suggestion of linking weapons spread to the number of weapons fired, it gives the pilot the ability to achieve pin point precision.. it just requires that he have the skill necessary to land multiple shots on the same panel, rather than just duct-taping a bunch of weapons together and pulling the trigger once.

No, I was well aware of that part of the discussion. I just don't think it's a problem. Certainly not a very big one. And even if it is, cone-fire crap is not a solution.

Kaziganthi, on 22 February 2013 - 10:17 PM, said:

Okay lets go down that path...you've got GMPMG60's links on a platform that aprox 5 meters wide. For them to converge on the same point you'd have to pick a distance for that convergence. Anything less or greater than that distance would mean they don't all hit the same place. So lets set it at 400m, anything above or below would cause a spray effect and not maximise damage, wouldn't you agree?.

This convergence distance would have to be done in the mechlab prior to launching and could not be changed once you have launched, just like loadouts can't be changed. I think if this was done, you'd probably have more screams of fury, than what the OP is suggesting, because people would have to pick their perfect fighting range and stick to it.

A Guasscat set up for 1000m sniper shots would be completely useless at anything under 200m as all shots would go wide of the target, unless firing 1 weapon at a time and compensating for the calibration of the weapon. A laser boat set for brawling at 100-150m would similarly have problems on anything above that range. What would happen is, you'd see the rise of missile boats just to ensure you actually hit your target. And we all know how much people love missile boats in this game.

I agree. Personally I think this whole thread is a waste of time, attempting to solve a problem that doesn't really exist. But my point is, even if such a problem exists, cone-fire is a terrible idea and no solution.

[MW Waldorf Statler]

I have come to suspect that the heir again people try without skills to secure a good position ... Golden times for Scout mechs and Missile Boats, which themselves do not have the skills of the movement of a barn at 5 m.Why not one more Aimbot & autopilots for beginners

[MustrumRidcully]

Captain Midnight, on 22 February 2013 - 12:35 AM, said:

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.

It is not a game of luck just because there is randomization in it. There are strategies and tactics that will allow you to account for the random events. Not perfectly so, but still to minimize the risk and maximize the advantages.

[Pht]

Captain Midnight, on 22 February 2013 - 12:35 AM, said:

Fundamentally, CBT is a game of luck whereas MWO is a game of skill.

TT is not "fundamentally" a game of luck.

The basic, fundamental, mechanic of the TT is built around who can think for their 'mech the best (the same mechanic that an actual MW game would be built around).

As far as combat is concerned, he who observes the conditions best, and knows how those conditions affect his 'Mech's ability to hit what is being targeted, and is deft with the targeting reticle - wins.

Luck is not fundamental at all.

Quote

No one wants to play a luck based multiplayer oriented videogame,...

Someone should go tell that to the online gambling mutiplayer gamers and the people who run said games.

Velba, on 22 February 2013 - 01:09 AM, said:

Sorry, arm ACTUATORS, not gyros.

Their arm actutators are not as capable as you're presuming they are. If they were the TT game would reflect that and it doesn't. In fact, further up the timeline there are advanced arm actutators that do improve things - and even those are not as capable as is being presumed.

Quote

But a FUTURE robot, which is what they are, because they are in the FUTURE,

No, they are not robots in our future.

They are robots in the future of an *fictional alternative reality.* Therefore, they behave as the source for that fictional alternative reality says they do - not based upon fallacious comparisons to our current capabilities.

Quote

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?

No, we have not. We are not capable of getting multiple weapons fire to converge perfectly on a single point; and again, even if we had been able to, that still wouldn't mean that BTUniverse battlemechs should behave that way too.

Quote

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.

Which results in long range sniper camping by people who know the maps well who will set their convergence for as many of the hardest hitting weapons for a known distance on a choke point on a map and they will simply hide behind cover and only expose their weapons ports for the minimum time required to blast anyone dumb enough to enter the kill zone.

Doc Holliday, on 22 February 2013 - 06:36 AM, said:

I was aware of that. It's a terrible idea. Cone-firing is the worst concept ever introduced to shooters.

Cone of fire is a really backwards and lazy way to try and simulate ballistics.

Edited by Pht, 23 February 2013 - 09:28 AM.

[Sug]

Captain Midnight, on 22 February 2013 - 12:35 AM, said:

Fundamentally, CBT is a game of luck.

That's like saying a casino's business model is luck based.

Pht, on 23 February 2013 - 09:27 AM, said:

Cone of fire is a really backwards and lazy way to try and simulate ballistics.

Because when you fire an automatic weapon at a target all the bullets hit the exact same spot?

Continuous/rapid fire expands the cone.
Fast movement expands the cone.

Single targeted shots are more accurate.
Firing while stationary increased accuracy.

Sounds about right to me....

Edited by Sug, 23 February 2013 - 09:40 AM.

[Deamhan]

Cone of fire is typically a fully automatic weapon thing and that is mainly due to the nature of the weapon itself. Mostly the jolting that occurs due to recoil as it fires. You put a machine gun in a bench mount that holds it firmly, and that cone narrows up a significant amount. When it comes to semi auto, it really comes down to the shooter. Snipers focus on accuracy and range to such a degree that when they do their calculations, it will factor in weather conditions and even which direction they are shooting because the Earth's rotation plays of factor.

But were not talking hand held weapons. Were talking weapons mounted onto a gyro stabilized platform. You would be surprised at how stable and accurate these can be. Machine guns would still have a small cone of fire but slower cycling weapons have next to no cone at all.

Considering the power of Gauss and AC20, I think that it wouldn't hurt if there was bullet drop, forcing people to aim high as well as lead the target.

[Pht]

Sug, on 23 February 2013 - 09:38 AM, said:

That's like saying a casino's business model is luck based.

Amen. it's all based on the percentages.

He who knows his mech and the conditions the best has the most "Mech" skill and will normally win.

Quote

Because when you fire an automatic weapon at a target all the bullets hit the exact same spot?

Continuous/rapid fire expands the cone.
Fast movement expands the cone.

Single targeted shots are more accurate.
Firing while stationary increased accuracy.

Sounds about right to me....

You appear to be making the false presumption that because I disagree with the CoF system that I think all weapons fire must hit the exact same point... I don't.

In fact, I very much don't: http://mwomercs.com/...different-idea/

I just don't think it's a viable - nor a decent - way to simulate a 'Mech's ability to handle it's weapons; especially when we already know in hard numbers how well a 'Mech can handle it's weapons in nearly any given situation.

Edited by Pht, 23 February 2013 - 09:53 AM.

[Doc Holliday]

Sug, on 23 February 2013 - 09:38 AM, said:

Because when you fire an automatic weapon at a target all the bullets hit the exact same spot?

Continuous/rapid fire expands the cone.
Fast movement expands the cone.

Single targeted shots are more accurate.
Firing while stationary increased accuracy.

Sounds about right to me....

If the gun stays aimed at the same spot, the shots absolutely do hit the same spot, or very close to it. What they don't do is fire off in some random cone pattern. Guns don't just suddenly drop to 10% their normal accuracy just because you fire a full clip on auto.

You clearly know virtually nothing about real guns.

[Sug]

Doc Holliday, on 23 February 2013 - 10:01 AM, said:

If the gun stays aimed at the same spot, the shots absolutely do hit the same spot, or very close to it. What they don't do is fire off in some random cone pattern. Guns don't just suddenly drop to 10% their normal accuracy just because you fire a full clip on auto.

You clearly know virtually nothing about real guns.

????

Yeah if a gun is clamped down to a table on an indoor range with no wind and you fire it at a target like 40ft away, sure, a nice semi tight pattern.

Pht, on 29 November 2011 - 04:43 PM, said:

Range modifiers on ability to hit target:
Min range - No modifier
Short range - No modifier
medium range - No modifier
long range - No modifier
extreme range - No modifier
LOS range - No modifier

Is at:
Minimum range (minimum)-(target range)+1 (only for weapons with a minimum range, like ppcs)
Short range 0 - 100% of the shots hit
medium range +2 - 100% of the shots hit
long range +4 - 91.67% or 11 out of 12 shots hit
Extreme range +6 - 72.22% or 13 out of 18 shots hit
LOS range +8 - 27.78% or 5 out of 18 shots hit

Again, remember, this is just for the capabilities of the 'Mech with NO other conditions taken into account!

... as you can see, 'Mechs are VERY capable machines!

Is moving at a speed of:
1-2 hex move 0 10.8 to 21.6 KM/h - 6.7 to 13.4 mph
3-4 hex move +1 32.4 to 43.2 KM/h - 20.1 to 26.8 mph
5-6 hex move +2 54.0 to 64.8 KM/h - 33.5 to 40.2 mph
7-9 hex move +3 75.6 to 97.2 KM/h - 46.9 to 60.3 mph
10-17 hex move +4 108.0 to 183.6 KM/h - 67.1 to 114.0 mph
18-24 hex move +5 194.4 to 259.2 KM/h - 120.7 to 161.0 mph
25+ hex move +6 270.0 KM/h - 167.7 mph and up

This is where you completely lost me. No range modifiers to hit the target....then all of a sudden target range modifiers?

You're using a lot of TT numbers but I don't understand why :

Short range 0 - 100% of the shots hit
medium range +2 - 100% of the shots hit

Where do those 100%s come from? It looks like you're using TT numbers and modifiers for a starting point but then adding in your own conclusions.

What ....dice? are you using for your +/- modifiers?

Edited by Sug, 23 February 2013 - 10:09 AM.

[Pht]

Doc Holliday, on 23 February 2013 - 10:01 AM, said:

If the gun stays aimed at the same spot, the shots absolutely do hit the same spot, or very close to it.

Presuming the gun doesn't move, the barrel doesn't warp, all of the bullets are exactly the same and perform exactly the same, that the target doesn't move, and that no environmental conditions between the two don't change in a way that affects the projectiles as they travel...

...and for multiple weapons, presuming that all of said weapons can overcome all of these conditions, at the exact same time.

Quote

What they don't do is fire off in some random cone pattern. Guns don't just suddenly drop to 10% their normal accuracy just because you fire a full clip on auto.

... someone go tell that to an ak-47!

[Doc Holliday]

Sug, on 23 February 2013 - 10:07 AM, said:

????

Yeah if a gun is clamped down to a table on an indoor range with no wind and you fire it at a target like 40ft away, sure, a nice semi tight pattern.

And if the gun isn't clamped down to a table it still shoots exactly where it's aimed. A gun on full auto is more difficult to aim, not impossible. And no matter how much trouble you're having with aiming a gun on full auto, it still never shoots in a random cone pattern.

[Pht]

Sug, on 23 February 2013 - 10:07 AM, said:

Where do those 100%s come from? It looks like you're using TT numbers and modifiers for a starting point but then adding in your own conclusions.

I guess it's fairly easy to miss the thread of continuity.

The range modifiers at 100% are for the *Mech* - not for the weapon.

This is why I said:

Quote

(REMEMBER! This just describes the *ultimate* capabilities of the weapon!... other factors can and WILL affect whether the target gets hit!)

...

Now, onto how capable 'Mechs are of hitting the target indicated with their weapons

This describes the abilities of the 'Mech to handle the weapons under varying conditions.

The first set of modifiers is for a weapon, "bench mounted" as it were - the post discusses the ability of the weapons themselves, and the mechs themselves; to clarify just what does what and how capable each component is.

[Doc Holliday]

Pht, on 23 February 2013 - 10:08 AM, said:

Presuming the gun doesn't move, the barrel doesn't warp, all of the bullets are exactly the same and perform exactly the same, that the target doesn't move, and that no environmental conditions between the two don't change in a way that affects the projectiles as they travel...

...and for multiple weapons, presuming that all of said weapons can overcome all of these conditions, at the exact same time.



... someone go tell that to an ak-47!

Most of those conditions have very little effect at the range most guns with cone of fire crap are used in most shooters. The gun may move, but it is still ultimately in control of the shooter. It doesn't just take on a life of its own and fire off in random directions in a cone pattern. As for the rest, when you're shooting at 25-50 meters as in most FPS, they have little measurable impact. They might cause a spread of an inch or two at most, depending on the particular gun you're using. They have no real impact until you're shooting outdoors at hundreds of meters.

Look, you can keep spouting BS all year, and it doesn't change the fact that a cone of fire is a stupid, lazy, pathetic system and simulates nothing realistic.

Edited by Doc Holliday, 23 February 2013 - 10:17 AM.

[Pht]

Doc Holliday, on 23 February 2013 - 10:09 AM, said:

And if the gun isn't clamped down to a table it still shoots exactly where it's aimed.

Really?

The bullets ALWAYS without fail go exactly where the crosshairs (or whatever reticule you're using) and the manufacturers ballistics charts indicates they will?

Quote

... And no matter how much trouble you're having with aiming a gun on full auto, it still never shoots in a random cone pattern.

so, it's actually impossible that an automatic weapon could could ever fire in a random cone pattern?

... maybe a little more care with the claims you're making?

Doc Holliday, on 23 February 2013 - 10:14 AM, said:

Most of those conditions have very little effect at the range most guns with cone of fire crap are used in most shooters. The gun may move, but it is still ultimately in control of the shooter. It doesn't just take on a life of its own and fire off in random directions in a cone pattern.

Which is exactly why I posted that CoF is a Lazy way to try and simulate ballistics.

Edited by Pht, 23 February 2013 - 10:16 AM.

[Der Geisterbaer]

Doc Holliday, on 23 February 2013 - 10:01 AM, said:

What they don't do is fire off in some random cone pattern. Guns don't just suddenly drop to 10% their normal accuracy just because you fire a full clip on auto.

Let me put it this way:

While there surely aren't totally random cone patterns, guns will "suddenly" drop their normal accuracy "just because" you fired a full clip on auto ... The german Bundeswehr currently has exactly that problem with their standard issued G36: Due to the generated heat at fireing rates of about 60 round per minute the weapon barrel obviously deformes to such extends that bullets are going off target by 30 to 70 cm at 200 meters combat range.

[Sug]

Doc Holliday, on 23 February 2013 - 10:09 AM, said:

And if the gun isn't clamped down to a table it still shoots exactly where it's aimed. A gun on full auto is more difficult to aim, not impossible. And no matter how much trouble you're having with aiming a gun on full auto, it still never shoots in a random cone pattern.

But since it's difficult to keep a gun aimed exactly at the same spot the cone of fire in video games is a nice way to simulate the fact that no one can keep a full auto gun aimed at exactly the same spot.

Pht, on 23 February 2013 - 10:11 AM, said:

I guess it's fairly easy to miss the thread of continuity.

The range modifiers at 100% are for the *Mech* - not for the weapon.

This is why I said:

The first set of modifiers is for a weapon, "bench mounted" as it were - the post discusses the ability of the weapons themselves, and the mechs themselves; to clarify just what does what and how capable each component is.

Ah I kinda get it now. That post was a lot to take in

[Pht]

Sug, on 23 February 2013 - 10:17 AM, said:

But since it's difficult to keep a gun aimed exactly at the same spot the cone of fire in video games is a nice way to simulate the fact that no one can keep a full auto gun aimed at exactly the same spot.

... Which actually has very little to no bearing on the MW video game genre - because we already know how well the 'Mechs can handle their weapons under a huge amount of circumstances, which, if implemented, would probably fool quite a few people into thinking that a pure Newtonian physics engine was in play...

We don't have to try and simulate RL weapons ballistics and combat performance, which is, ultimately, a hideously complex thing to do.

Quote

Ah I kinda get it now. That post was a lot to take in

Some things simply just refuse to be boiled down.

I added more emphasis in the text to clarify the point about 'Mech performance vs pure weapons performance.

Most people have made the mistake of thinking that the total compiled to-hit number represents the 'Mech's ability to handle any given weapon ... and it simply does not represent this.

Edited by Pht, 23 February 2013 - 10:29 AM.

[Doc Holliday]

Sug, on 23 February 2013 - 10:17 AM, said:

But since it's difficult to keep a gun aimed exactly at the same spot the cone of fire in video games is a nice way to simulate the fact that no one can keep a full auto gun aimed at exactly the same spot.

No it's not. It doesn't simulate that at all. The only way to simulate that is to make the crosshairs jump around on screen the same way a real gun would.

Another thing you all keep ignoring is that environmental effects and bullet defects have just as much impact whether you fire 1 round per minute or 1,000.

Der Geisterbaer, on 23 February 2013 - 10:16 AM, said:

Let me put it this way:

While there surely aren't totally random cone patterns, guns will "suddenly" drop their normal accuracy "just because" you fired a full clip on auto ... The german Bundeswehr currently has exactly that problem with their standard issued G36: Due to the generated heat at fireing rates of about 60 round per minute the weapon barrel obviously deformes to such extends that bullets are going off target by 30 to 70 cm at 200 meters combat range.

That's a completely different situation than what is being discussed here, and the real versions of most guns used in modern shooters won't experience that kind of problem for at least a few clips, even if you fire them on full auto.

[Der Geisterbaer]

Doc Holliday, on 23 February 2013 - 10:24 AM, said:

That's a completely different situation than what is being discussed here, and the real versions of most guns used in modern shooters won't experience that kind of problem for at least a few clips, even if you fire them on full auto.

Actually, no that's not "a completely different situation", but simply something you yourself brought into the discussion. You claimed that (real) weapons simply do not lose their accuracy due to firing conditions. I merely pointed out that this claim is wrong ... which is kind of ironic due to the fact that you also claimed that others don't have a clue when it comes to real weapons.
It's true that this isn't directly connected to the original subject of weapon convergance, but I won't take the blame for things you yourself introduced into the discussion.

___________________

But to throw in some other input concerning the matter of pinpoint accuracy/precision of multiple weapons being fired simultaniously in regards to what this particular game tries to "simulate": Mech battles within the BattleTech Universe ...

Just for the "lulz" I skimmed through some of the novels again and took a look at how combat is depicted there. Not to my suprise I found the following: Even after the clans invaded and the somewhat stupid idea of "LosTech" got burried, not even the most elite pilots within the setting were able to aim even a single mech weapon with enough precision to make a guaranteed hit on a specific location under normal combat conditions and in some cases there were still references to inaccuracy of the involved weapon systems themselves. One might say that this is the result of adherence to TT rules, but knowing novel writers and their tendancy to give damn **** about the detailed aspects of game rules, I'm more than confident in saying that the current implementation of mwo simply doesn't fit that bill.

So I'm very open to the suggestions that try to bring this game more in line with what originally drew me into the BattleTech universe ... but I have limited hopes that PGI is actually interested (or capable) in doing so.

Funny side note: I just realized that within novelization all of the ACs fired mutiple shells with one "shot", thus even an AC20 (potentially) spreading it's damage (in contrast to TT rules) over more than just one zone due to occuring movement of combatants and other circumstantial influences.

Edited by Der Geisterbaer, 23 February 2013 - 11:09 AM.

[Vapor Trail]

Deamhan, on 23 February 2013 - 09:41 AM, said:

Cone of fire is typically a fully automatic weapon thing and that is mainly due to the nature of the weapon itself. Mostly the jolting that occurs due to recoil as it fires. You put a machine gun in a bench mount that holds it firmly, and that cone narrows up a significant amount.

You're forgetting run and gun. First/single rounds are affected by cone of fire (in video games) while you're moving. to have anything close to perfect accuracy, you stop, crouch or prone, let the sights settle, then shoot.

In real life, every little twitch of your body (down to your breathing, shifting to maintain balance, and heartbeat) and shift of the weapon in your hands affects your aim. The cone of fire is a fair way to simulate the fact that you're not on a range and have every advantage.

And a mech is hardly a bench mount. Think of it like this, if you put a .22 in a bench mount, then picked up the bench mount, strapped it to you, and fired the weapon, could you still say the accuracy was better?

A mech is a system based around artificial muscle fiber. The benefits of that over motor/gear driven joints or even hydraulics is weight and speed of action. Precision (how close 'where it points' is to 'where we want it to point') is "acceptable" not perfect, and can conceivably change from moment to moment due to things like heat. If high levels of heat affect accuracy in a big way (like they're supposed to)... lower graduations and fluctuations of heat can affect accuracy in small ways, and you might know generally (to a decently high degree) where the weapon is pointed, but not to be able to pick out the precise impact point, even if the mech is standing stock still.

Motor driven joints are high precision and high strength, but fairly heavy and slow (M1A1 Abrams has a 40deg/sec turret traverse How fast can a Catapult go from full left traverse to full right again?).

Hydraulics are high strength, and lighter, but generally not as precise (for their weight) and are slow to actuate in the multi-ton load range. Hydraulics also suffer from the problem of a single puncture being able to take down a whole system (think about a single crit to the leg taking the entire mech down, eventually).

Myomer systems are supposed to be high strength, lightweight, quick to actuate in the multi-ton load range, and won't have the leakage problems associated with damaged hydraulics.

At a minimum errors introduced into a Battlemech's accuracy would be based on the moment to moment shifting (gotta maintain balance) of four levels of actuator with moderate levels of precision, those being the ankle, knee, hip and torso twist. Arm systems would suffer a bit more. That's assuming no errors from the elevation and traverse actuators for the weapon mounts.

For one of today's tanks? Traverse is handled by the turret (motor driven), there's a hydraulic actuator for elevation, and the suspension, all of which are high (or at least consistent) precision systems.