1063 replies to this topic

[DYSEQTA]

I like the spirit of the OP. I do however disagree with his suggested solution.

I was very pleased with the introduction of cockpit and reticule shake when using jump jets. I see one of the other suggestions in this thread with regard to cone of fire coming into affect based on movement, and perhaps to a lesser degree due to heat, as a natural extension of the jump jet mechanic and one that would go a long way to increasing realism in the game.

EDIT: I should clarify that I am referring to reticule shake when I am referring to cone of fire here rather than just shot-goes-to-random-spot-in-cone. The "cone" would define the space within which the reticule could jitter.

Reticule shake still means you have a chance of being fast enough to react to the reticule being in the right place and fire (skill). It would jsut be significantly more difficult than firing when stationary. So if you are going headlong at 150kph then you should be experiencing significant amounts of reticule jitter like that experienced while applying jump jets, but when moving at more sane speeds much less jitter, and none at all when stationary

I feel that introducing such a mechanic would help to reduce some of the predictable run-in-and-proceed-to-circle-of-death type fighting that goes on and encourage more diverse play styles.

I do think care would have to be taken not to be too extreme with the cone sizes though as we are not talking about men and women running with guns here we are talking about computer assisted mechanical aim systems. As others have mentioned this a great opportunity to add further variety to pilot efficiency and module options.

For the record I have never played TT BT nor do I ever plan too but I don't think I need to have to be able to see the sense in the OP's concerns. I might find it amusing to bolt around at 130kph in my Spider hurling pinpoint accurate ER PPC shots into torsos but it is not at all realistic and I would welcome that ability being reduced to good luck should i choose/need to try it.

Edited by DYSEQTA, 18 June 2013 - 07:14 AM.

[Leafia Barrett]

Altered my convergence idea, if anyone cares.

[Viper69]

I like the revised view. I have always been of the opinion our weapons should not be pinpoint accurate instantaneously. Maybe give multiple cross hairs so the pilot can see his weapons bore sight moving to the convergence point.

[Pht]

Leafia Barrett, on 13 June 2013 - 08:42 AM, said:

Let me preface this by saying that I personally don't give 2 ****s about the lore,..

Not too much of a problem... as long as you realize that the game is supposed to conform to the lore (which wouldn't make for bad gameplay, btw).

Quote

Let it be known that I do not support cone of fire for straight-shooting weapons.

Nor do I ... nor does everyone who disagrees with the current setup on how weapons damage is applied.

Quote

Adding a randomness element to a skill-based game is not, never has been, and never will be a good idea. When I defeat somebody, I want it to be because I either outwitted them or outplayed them, not because I got lucky.

You have a shortsighted view of "random" if you think it can only mean unpredictable nonsense gameplay that can not / does not reward human skill.

"Random" can also refer to a set percentage of miss based entirely on how well your battlemech can handle the situations occuring when you, it's pilot, decide to "take the shot" - which actually adds MORE player skill into the game.

Things like "I tried to get my 'mech to make that shot while it was at a full run and it missed... I should slow down the next time I want my 'mech to make a shot like that..." just like you mentioned.

For example: http://mwomercs.com/...different-idea/

Quote

3: The body part that the weapon is attached to
As a rule of thumb, the arms would be easier to adjust convergence on by the simple function of being arms, and thus being able to move faster. Torso weapons would still be able to converge, but because they rely solely on the equivalent of fine motor controls (subtle lens changes or very small gimbals), they would take longer. However, arms would also be "twitchier", so to speak: if your aim were to slip off the target and onto something 400m behind it, i.e. a wall, the arms would make a sharp adjustment, which could make getting convergence on the arms back tougher, while the torso-mounted weapons would hold steadier.

We already know that battlemechs aren't any more capable of aiming the weapons that are mounted in their arms than those that are in their torsos.

This is a lore thing - basically, myomers (the electric muscles that move the arms) are not the smoothest operating form of motivation power.

All in all, it equals out.

Quote

5: The weapon in question
Here's where any sense of real-life logic has to take a backseat to game balance. A powerful long-range weapon, such as an ERPPC, should take longer to get a bead on a target than, say, a small laser. And by that logic, constant-fire weapons (MGs and Flamers are the only ones right now, I think) would have close to instant convergence, mainly because the only way for them to really be effective is to hold a truly constant stream of damage- they don't have enough burst damage to hold up otherwise.

If they had used the lore combat system (and this is, IMO, entirely possible) ... none of these things would be necessary for good gameplay.

Lightfoot, on 17 June 2013 - 07:44 PM, said:

You can't transition random dice hit locations.

Yes you can:

http://mwomercs.com/...different-idea/

[Rebas Kradd]

Until people are actually trying to exploit the vulnerabilities that pinpoint boaters load themselves up with in exchange for their high alphas, I don't see any point to this discussion. People complain about balance when they aren't even using the whole game.

[Pht]

DYSEQTA, on 18 June 2013 - 06:41 AM, said:

EDIT: I should clarify that I am referring to reticule shake when I am referring to cone of fire here rather than just shot-goes-to-random-spot-in-cone. The "cone" would define the space within which the reticule could jitter.

It's not necessary to shake the reticule and drive everyone crazy. Not only does this go contra to the lore... the novels already have this covered with an easy, intutive fix ... for crummy weapons aim, the reticule is color coded red. For best aim, color coded gold. Mix in some audibles for good measure... removing the need for dancing reticule insanity.

Quote

For the record I have never played TT BT nor do I ever plan too but I don't think I need to have to be able to see the sense in the OP's concerns. I might find it amusing to bolt around at 130kph in my Spider hurling pinpoint accurate ER PPC shots into torsos but it is not at all realistic and I would welcome that ability being reduced to good luck should i choose/need to try it.

... if you think it's purely "good luck" in the TT ... yeah. You've not played the TT.

http://megamek.info/ ... try it some time. It's fun, once you figure out the basic (how is KN OBS a bad word to be deleted by the forum bot!?!?!? ... no, DON'T tell me) and buttons. The bot is almost a worthy opponent too.

Edited by Pht, 19 June 2013 - 04:21 PM.

[Leafia Barrett]

Pht, on 19 June 2013 - 04:18 PM, said:

It's not necessary to shake the reticule and drive everyone crazy. Not only does this go contra to the lore... the novels already have this covered with an easy, intutive fix ... for crummy weapons aim, the reticule is color coded red. For best aim, color coded gold. Mix in some audibles for good measure... removing the need for dancing reticule insanity.

Problem with that is that the reticule already uses red to indicate a successful hit.

[Pht]

Leafia Barrett, on 19 June 2013 - 05:19 PM, said:

Problem with that is that the reticule already uses red to indicate a successful hit.

... than change that.

[Skinflowers]

*nudge*

[Reported for Inappropriate Name]

if they introduce weapon convergence they'll also have to model all the extra weapon hardpoints as well, otherwise people will just flock to whatever mechs can stack the most weapons in the same firing port.

[Pht]

Battlecruiser, on 29 June 2013 - 10:00 PM, said:

if they introduce weapon convergence they'll also have to model all the extra weapon hardpoints as well, otherwise people will just flock to whatever mechs can stack the most weapons in the same firing port.

Weapons convergence should/would be calculated per individual weapon. Not per location.

[Reported for Inappropriate Name]

Pht, on 30 June 2013 - 04:21 PM, said:

Weapons convergence should/would be calculated per individual weapon. Not per location.

uh, convergence would have to be factored by location as well, otherwise what you're talking of is forced inaccuracy.

[Pht]

Battlecruiser, on 30 June 2013 - 04:26 PM, said:

uh, convergence would have to be factored by location as well, otherwise what you're talking of is forced inaccuracy.

Why?

... and what do you mean by "forced inaccuracy?"

[Reported for Inappropriate Name]

Pht, on 30 June 2013 - 04:28 PM, said:

Why?

... and what do you mean by "forced inaccuracy?"

what do you mean by weapon convergence having nothing to do with weapon location?

you realize there are mechs where you fire the same weapons out of the same slot right? If you could explain to me how these weapons would be balanced by convergence when their point of fire is literally, the same exact position on the mech?

[Pht]

Battlecruiser, on 30 June 2013 - 04:34 PM, said:

what do you mean by weapon convergence having nothing to do with weapon location?

I say that because we know that battlemechs are equally capable of aiming each of their individual weapons regardless of where they're mounted - and we know that they aim each individual weapon.

Quote

you realize there are mechs where you fire the same weapons out of the same slot right? If you could explain to me how these weapons would be balanced by convergence when their point of fire is literally, the same exact position on the mech?

... their point of fire is NOT the exact same spot. That is not physically possible.

[Reported for Inappropriate Name]

Pht, on 30 June 2013 - 04:45 PM, said:

... their point of fire is NOT the exact same spot. That is not physically possible.

physically impossible, maybe, but this is a digital world where anything is possible.

on the atlas-d for example, if you load up two ballistics weapons, they fire from the only gun on that side of the mech. Don't even get me started on the awesome.

the original mechs you can stack weapons to make one super gun, or missile launcher, or laser, or ppc.

Edited by Battlecruiser, 30 June 2013 - 05:47 PM.

[Pht]

Battlecruiser, on 30 June 2013 - 05:46 PM, said:

physically impossible, maybe, but this is a digital world where anything is possible.

Sure, they could code it that way.

But it wouldn't represent how the 'mechs handle their weapons in the setting.

Nor would it help anyone suspend their disbelief for a little while so they could have fun.

It's not like everyone doesn't know that it's impossible for any two distinct weapons to fire from the exact same physical location at the exact same time.

Quote

the original mechs you can stack weapons to make one super gun, or missile launcher, or laser, or ppc.

Uh ... no ... you can't.

[Reported for Inappropriate Name]

Pht, on 30 June 2013 - 05:53 PM, said:

Uh ... no ... you can't.

okay then have it your way, meanwhile I'll be stationed in reality.

[EchoMike]

This thread should be amalgamated in to Homeless Bill's thread. Same idea, although Bill's is more thorough and articulate. Only in strength of numbers shall we convince PGI to start re thinking it's convergence mechanic.

[MustrumRidcully]

EchoMike, on 01 July 2013 - 04:07 AM, said:

This thread should be amalgamated in to Homeless Bill's thread. Same idea, although Bill's is more thorough and articulate. Only in strength of numbers shall we convince PGI to start re thinking it's convergence mechanic.

Strength in numbers, you mean like 3PV and ECM?

PGI has top marketing people. They know what's good for the game. We don't.

Or so I have to believe. Top men.

Edited by MustrumRidcully, 01 July 2013 - 04:34 AM.