Hitting targets is easier at long ranges

[Sneaky]

It seems that currently it's easier to engage and hit targets the further away they are - and that is currently the worst Gameplay- and Balance-Flaw of MWLL.

Largest factor of this is that you almost always hit exactly what your crosshair points at. There is no spread for most heavy-hitting directfire-longrange weapons. And unless you fire at a realy fast laterally moving target LRMs will home in pretty reliably in my experience.

Once you get into close combat situations it's far easier to miss your shots due to fast and erratic movements of your mech and your target (while at longe ranges you often are in a position to stand still while only your target is moving).

This, imho, is pretty much opposite of how it should be. It gives long range weapons quite an edge in combat and make short range mechs sub-par in most situations, unless they can close distance without being fired upon at all.

One of the possible solutions, should others agree that this is a problem, would be to make weapons less reliably hit directly where you are aiming at. After all those weapons weight tons and while you only move a pointer over a target there are joints moving, muscles working etc to adjust the weapon's direction, while inside the weapon there might be mechanisms at work that charge up coils, load new rounds into chambers, etc. These processes aren't instant and they're not perfect either in the Mechwarrior World.

So if you have a e.g. a ERPPC with 900m range the spread should be to wide that you can no longer hit a large mech at 900m most of the time (or maybe you can hit it most of the time, that's finer balance and has to be tested and discussed).

It would also allow to give weapons, where it makes sense, a larger range than they currently have.  You could very well fire your Gauss at a target 1,5km away, but the spread would almost guarantee a miss. It'd be a waste of a shot, but maybe you'd be willing to take that chance in specific situations.

A Mech equipped with multiple AC10 might consider firing at a target 800m away, well aware that the chance to actually hit it is well below 5%, but the incoming fire might distract the target. Or maybe he's firing at a group of targets so the chance to hit -something- might well be there.

Now I'm rather curious if I'm the only one feeling that way or if others share my sentiments. Also if there are engine or CPU limitations prohibiting that approach, if it has already been discussed, etc

[Virt]

Well, my style of battle is to not get toe to toe ... but I have to agree that your argument makes a lot of sense.

Perhaps as a potential counters to at least some of your points...

1. PPCs fire largish balls of plasma, so that should compensate for the variable targeting somewhat.
2. AMS should make LRM missile boating  less of viable tactic.
3. Gauss rifle damage already drops off at ranges >300.

[Serafina]

Um...who gave you the idea that it should be easier to hit targets at close range? 

Seriously, the main difficulties with hitting are calculating where the enemy will be when your projectile reaches him.
While that is fairly difficult at long ranges because humans suck at it, that is easily solved by computers.

Now, at close range, the lateral movement in relation to you is greater - which makes it harder to hit.
Now, that would not make a great deal of difference to a computer, but it certainly makes a greater difference for aiming the weapons, since the mechanics are limited.

It behaves pretty much that way in real life, too - predictably moving targets are easy to hit at long ranges.
Now, real-life ground-targets rarely behave that way at close ranges (due to lack of speed/maneuverability), but air targets certainly do.
Ask any AA-gunner you know (and yes, i do know one, even if his field of expertise are missile-based weapons).

[Virt]

Good, I feel better about my medium range combat tactics now

[~SJ~ Blhurr]

Frankly this is the way it's always been in Mechwarrior.  The only time it makes sense to close with the enemy is if the terrain calls for it, e.g. urban or canyon environments.  If you close with the enemy without cover you get hammered and generally more hammered at greater distance.  If you can close the first 25-50% of the distance without getting shot you have a pretty good chance at a barrel shoot with the right combination of arms.  This is mostly a function of the weaponry available in the Battletech.

[Sneaky]

Serafina, I don't want to make it easier to hit close range targets. I'd like to level the playing-field a little more and make it harder for those operating at the out edge of their weapon's capabilities to reliably engage and hit what they intend to.

Currently at close range it comes down to your own reflexes, if you can predict what your opponent will be doing and if you can adjust accordingly.

At long ranges you mostly just point and click. That's simply not healthy balance and gameplay wise. Especially as many weapon's don't cease to be useful at close ranges, too.

By making weapons less accurate you prevent people from doing 100% damage as soon as their target took that step from e.g. 910m to 900m. It will allow Mechs to survive a few more seconds when under heavy fire at max range and gives them a little more time to close the gap/get into cover or into fire-ranges them self.

Pilots in Mechs specialized on long distances will now have to consider holding their fire a few more seconds to ensure a hit or risk wasting rounds or building up heat without gain. They might have to actually move and maneuver to prevent the other Mechs from coming into their optimum range, as they can't simply rely on dealing full damage from XXX meters on.

Don't understand me wrong, please I don't want the situation where you can simply beeline straight to the Mech with the 6 ERLBL and then kill it with your AC20+SRMs, but if you have to leave cover for 200m while being 800m out that should not be your almost certain death (even if you don't die right away, right now you'd have taken enough damage to be in a serious disadvantage later on against the same Mech).

[snooggums]

The point of having a long range weapon is to reliably hit and damage targets at long range with it...

Terrain and movement are the two primary factors for whether the gap can be closed without much damage for a close in mech. Taking a close range heavy on Clearcut isn't a great idea because of all the open area that you would have to slowly close. On Sandblasted a close range mech can hide in the dunes and avoid the long range weaponry other than indirect missiles. On Inferno there are few long range fire opportunities.

My only long range issue is the indirect fire.  I generally run a Raven C on open maps (PPC and 2 MPL), I can move fast enough to avoid LRMs and most direct fire, and pester enemies while they are engaging the larger, slower mechs. I never worry about long range engagements because I can out maneuver them.

[=]FC[=Striker]

I give this the "most ridiculous post" award for 2010. Who the hell wants to play a game where when they shoot a weapon that under no control of their own it will inevitably miss 90% of the time. Do this for me OP. Go out onto the battlefield, let's say Clearcut or Sandblasted and intentionally miss every long range shot and tell me how much fun it is. I have never experienced people that live is such small boxes and can't see past their own hand.

Striker

[(TLL)CapperDeluxe]

As was said AMS should help against the barrages of accurate LRM fire for those not careful enough to seek cover, though light mechs going full speed laterally can usually avoid almost all missiles fired at them.  I can't help but think about how the dynamics of battles play out fairly similarly in the Battletech board game.  Faster mechs generally have more of an ability to seek better positions either in cover or up close and behind their target, wheras the larger slower mechs have to try their best to keep the enemy in their front firing arc for whatever distance combat they are made for.  This is true of any battle be it long or short range, and is pretty true to that in game as you describe.  Now if only they can tweak the turn rate a bit for mechs going near full speed perhaps it can help make light mechs a bit better at brawling, so long as its not quite like it was in MW4.


But whichever mech or role you take, there's always a tactic that can take you out, which is why its all the more important to stick near teammates, try to coordinate attacks, and keep alert for other using tactics that expose your weakness so you can hopefully do what is needed to avoid them (for instance making a tactical retreat to friendlies when in a Vulture if a Demolisher is seen heading my way on the flank).

[Sneaky]

I give this the "most ridiculous post" award for 2010. Who the hell wants to play a game where when they shoot a weapon that under no control of their own it will inevitably miss 90% of the time. Do this for me OP. Go out onto the battlefield, let's say Clearcut or Sandblasted and intentionally miss every long range shot and tell me how much fun it is. I have never experienced people that live is such small boxes and can't see past their own hand.

Striker

It's a pretty common system really, you'd have difficulties finding e.g. a FPS game these days that has not something like it in place, though there has been a shift to a more complex recoil system.

Heck even Crysis itself uses a Cone of Fine for some weapons   Maybe the AC10 and AC20 as well (or maybe they just arc with no other deviation).

[Seraph]

3. Gauss rifle damage already drops off at ranges >300.

Only Heavy Gauss, see patchnotes

[=]FC[=Striker]

snip

It's a pretty common system really, you'd have difficulties finding e.g. a FPS game these days that has not something like it in place, though there has been a shift to a more complex recoil system.

Heck even Crysis itself uses a Cone of Fine for some weapons   Maybe the AC10 and AC20 as well (or maybe they just arc with no other deviation).

Yes there are systems that make long range shots more difficult and require skill, but what you are talking about is adding in "random" effects that the player can not adjust for. That is absolutely ridiculous. It is like saying that you have a sniper rifle and that in order to hit a target at 1000m you need to adjust for the drop of the round. So you make the adjustment (not accounting for heat and wind in this) and then you fire, except every preparation you made was for nothing because somehow, outside of all that is rationally possible, gravity reversed itself and pushed the round up and right instead of the normal flight path. "Random" effects when firing a weapon is just inferior logic, plain and simple.

Striker

[Spanish Inquisition]

In my opinion, it is entirely your fault if you're being pegged at long range. Once, sure. After that? Evasive action, or find cover. You'd be stupid to stand in the open where PPCs and Gauss can hit you to peg them back; they've already got the initiative on you. If you've got your own lancemates, then you can consider firing back. If you're by yourself, ask yourself if you're feeling lucky. If they've got a whole lance of heavies with long range weaponry, you don't charge at them. Flank flank flank. It's the same concept as facing a machine gun nest. Go where they can't shoot you, then kick them in the nadgers.

PPCs are not balls of plasma. Regular and light gauss rifles do not get damage drop off. I do not want PPCs or gauss rifles to behave like MW2 (very slow balls).

Having a weapon with the heat output like a PPC or the ammo requirements of a gauss "randomly" waste shots is stupid.

Pilots in Mechs specialized on long distances will now have to consider holding their fire a few more seconds to ensure a hit or risk wasting rounds or building up heat without gain.

I imagine it's like that already. Elevation changes and two laterally moving targets make it hard enough to track, not to mention that you're probably zoomed in, decreasing your viewing angle and if I recall correctly, bounces up and down even more with each step.

CBT lore, however and in your defence, does say that (3025 era) hitting anything over 600m was a tough call since targeting computers were pretty much crap.

[(TLL)Sky_walker]

Don't fix what ain't broken!

[Django]

I think the problem lies more in the fact that weapons automatically converge at the place your targeting reticule is pointed.  Take the Hollander for instance, the guass slug always where your reticule is.  It should go slightly up and to the right of your aim point, because that is where it was fired from in relation to your targeting reticule.  On the other hand, two different weapons on two different articulated limbs should be able to converge at the exact point.  Take the Mad Cat prime, the two large lasers should be able to hit the same spot, accurately 100% of the time.  Unless maybe the arms are damaged, which opens up a whole other level of game play options.  (Damaging your enemies arms makes them less accurate.)

Basically there should be two types of direct fire weapons, those attached to articulated limbs that are capable of fine adjustments.  And those that are mounted in a fixed position to the body of the mech, that can only hit things in relation to their position on the torso and the direction the torso is pointed.  You could even add a "targeting computer" type equipment that would change the reticule to reflect the pattern that weapons would hit.

Whether or not any of that is possible with the Crytek Engine, I dunno.