Weapon selection layout

[nimdabew]

I have noticed in some of the streams that the arm weapons and torso weapons are all lumped into one big box, and the only thing differentiating them is a 5-10% change in their to-hit roll percentage. Could you separate them in the weapon selection box so arms or torso weapons are on top, and the rest are on the bottom? I hate to pull from another game, but MWO did this very well, and a person could easily identify which weapons were which. The number of times seeing a streamer choose a 70% chance vs a 75% chance was maddening because both of the weapons are the same weapon just located on different parts of the mech.

 

[Amechwarrior]

The weapons are sorted in order from highest damage to lowest, and fire in that order too. This maximizes the number of potential critical hit rolls and was a small trick carried over from TT BT for the same reasons. Say a unit has 40 Armor on an arm and you fired your arm mounted SRMs first then a torso mounted PPC. Some SRMs would hit the arm and remove some armor, then the PPC hits the arm and would breach through for a critical hit chance.

Going the way the game sorts it for you: The PPC would instantly breach the armor and roll for critical chance. Then, some of your SRMs would hit the arm and get another critical hit chance.

 

[nimdabew]

I am not talking about the hit locations or the target mech, but the list of weapons from the firing mech. Arm mounted weapons have a higher hit chance than torso weapons, so in the firing mech list, it would be better for the GUI to list them in arm/torso so the firing pilot can see easier why a weapon has a higher hit percentage.

Cohh, in his stream, disabled a 75% chance medium laser bit kept a torso mounted medium laser with a 70% chance and fired the 70% instead of the 75%. I will try to find the screen shot.

 

[nimdabew]

This is what I am talking about. Arm mounted weapons are mixed in with torso weapons. They do not appear to be based on weapon damage, but on location on the mech from RT to LT, right to left.

My suggestion is to make the weapon pane look more like this so you can easily see an arm weapon vs a torso mounted weapon.

 

[Amechwarrior]

This is what I am talking about. Arm mounted weapons are mixed in with torso weapons. They do not appear to be based on weapon damage, but on location on the mech from RT to LT, right to left.

My suggestion is to make the weapon pane look more like this so you can easily see an arm weapon vs a torso mounted weapon.

All of those weapons do the same 25 damage.

 

[TaurianMerc]

If I get your reasoning right, it's not so much about knowing where the weapons are located as the chance to hit?
If so, that's clearly stated, as shown on your screenshot, so if someone disables a 75% chance but leaves a 70% active then that is really their mistake surely?

 

[Amechwarrior]

If I get your reasoning right, it's not so much about knowing where the weapons are located as the chance to hit?
If so, that's clearly stated, as shown on your screenshot, so if someone disables a 75% chance but leaves a 70% active then that is really their mistake surely?

What would be best is have it sorted by weapon damage like current, but for within weapons with the same damage - sort them by shot odds with highest first. This groups up the ones you will want to toggle easily and you don't have to hunt for those arm lasers in a HBK-4P on shots where you are just trying to strip Evasion.

 

[nimdabew]

If I get your reasoning right, it's not so much about knowing where the weapons are located as the chance to hit?
If so, that's clearly stated, as shown on your screenshot, so if someone disables a 75% chance but leaves a 70% active then that is really their mistake surely?

Sort of. Arm mounted weapons have a higher hit percentage than torso mounted weapons from what I understand to encourage people to put weapons in the arms vs the torsos. I know about the weapons having their percentages marked on the weapon itself, but it looks sloppy to have a 75% then a 70% then a 75% then a 70% in the same list with no rhyme or reason to the end user that doesn't know that arm mounted weapons are better than torso mounted weapons because of the location of the weapon itself. Cohh has an excellent example of this by putting a large laser in a torso and a medium laser in the arm. To his style of mech building, a hard point is a hard point, but having a simple re-design of the UI so "arm" weapons have a separate grouping of to hit percentages, and torso mounted weapons have a different one, a user that doesn't know arm mounted weapons have a higher hit chance at the expense of losing the weapon when its attached torso is blown off. Players like cohh that know little about the to-hit percentages and why the percentage is why it is might realize that arm mounted weapons are better for hitting stuff with big guns, but are more vulnerable because you can lose the torso and the arm in one attack.

 

[IgorSloth]

Arm mounted weapons have -1 dice roll (+5% chance to hit), but are easier to get destroyed, as arms have lower armor.
also,
SOME mechs have arms that can swivel +45 degrees more to either side on the tabletop, but that feature was not implemented into the game for streamlining / budget reasons.

So there is little to no reason to differentiate arm and torso weapons in game.

I guess making an awesome game is too much work. Lets hope they implement arm swivel in a expansion.

 

[nimdabew]

Arm mounted weapons have -1 dice roll (+5% chance to hit), but are easier to get destroyed, as arms have lower armor.
also,
SOME mechs have arms that can swivel +45 degrees more to either side on the tabletop, but that feature was not implemented into the game for streamlining / budget reasons.

So there is little to no reason to differentiate arm and torso weapons in game.

I guess making an awesome game is too much work. Lets hope they implement arm swivel in a expansion.

There is a difference. Arm weapons don't get a -1, they get a +1 to hit, so arm mounted weapons are easier to hit with than torso mounted weapons. This Kintaro has two torso mounted SRM6's and one arm mounted SRM6. The arm mounted one is easier to hit with than torso mounted weapons because of the +1 to-hit modifier.

But like I have said earlier, having ARM and TORSO as labels, plus the weapons beneath and associated percentage chances with them, would make it easier for a new BT user to see why placement of weapons matters on a mech.

 

[TaurianMerc]

There is a difference. Arm weapons don't get a -1, they get a +1 to hit, so arm mounted weapons are easier to hit with than torso mounted weapons. This Kintaro has two torso mounted SRM6's and one arm mounted SRM6. The arm mounted one is easier to hit with than torso mounted weapons because of the +1 to-hit modifier.

But like I have said earlier, having ARM and TORSO as labels, plus the weapons beneath and associated percentage chances with them, would make it easier for a new BT user to see why placement of weapons matters on a mech.

Someone needs to visit the lengthy and unresolved thread on bonus/malus representation in the game.
Arm weapons get -1 which is good thing. If it was +1 it would be a bad thing.
Confused yet?

And like I said earlier, and which your screenshot shows superbly, the chances to hit for each weapon are clearly displayed so what advantage do you get from separating them into torso and arm?

 

[nimdabew]

Someone needs to visit the lengthy and unresolved thread on bonus/malus representation in the game.
Arm weapons get -1 which is good thing. If it was +1 it would be a bad thing.
Confused yet?

And like I said earlier, and which your screenshot shows superbly, the chances to hit for each weapon are clearly displayed so what advantage do you get from separating them into torso and arm?

I will take your word for the -1/+1 thing. I get confused from it even when typing stuff out. A little easier: easier to hit with arm mounted weapons.

It doesn't help me per se, but it helps newer players with choosing what weapons to fire when they have to turn weapons off due to heat restrictions. A wall of 70%/75%+ is easy to turn off a higher percentage chance weapon for a lower one, just because the player sees green. Separating them however, gives one more visual indication that the weapons are different, even if both are showing green for the to-hit percentages. Grouping weapons based on damage value, location on mech, and to hit percentages, are all valuable tools that can make the user interface easier when choosing to fire only three of five medium lasers. In an unlikely, but plausible scenario of having five medium lasers, two of which are in the arms, it would give one additional visual indication that the ones on the top (arms) should be turned on all the time, whereas the ones on the bottom (tosro) are situation ally turned on. This is especially valuable when you know a mech that has been riding the heat cap in a brawl is heat neutral if you fire two of one weapon type, but if you turn a third on, you start gaining more heat.

 

[Lardaltef]

I think you two are talking about the same thing but in different words.

 

[IgorSloth]

Separating them however, gives one more visual indication

How many visual aids do you need then? after a point it becomes difficult to understand, green color % chance seem enough already
...

.. any problem understanding this is bad for you?

 

[TaurianMerc]

I think you two are talking about the same thing but in different words.

No, my learned colleague wants the weapons in separate "clusters" for arms and torso/head/legs because it might make it easier to see weapons that have a better chance of hitting.
I'm fine with what we see, ordered by damage, but with the chances clearly visible.

 

[TaurianMerc]

How many visual aids do you need then? after a point it becomes difficult to understand, green color % chance seem enough already
...View attachment 354921.. any problem understanding this is bad for you?

The chap is merely voicing an opinion on something he thinks might make a difference. Personally I don't agree it warrants the effort to change it, but I do not feel it requires attacking someone's intelligence, that is just bad form.

 

[Lardaltef]

No, my learned colleague wants the weapons in separate "clusters" for arms and torso/head/legs because it might make it easier to see weapons that have a better chance of hitting.
I'm fine with what we see, ordered by damage, but with the chances clearly visible.

I meant with the +1/-1 thing. It's clear which is which I don't really see a need to split it up in mission. As long as it is explained why some weapons have a higher hit chance because of where It's located but that really seems like a mechtech dialogue thing or something in the mechlab tutorial (if there is one) then an in mission thing to tell the player.

 

[TaurianMerc]

I meant with the +1/-1 thing. It's clear which is which I don't really see a need to split it up in mission. As long as it is explained why some weapons have a higher hit chance because of where It's located but that really seems like a mechtech dialogue thing or something in the mechlab tutorial (if there is one) then an in mission thing to tell the player.

@nimdabew is concerned that in the heat of the moment a player might accidentally switch off an arm weapon when he meant to turn the torso one off. Since this is turn based with no time limits, you can take your time and not rush so I don't personally think it will be that much of an issue.

 

[nimdabew]

I meant with the +1/-1 thing. It's clear which is which I don't really see a need to split it up in mission. As long as it is explained why some weapons have a higher hit chance because of where It's located but that really seems like a mechtech dialogue thing or something in the mechlab tutorial (if there is one) then an in mission thing to tell the player.

Yeah, I agree there is plenty of time to see what weapons are best, but just like the overheat button flashing thing, it is a user interface thing. Cohh, who is a prime example of what new players will do because he knows about what most players will know, makes mistakes like this. He constantly does it with overheating, switching off higher percentage weapons, and doing less optimal things because of a lack of understanding through a sub optimal UI. Other suggestions in other threads have said to enhance the overheat warning button which is another small user interface improvement over what we have now. If I took your argument to the overheat thing, you can say the heat bar and flashing text is enough, but a simple 50% box set at 50% opaque around the flashing text might draw the commanders eye towards it more because of simple contrast.

This weapon location interface is small potatoes on the front of it, but may help other users understand why things are the way they are based entirely on the user interface. I haven't seen anything in his streams where he realized that arm mounted weapons have a higher hit percentage, but a simple ARM/TORSO split would give one more clue of why one weapon is a higher percentage vs another, even though it is the same pilot, shooting from the same mech, at the same target.

 

[Lardaltef]

Yeah, I agree there is plenty of time to see what weapons are best, but just like the overheat button flashing thing, it is a user interface thing. Cohh, who is a prime example of what new players will do because he knows about what most players will know, makes mistakes like this. He constantly does it with overheating, switching off higher percentage weapons, and doing less optimal things because of a lack of understanding through a sub optimal UI. Other suggestions in other threads have said to enhance the overheat warning button which is another small user interface improvement over what we have now. If I took your argument to the overheat thing, you can say the heat bar and flashing text is enough, but a simple 50% box set at 50% opaque around the flashing text might draw the commanders eye towards it more because of simple contrast.

This weapon location interface is small potatoes on the front of it, but may help other users understand why things are the way they are based entirely on the user interface. I haven't seen anything in his streams where he realized that arm mounted weapons have a higher hit percentage, but a simple ARM/TORSO split would give one more clue of why one weapon is a higher percentage vs another, even though it is the same pilot, shooting from the same mech, at the same target.

But having a split could also end up making people not notice those weapons and always having them on and thus overheating all the time simply because there is a break. It'd make more sense to me to reorder stuff such as left to right (or right to left) all the torso weapons. Then below those (no break) in the same order the arm weapons.

I mean I always missing looking at the melee damage bar because there is a break. I notice all the other weapons in the weapons pane but I always miss that one (I still use melee attacks).