1063 replies to this topic

[Pht]

Der Geisterbaer, on 23 February 2013 - 12:21 PM, said:

~Sigh~ Now you're unnecessarily nitpicking over semantics ... towards a person who's more or less in you own camp.

I don't consider it a nitpick to point out that what someone says their stance is is different from what their actual procedure is... and had you not posted making it seem like that I wouldn't have even mentioned the difference.

Quote

It's not a matter of how long they tell you or me that they did this or that. It's more a matter of what realistically could be done with the involved staff and the release schedules of the original novels.

I wasn't saying that the process was/is perfect and never lets anything "slip by." We all know things sometimes get a pass - stackpoling, for example. This is exactly why I used the phrase "to the extent possible."

Besides which, if the answer to the "how long have you been doing this" question is "since the beginning" - than we know that even the older novels had to conform.

Quote

And then there are my personal experiences with authors of novels in general and even with some of those involved in BattleTech as well as Shadowrun.

Yes, and if you ask cray, he can also tell you about some times that authors for battlecorps have had to revise or trash parts of their work because of blatant contradictions in their work with what is considered canon. It's not a toothless and unused process.

Quote

Which is true for pretty much every novel of any author who writes for an established setting. Novel authors are artists in their own right, but making a living just on their own creations just isn't possible for the majority.

Yes, to a point. Stackpole (and other of the authors) have also written for other well established genres (star wars) so they'd have a way to measure the relative "heavy handedness" of the process.

Quote

And that's the point where it get's fuzzy. From an objective point of view the TT rules did form some boundaries, the question is however if the authors of novels were actually aware (or cared) where these boudaries originally came from. They simply didn't - and in generell still don't - care if the boundaries were created by the rules or were just the result of the original design.

Not true.

Quote

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.

http://bg.battletech...ic,26178.0.html

It doesn't matter if they do care or know where the boundaries come from - the TT rules are the basic boundaries that are enforced, to the extent such is possible - and it is possible, and it is done.

Quote

You would need to inquire Jordan Weisman and L. Ross Babcock III in order to find out whether a canon BattleMech's inability to converge multiple and not even a single weapon systems onto one specific hit location is just a result of how they built their die role system or if it actually was a design parameter that directly lead to modelling of the die role system in question ... and regardless of the outcome of such an inquiry the novel authors would still not care where that limitation actually stemmed from.

Non sequitur

I don't care nor have I asked or proposed which hatched which - what matters is which system formed the boundaries for the other - the TT for the novels, or the novels for the TT - and the current source also says quite clearly that where two contradictory sources exist, the newer supersedes the older.... and I am not discussing older versions of the TT.

Edited by Pht, 23 February 2013 - 12:38 PM.

[Der Geisterbaer]

Doc Holliday, on 23 February 2013 - 11:54 AM, said:

Wrong. That's not what I said, at all.

And another bad try at nitpicking ...
I nowhere said you said "that". I said that you brought up the subject of accuracy under firing conditions as well as other having no idea about real world weapons.

Quote

Here's what I actually said. "Guns don't just suddenly drop to 10% their normal accuracy just because you fire a full clip on auto."

Thus introducing the subject of weapon accuracy under firing conditions.

Quote

And that's absolutely true. Overheating and warping the barrel is not something that happens during the course of firing one clip.

It seems to happen with the G36 in this very world. Not necessarily with the first clip, but definitely with the second one during the course of one minute ... that's why I bothered mentioning to you with you selfproclaimed knowledge about real world weaponry.

Quote

Overheating is a completely different situation than what was being discussed,

I could go back through this thread and show you various points where people tried to point out that the mechanics under discussion would be part of what they consider a satisfactory implementation of such battle influences (in addition to adherence to how the BT universe seems to operate within canon) ... including effects of heat deformation and finally overheat (which would lead to jamming and weapon destruction, something that TT rules don't know for standard AC weaponry).

Quote

and cone of fire does not in anyway simulate that, nor any other real life effect.

The debate seems rather if cone of fire can adequately provide the intended degree of pseudo realism of the BT universe in regards to the various effects that - due to hardware limitations - simply cannot be fully simulated.

Quote

Cone of fire is BS, and has no place in any shooter.

See, I won't even comment on that particular issue, because I don't care how the feeling is generated that I would expect from a "true" first person combat simulation within the BT universe. I just cast my "vote" that I'd like to see it happen instead of the current system ... A system that you - unrightfully - seem to view as the only thing that remotely envolves "skill".

[Doc Holliday]

Der Geisterbaer, on 23 February 2013 - 12:37 PM, said:

And another bad try at nitpicking ...
I nowhere said you said "that". I said that you brought up the subject of accuracy under firing conditions as well as other having no idea about real world weapons.

You're the only one who's doing poor nitpicking here.

Der Geisterbaer, on 23 February 2013 - 12:37 PM, said:

Thus introducing the subject of weapon accuracy under firing conditions.

Oh, so now suddenly firing full auto is a "condition" that should be lumped together with things like wind, bullet defections, and other crap? No. Overheating is not an exception. Overheating does not happen immediately, but cone of fire does in crappy shooter games.

Der Geisterbaer, on 23 February 2013 - 12:37 PM, said:

It seems to happen with the G36 in this very world. Not necessarily with the first clip, but definitely with the second one during the course of one minute ... that's why I bothered mentioning to you with you selfproclaimed knowledge about real world weaponry.

That's one specific gun, and it's never been used in any FPS I'm aware of. What were you saying about bad nitpicking? How about using completely irrelevant examples in a vain attempt to support your completely unfounded position?

Der Geisterbaer, on 23 February 2013 - 12:37 PM, said:

The debate seems rather if cone of fire can adequately provide the intended degree of pseudo realism of the BT universe in regards to the various effects that - due to hardware limitations - simply cannot be fully simulated.

I honestly couldn't care less if it does or doesn't. Cone of fire ruins shooters, and I won't play one with it.

Der Geisterbaer, on 23 February 2013 - 12:37 PM, said:

See, I won't even comment on that particular issue, because I don't care how the feeling is generated that I would expect from a "true" first person combat simulation within the BT universe. I just cast my "vote" that I'd like to see it happen instead of the current system ... A system that you - unrightfully - seem to view as the only thing that remotely envolves "skill".

I never said that. I said cone of fire removes skill. I didn't say there couldn't be an alternative system that would work.

You can keep arguing all you want, but my opinion won't change no matter how much BS you spew. I hate cone of fire, always have, always will, and I will never play a shooter that uses it.

Edited by Doc Holliday, 23 February 2013 - 12:50 PM.

[yamishan]

so with the guys saying cone of fire affected by speed meaning no mech that moves above a speed of something like 50kph (walking speed of a light/medium) can hit anything smaller then a mountain? the game would be reduced to statue mech online where everyone walks within los and then stops to sit there and fire away until someone dies sounds more boring then even going to CoD where the whole cone of fire idea comes from ......jeez ill go back to playing the REAL Battletech TT...itll be the same only i get to do it while still having fun rather then listening to people QQ and ***** cause there will be none of that while im standing around our giant hexamap table with my friends directing a lance of awesomeness through a battle scenario

[HRR Insanity]

yamishan, on 23 February 2013 - 12:52 PM, said:

so with the guys saying cone of fire affected by speed meaning no mech that moves above a speed of something like 50kph (walking speed of a light/medium) can hit anything smaller then a mountain? the game would be reduced to statue mech online where everyone walks within los and then stops to sit there and fire away until someone dies sounds more boring then even going to CoD where the whole cone of fire idea comes from ......

Simply balance the bloom on the cone of fire relative to movement until it has the desired effect.

And, keep in mind, this only would affect groups of weapons or weapons fired in close temporal proximity.

[Pht]

Doc Holliday, on 23 February 2013 - 12:47 PM, said:

You can keep arguing all you want, but my opinion won't change no matter how much BS you spew. I hate cone of fire, always have, always will, and I will never play a shooter that uses it.

Can we move past the flaming and references to tarus scatology now that we all can clearly see your opinion? Geeze ... save it as a "standard answer" link in your sig line and reference it if it means that much to you.

[Mongoose Trueborn]

Instead of admitting that you don't have the hand eye coordination to play this game competitively you expect the devs to ruin it for the rest of us. Classy

Maybe you should stick to TT as it doesn't take near as much skill to roll dice.

[Der Geisterbaer]

Pht, on 23 February 2013 - 12:36 PM, said:

I don't consider it a nitpick to point out that what someone says their stance is is different from what their actual procedure is...

The funny part being that I didn't say that their stance was different to their procedures. I said that you're nitpicking over semantics when I say "stance" where you think "procedure". And that is still the case.

Quote

Besides which, if the answer to the "how long have you been doing this" question is "since the beginning" - than we know that even the older novels had to conform.

And I would still have my doubts because the current personnel simply isn't the same as "back then" ... I simply don't see Weisman or Babcock in the line-up anymore

Quote

yes, and if you ask cray, he can also tell you about some times that authors for battlecorps have had to revise or trash parts of their work because of blatant contradictions in their work with what is considered canon. It's not a toothless and unused process.

Would you consider me unfair if I asked you since when battlecorps exists in comparison to the BT development as a whole (and novelizations for the line)?

Quote

Not true.

Come again? Are you actually calling me a liar for saying that (indivdiual) authors didn't know (and certainly didn't care too much) where the limitations actually came from. Are you really trying to tell me that each and every of said authors knows if the weapon behaviour of BattleMechs are a result of design that lead to rules or the byproduct of created rules? I doubt that even Jordan or Ross could answer that for certain.

Quote

It doesn't matter if they do care or know where the boundaries come from

Then why do you insist on them actually knowing?

Quote

I don't care nor have I asked or proposed which hatched which

Which just leaves me with the question why you're even questioning my PoV in that regard in the frist place.

Quote

- what matters is which system formed the boundaries for the other - the TT for the novels, or the novels for the TT - and the current source also says quite clearly that where two contradictory sources exist, the newer supersedes the older.... and I am not discussing older versions of the TT.

The not so funny part there being that I stepped in this discussion with my personal wishes for what I'd like to see in a VG revolving around mech combat in the BT universe with direct reference to what initially drew me to BattleTech ... which happens to be the novelization as well as those "older versions of TT" that you now don't want to discuss ...

Edited by Der Geisterbaer, 23 February 2013 - 01:25 PM.

[Hatachi]

Mongoose Trueborn, on 23 February 2013 - 12:57 PM, said:

Instead of admitting that you don't have the hand eye coordination to play this game competitively you expect the devs to ruin it for the rest of us. Classy

Maybe you should stick to TT as it doesn't take near as much skill to roll dice.

A difference in opinion on gameplay does not denote skill differences. Please don't use that fallacy; all it does is cause people to argue over who has the bigger e-peen to prove their point rather than talk about the point at hand. It's just a deflection tool. All you have to say is I disagree with OPs opinion and think the current system is more enjoyable.

[Pht]

Mongoose Trueborn, on 23 February 2013 - 12:57 PM, said:

Instead of admitting that you don't have the hand eye coordination to play this game competitively you expect the devs to ruin it for the rest of us. Classy

Amazingly bigoted way to classify everyone who disagrees with you on the topic of deconvergence.

Ignorant as well, given that actually simulating how it would be to pilot a battlemech in combat in the BTUniverse would require all of the hand eye coordination that the average FPS requires AND the knowledge of how your mech will perform under any given condition...

... it seems, however, most people are happy to be ignorant bigots on the topic, instead of actually engage what people post.

Here's a hint: not everyone that thinks the weapons fire should be deconverged wants a cone of fire system: http://mwomercs.com/...different-idea/

EDIT: better yet, inside the spoiler fold is the reason why simulating what it's like to pilot a battlemech in combat requires more player skill:

Spoiler

The first thing to understand about a MW (FPACS in the BTU) VG is what the pilot does and what the 'Mech does.

Mass confusion on this topic has arisen because the previous MW games have done WFR in a way that does not represent the BTU well at all.

What the pilot directly does as far as controlling WFR is to use his joysticks to indicate with the reticule on his HUD to the 'Mech what should be fired at, and he must track that target with the reticule - the 'Mech is not allowed to target or track anything with the reticule! The pilot also directly controls what weapons should be fired, when they are fired, their firing modes, and choice of ammo type. The pilot also controls how much time the 'Mechs Targeting and Tracking computers (T&T) and physical systems that align the weapons in accordance with the T&T get to "chew on" getting a really good aim at the target. These are the direct ways a 'Mech pilot controls WFR in a 'Mech.

The pilot does not aim the 'Mechs weapons in the same way that aiming is done in a first person shooter game - he would have to, in the VG, physically control where each of the weapons were being pointed for this to be true! In an MW VG, you are in first person control of an armored combat unit - not in direct first person control of a weapon, as the FPS genre indicates!

The pilot indirectly controls the other conditions that allow or disallow his 'Mech to be capable to hit whatever is being indicated as a target. This would include controlling heat levels in your 'Mech, the physical movement of your 'Mech, and its placement relative to how your target is moving across your field of view.

The combination of these direct and indirect things are what "gunnery skill" in the BTU really consists of; and they do not make a smaller skill set than is required in an FPS!

The "direct" skills should be given to us, the VG players, to control with our PCs, no questions asked. Taking these away results in a BattleTech MMORPG game, not an FPACS in the BTU! The indirect skills should be considered on a one by one basis as to which we should directly get to control with our PCs and which make no sense to have us directly control.

Edited by Pht, 23 February 2013 - 01:47 PM.

[Der Geisterbaer]

Doc Holliday, on 23 February 2013 - 12:47 PM, said:

You're the only one who's doing poor nitpicking here.

I guess I'll have to agree to disagree here ...

Quote

Oh, so now suddenly firing full auto is a "condition" that should be lumped together with things like wind, bullet defections, and other crap? No.

Or "Yes, as long as the desired effect within the game can be achieved"? Unlike you I won't cast a vote on that before actually having seen how something like that would work out. And yes, full auto and the subsequently induced heat most certainly should be considered as well as wind and bullet defections or other phenomena. I'm even inclined to say that weapon heating is of rather high pririoty in terms of simulation.

Quote

That's one specific gun, and it's never been used in any FPS I'm aware of.

Ah, so the reference now are FPS shooters and not real world weapons.

Quote

What were you saying about bad nitpicking? How about using completely irrelevant examples in a vain attempt to support your completely unfounded position?

I wouldn't consider the main arm of the german Bundeswehr or a weapon that US special police forces explicitly exchanged due to said phenomena as "irrelevant" when it comes to knowledge about real world weapons. Nor would I call the described effect as irrelevant when considering that the majority of modern weapons "suffer" from the same effects, just with varying degrees ... unless they are heavy bricks like the good old G3 or AK47 (the latter not being well know for accuracy in the first place, but for toughness).
As for my "unfounded" position: Which one would that be?

Quote

I honestly couldn't care less if it does or doesn't. Cone of fire ruins shooters, and I won't play one with it

So even if a (decently) implemented mechanic of cone of fire would creat a satisfactory simulation of realities within the BattleTech universe you'd simply not play it, because of how that is technically achieved.

I guess that sums up you position in the least inflamatory way. Your loss would be the gain of others ...

Quote

I never said that. I said cone of fire removes skill.

And that's only true if you limit "skill" to the most basic form of hand-eye coordination.

Quote

You can keep arguing all you want, but my opinion won't change no matter how much BS you spew.I hate cone of fire, always have, always will, and I will never play a shooter that uses it.

Hate and unnecessary aggression ... ~shrug~
If that's what makes you happy, so be it. Simply wouldn't make me regret you leaving the game if PGI truely were to try to implement cone of fire.

[Nonsense]

They're not going to implement cone of fire.

/thread

[Pht]

Der Geisterbaer, on 23 February 2013 - 12:59 PM, said:

The funny part being that I didn't say that their stance was different to their procedures. I said that you're nitpicking over semantics when I say "stance" where you think "procedure". And that is still the case.

So words are meaningless vapors to be twisted any way we want? They must, of necessity be such, if semantics doesn't matter.

Stance now has the same meaning as procedure?

Besides which, in the rest of your post you went on to reinforce the idea that what was posted by the fellows was nothing more than "stance."

Quote

And I would still have my doubts because the current personnel simply isn't the same as "back then" ... I simply don't see Weisman or Babcock in the line-up anymore

You can rationally doubt your own existence if you want to, too.

The creators and current developers have yearly meetings to discuss the novels and the plotlines, therefore, it's possible that the current crew could have asked the old crew and would thus know if that was the procedure in the past.

Quote

Would you consider me unfair if I asked you since when battlecorps exists in comparison to the BT development as a whole (and novelizations for the line)?

Since they aren't publishing novels anywhere else at the time; so that is where all of the novelists are doing their work at the moment.

Quote

Come again? Are you actually calling me a liar...

If I meant to call you a liar I would have. So far, you haven't shown a habitual pattern of posting things that you know are not true... so no, I've not called you a liar.

I've just disagreed with you - however...

Quote

...for saying that (indivdiual) authors didn't know (and certainly didn't care too much) where the limitations actually came from. Are you really trying to tell me that each and every of said authors knows if the weapon behaviour of BattleMechs are a result of design that lead to rules or the byproduct of created rules? I doubt that even Jordan or Ross could answer that for certain.

... I should have been more careful. I must have skimmed that part, because I presumed you had posted that it was fuzzy whether the TT rules formed the boundaries or not.

My bad!

Quote

Then why do you insist on them actually knowing?

I haven't insisted that the authors know the rules or care about them - though this confusion is understandable because of the above mentioned screwup on my part!

My position on the topic is that the authors may or may not be aware and care about the rules ... and that this lack of awareness or caring really means nothing, because those are the rules that are enforced upon them, even if they aren't aware of where they come from - or care about where they come from.

Quote

Which just leaves me with the question why you're even questioning my PoV in that regard in the frist place. The not so funny part there being that I stepped in this discussion with my personal wishes for what I'd like to see in a VG revolving around mech combat in the BT universe with direct reference to what of what initially drew me to BattleTech ... which happens to be the novelization as well as those "older versions of TT" that you now don't want to discuss ...

Now saying that you're "not discussing the older implementations of the TT system" means "you don't want to discuss the older implementations of the TT system?" Non sequitur, again.

I have no major bones to pick with the older TT implementations, as the current one is probably over 90% the same as they are; and as far as the novels, I don't mind them being referenced at all - I reference them myself - I just get annoyed when they're taken for being the place to get the hard and fast black and white rules for how to implement an MW video game.

Nonsense, on 23 February 2013 - 01:31 PM, said:

They're not going to implement cone of fire. /thread

How do you know?

Or is this just your opinion?

[Hatachi]

@ Pht and Der Geisterbaer

At the very least you two are capable of having a fairly rational argument with backing to your thoughts. Although I did get a laugh due to the fact that words really are just meaningless vapor to be twisted how we want. I know what you are trying to get across but you have to chuckle at the absurdity of it a bit. I think you can argue semantics, people have been doing it for millennia. All we can do is do our best to take the spirit of the persons word and not the letter. If you do otherwise, all your doing is obfuscating the argument further. No one gains if you argue against a point he isn't trying to make or take a point in a way that wasn't intended, confusion aside of course.

[Lazydrones541]

Part of the problem is this is not BattleTech simulator. It is Mechwarrior Online. It encompases the role of a Mechwarrior with something that works for a more "in motion" game. It is not about following a foundation that was set in motion by a company and is to be followed religiously.Might I also add it is not pen and paper mode? I cant agree with following tabletop rules to the letter, its just too, slow and tedious. (tho I am not necessarily 100% against SlowMechOnline)

To fix a problem: While a good solution for boating could be accuracy penalties.

Perhaps in simpler means (lets look at a few ideas)
(And yes, I am beating said stick against such stick having beaten this topic many many, etc and so on times)

-- AC/20 -- when fired, should penalize the pilot with recoil. Causing the shot to actually hit higher than intended. Enlisting further adjustments to the pilot. Two AC/20s would encounter significantly more recoil.

-- SRM boats-- perhaps when fired they have a chance (with the implementation of proper terrain penalties/collision) to hit the environment or the spread becomes greater; missiles have a chance to collide with each other if all fired at the same time.

-- ML LL *PL -- The only penalty incurions I could think of for such weapons are additional heat generation. Not necessarily all weapons of that type but multiple in that slot.(i believe this has been addressed and considered in the past) 2xML in one arm + X heat; 6ML in RT Xx6 heat. Anything beyond 2 laser type weapons generate additional heat. However, even in such cases, if you fire 4 LL or 9 ML at the same time that is a great deal of heat to begin with. (perhaps more consideration is needed)

--AC/2 AC/5 UAC/5 -- cant say there are significant issues with this type aside from UAC/5; exception being ammo capacity and accuracy on faster targets. Environment collision, trees? The magic not-so-solid tree that exists.

-- PPCs-- The most recent addition: In a recent patch (I kinda do and kinda dont understand their reasoning) PPC heat generation was significantly reduced enabling it to become the new staple 'easymode' weapon. (While I think the EMP for ECM is a nice touch). And the addition of the Stalker: 4-6 PPCs. Before said patch I would have stated the PPC was actually in a pretty good position and was largely overlooked as a complimentary weapon for longer range encounters. I believe this one should be returned back to the previous heat generation setting.

--LRMS- well I will say it over and over. If you are getting hit with LRMs; hide behind cover. "Incoming Missiles" "I love you building give me a hug!!!"

While I find boating 4-6 PPCs (STK) or 6 SRM 6s (CAT)..etc.. to be laughably simplistic (such 'sarcasm' skill), no matter how you tune gameplay mechanics people will find a way to break it or find what is broken. You will never be able to fix everything.

[Der Geisterbaer]

Pht, on 23 February 2013 - 01:39 PM, said:

So words are meaningless vapors to be twisted any way we want? They must, of necessity be such, if semantics doesn't matter.

~sigh~ Now if you could just point out where I made such a claim ...
I'm sorry, this banter is not entertaining enough for me to continue.

Quote

Besides which, in the rest of your post you went on to reinforce the idea that what was posted by the fellows was nothing more than "stance."

I'll put it in easy words here: By personal experience I do know that "business procedures" in that particular field of work more than just "often" turn into "stance" ... influenced by various things such as staff size, time frames and even personal connections between the involved people.
What I'm not saying is that the current makers aren't trying to adhere to said procedures and I'm also positive that overall they're trying to be more successful than some of their predecessors (who by their own right tried to be "good" as well), so please refrain from further attemps of nitpicking there, because that will most certainly lead to what you just critized with one of Doc's postings: flaming ...

Quote

The creators and current developers have yearly meetings to discuss the novels and the plotlines, therefore, it's possible that the current crew could have asked the old crew and would thus know if that was the procedure in the past.

Big "iffy" here ... that can be expanded with "provided that the creators actually still remember". I' don't know how old you are and how well you think you can recall your earlier days, but I can honestly tell you that at least I cannot remember with absolute certainty all details of "procedures" I followed during the 1980ies (the very era when BT came into existance) and I have that "gut feeling" that Jordan and Ross aren't that much better in that regard.

Quote

I've just disagreed with you - however...

... I should have been more careful. I must have skimmed that part, because I presumed you had posted that it was fuzzy whether the TT rules formed the boundaries or not.

My bad!

Damn me and my long sentences ...

Quote

Now saying that you're "not discussing the older implementations of the TT system" means "you don't want to discuss the older implementations of the TT system?" Non sequitur, again.

Try rereading what I wrote and particularly what I quoted from you: It's not me who didn't want to discuss the older implementations of the TT system"

Quote

I just get annoyed when they're taken for being the place to get the hard and fast black and white rules for how to implement an MW video game.

~smile~ I surely wouldn't call them "the place to the hard and fast black and white rules" but rather "one of the places to get the feeling for what should be implemented in a MW video game". And that mainly due to two reasons:

1. The novels shed light upon stuff that the TT rules, the TROs and other sourcebooks simply don't adress

2. Since the novels - more or less - abide to the basic premises of the universe without actually going into the details of the underlying rules, they are somewhat better suited to convey the feeling a video game maker would have to understand before making his attempt, since he's not distracted by said underlying rules.

I'm even going to claim that some of the perceived problems with the current MWO implementation actually stem from looking too closely at rule details without taking a look at their design implications. Something that could have been avoided ... possibly by looking at the less obvious rule driven parts of the BT background info ... But I guess that's really just my PoV.

Edited by Der Geisterbaer, 23 February 2013 - 02:36 PM.

[Der Geisterbaer]

Lazydrones541, on 23 February 2013 - 01:58 PM, said:

Part of the problem is this is not BattleTech simulator. It is Mechwarrior Online. It encompases the role of a Mechwarrior with something that works for a more "in motion" game.

May I ask you to look on the main page of MWO?

A tactical BattleMech simulation set in 3049 AD. As a pilot known as a "MechWarrior", you are about to take control of the most powerful mechanical battle units the universe has ever seen.

Quote

-- AC/20 -- when fired, should penalize the pilot with recoil. Causing the shot to actually hit higher than intended. Enlisting further adjustments to the pilot. Two AC/20s would encounter significantly more recoil.

That simply wouldn't aleviate anything: Twin AC20 would - due to pinpoint accuracy with perfect weapon convergence - still hit one single hit location and your intended recoil would simply be gone by the time that the next shots can be taken.

Quote

-- SRM boats-- perhaps when fired they have a chance (with the implementation of proper terrain penalties/collision) to hit the environment or the spread becomes greater; missiles have a chance to collide with each other if all fired at the same time.

I might be mistaken, but these effects are already in place, except for collisions between missiles.SRMs spread (depending on distance) and they can collide with the environment

Edited by Der Geisterbaer, 23 February 2013 - 02:47 PM.

[Znail]

Doc Holliday, on 23 February 2013 - 12:23 PM, said:

Except cone of fire isn't "close enough". It's nothing like the real deal at all. Might as well play Super Mario, it's about as close to realistically simulating a real gun.

Let me put it like this: I can be a lot more accurate with a real gun than any gun in games like CoD or Battlefield.

That just means that you are bad at FPS games. If I had the same accuracy with real guns as in those type of games then I would have won all the shooting related events at the Olympics without any trouble at all. There are quite a lot of factors that makes it more difficult to aim in real life then just placing a crosshair on the target.

[yamishan]

HRR Insanity, on 23 February 2013 - 12:54 PM, said:

Simply balance the bloom on the cone of fire relative to movement until it has the desired effect.

And, keep in mind, this only would affect groups of weapons or weapons fired in close temporal proximity.

so instead where firing 2 say large lasers in a 1 vs 1 brawl takes aproxx 30-45seconds(incl missed shots,dodging/twisting to avoid dmg in critical locations with assuming relative even skill matchup) to get through the armor and kill a heavy/assult mech by coring out the centre torso would then take at least twice as long to have the same accuracy ? Or the same amount of time by reducing the armor down which means any passing friendly can just pump an ac20 round into the mix and core out your target or even miss and hit u and teamkill u by mistake?
we would start to need 20-30 min per match for the evenly paired matches with current armor buffs and it would be UTTERLY POINTLESS to have anything smaller then an ac10/ppc/large laser as grouping fire wastes all the ammo/time on shots spent into either air or random less critical locations depending on how accurate u make such a form of CoF system?

the current system of weapon convergence where torso and arm mounted weapons have different targeting axis and movement ranges could use some tweaking to alleviate some of the boating issues caused but it still does not help with things like the ssrm boating or splatcat issues where the weapons are on the same targeting axis (arm/torso)1 possible and a rather benign solution to those issues is for relock after fire with ssrms and splatcats not being able to fire 36missles out of a mere 18-24 tubes actually make it take time to fire through the tubes ending in sequential firing until the salvo is loosed at a target(I.E. said salvo fires off the 18-24 that can go through available tubes then remaining 18-12 missiles fire in the second half of the salvo) as for gauss/ac20 cats and atlas/s some form of ammo explosion chance increase would prob serve to offset its rewards more so as to bring a more proper risk to things .... as for laser boats there needs to be a critical heat level ceiling lowering and some form of a chance of causing reactor explosion due to excessive heat as was per normal in the old mech games (uhm...MW3 and 4 if i remember right) to reduce the amount of lasers possibly alpha'd at once at least

[Doc Holliday]

Nonsense, on 23 February 2013 - 01:31 PM, said:

They're not going to implement cone of fire.

/thread

I dunno, given how poorly they implemented ECM, I wouldn't put it past them to put in something as stupid as cone of fire.