74 replies to this topic

[Dock Steward]

Strum Wealh, on 19 June 2013 - 11:51 AM, said:

Thoughts?

It works for me. Except I wouldn't change convergence for arm mounted weapons. They present far less of an issue. It's when ALL weapons converge with pin-point accuracy, IMO.

Edited by Dock Steward, 19 June 2013 - 12:13 PM.

[ExtremeA79]

TexAss, on 19 June 2013 - 12:11 PM, said:

Man I would LOVE this, brings the "thinking" back into the "Thinking Man's Shooter".

But unfortunately I don't see PGI ever doing something like this, becuase they fear to scare away all the casual players, who dont give a **** how it works and who only want to blow out some cash for cheese.

That actually is not a bad idea. Is there a possibility to change where it zeros in at the mechlab?

[Zyllos]

OneEyed Jack, on 19 June 2013 - 08:18 AM, said:

So that they can be adjusted for and you have at least some idea where your shots are going to go. Otherwise skill goes out the window and it turns into something like when I play fighting games with all those combos. I just slap buttons really fasts and hope for the best. Don't laugh, I do really well sometimes! Of course, it's only because my opponent has no idea what I'm going to do, making it difficult for him to react. I know he has no idea, because I have no idea.

Do you have any idea how much training many of "fighting game" players play to get to the point where they are at? I guarantee you that if you played Marvel vs Capcom 3 at any large tournament and randomly hit buttons, you will lose.

That has got to be one of the worst arguments against CoF I have seen.

[TOGSolid]

Mackman, on 19 June 2013 - 07:08 AM, said:

PGI is against any form of randomization, and rightly so. Randomization (a cone of fire in this instance) exists only to soften the skill curve, to make it so someone less skilled can, on occasion, win against someone who is more skilled.

In a game that strives to have even matchmaking, such allowances are utterly unnecessary. Skill should be the only thing deciding the outcome of a match: Not an RNG that determines that your shots went wide while his hit home.

EDIT: I should note that I agree that it's not fun seeing nothing but PPC boats day after day: I used to primarily pilot a 4-PPC Stalker until I realized how much more fun it is to do more fun and crazy stuff most of the time. But PGI is looking into other NON-randomized ways of fixing it, and that's the right call.

I see this argument come up a lot against CoF and again I have to bring up that Counterstrike implements CoF and it is in no way, shape, or form a scrub game where noobs can win consistently via luck. Don't let Call of Duty ***** your perspective.

Quote

So that they can be adjusted for and you have at least some idea where your shots are going to go. Otherwise skill goes out the window and it turns into something like when I play fighting games with all those combos. I just slap buttons really fasts and hope for the best. Don't laugh, I do really well sometimes! Of course, it's only because my opponent has no idea what I'm going to do, making it difficult for him to react. I know he has no idea, because I have no idea.

Play against someone who even remotely knows what they're doing and you'll get your **** pushed in in a hurry. Sure, it may work against day 1 scrubs but decent players will bop you without breaking a sweat.

I'd say that this analogy doesn't work, but it actually ends up doing just that. You think randomness wins matches well and I know damn well it doesn't and that skill will trump that **** easily. Just like well implemented CoF!

Strum Wealh, on 19 June 2013 - 11:51 AM, said:

Rather than have multiple crosshairs, all torso weapons could/would be locked in place (both horizontally and vertically) relative to the torso so that they converge on the reticle's center point at their max. effective/optimal range and dicerge when .

This is essentially how the wing-mounted guns on WWII military aircraft were set, in a process called "harmonization".

(In this example, the red lines show some of aircraft's guns are harmonized to a distance of ~200 meters, the green lines show some of aircraft's guns are harmonized to a distance of ~800 meters, and the blue lines show that the unharmonized guns fire straight ahead in parallel paths and do not converge at all.)

For example, twin torso-mounted PPCs (as found on the stock AWS-8Q, for instance) would converge to a single point at 540 meters, with the impact points diverging as one moves away from that point (either toward or away from the firing unit).

Likewise, twin torso-mounted Medium Lasers (such as seen on the stock AS7-D, CPLT-C1, CN9-A, and CTF-3D) would converge to a single point at 270 meters, with the impact points diverging as one moves away from that point (either toward or away from the firing unit).

In the case of non-twinned weapons (a Large Laser in one side-torso and an ER Large Laser in the other side-torso), each weapon would be set to converge at its respective effective/optimal range (540 meters for the LL and 675 meters for the ERLL).

By contrast, arm-mounted weapons would still be able to (non-instantaneously) adjust themselves vertically (assuming an undamaged Upper Arm Actuator is present in the arm(s) in question) and horizontally (assuming an undamaged Lower Arm Actuator is present in the arm(s) in question).

Thoughts?

This would be ******* amazing. IL-2 Sturmovik (the game that is) allowed players to manually adjust their convergence range before taking off which would also be awesome.

Edited by TOGSolid, 19 June 2013 - 12:42 PM.

[Zyllos]

Also, a CoF should not 100% be in effect at all times.

I am fine with a pin point accurate shot if your firing a single large weapon or a few smaller weapons.

That is why Homeless Bill's suggestion plays very nicely in the overall scheme of things. It makes larger weapons require staggering fire to guarantee a straight shot or smaller weapons in a couple of groups. If you don't care about aiming and just want to let loose, alpha strike or fast all your weapons as fast as possible but don't expect to have them land where you aim, but only around the area you aim.

[Strum Wealh]

Darren Tyler, on 19 June 2013 - 12:17 PM, said:

That actually is not a bad idea. Is there a possibility to change where it zeros in at the mechlab?

For it to have any real meaning, it would have to be something that is set in the 'Mech Lab or something that is pre-set & immutable - it should not be able to be changed at all during a match.

IMO, it would also use the max. effective range as an upper bound, and any weapons that have minimum ranges would use that as a lower bound (and any that don't have one set to some reasonable(?) non-zero distance - say, 20 meters (just over the upper bound of MWO 'Mech height) as an example) - that is:

• a torso-mounted set Medium Lasers (a common feature on several 'Mechs) could have their harmonization point set to between 20 and 270 meters
  
• a torso-mounted set of (non-ER) PPCs (e.g. AWS-8Q) could have their harmonization point set to between 90 and 540 meters
  
• a torso-mounted set of ER-PPCs (e.g. AWS-9M) could have their harmonization point set to between 20 and 810 meters
  
• a single torso-mounted AC/20 (e.g. AS7-D, HBK-4G) could have its "harmonization" point (not that one can really "harmonize" a single weapon, but the same alignment/sighting process could be applied) set to between 20 and 270 meters
  
• a torso-mounted set of Gauss Rifles (e.g. "Gaussapult") could have their harmonization point set to between 20 and 660 meters

and so on and so forth.

The inclusion of limits has the advantages to gameplay of requiring mixed-arms high-alpha builds (such as the "3 PPC + 1 Gauss" setup) to choose the lowest range of the weapons in the set as their focal point (with the ability to put all of the damage in one place in one salvo necessarily decreasing as the target either closes or backs away) while also generally discouraging literal "face-hugging" (as the weapons will not all aim at the same single point at 0 meters).

Thoughts?

[Dock Steward]

Strum Wealh, on 19 June 2013 - 01:10 PM, said:

Thoughts?

I still like it.

[Roland]

OneEyed Jack, on 19 June 2013 - 06:35 AM, said:

I don't believe that deciding convergence/divergence after the fire button is pressed is a realistic solution. get rid of fire delay after all this time, and there have been huge issues with hit detection, and you want the game to decide whether the shot went where you were aiming or not after the button is pressed? Yeah... that could work....

Chromehounds actually did convergence after you pushed the trigger, because even in a group, each weapon fired a fraction of a second after each other, and each weapon produced kick. And the kick they produced caused a certain change in where the other weapons would fire, based on the location of the weapon firing...

i.e, if you put one big gun on each arm, and fired them both, with the left arm firing first in the group, then the result would be that the left gun would fire exactly where you were aiming, but in the process it would jerk your mech to the left, which would cause your right hand gun to miss slightly left, and then kick your mech back to the right.

The overall effect was actually really great, since it resulted in a predictable system which fed directly into the mech construction aspect of the game.

[ExtremeA79]

Strum Wealh, on 19 June 2013 - 01:10 PM, said:

For it to have any real meaning, it would have to be something that is set in the 'Mech Lab or something that is pre-set & immutable - it should not be able to be changed at all during a match.

IMO, it would also use the max. effective range as an upper bound, and any weapons that have minimum ranges would use that as a lower bound (and any that don't have one set to some reasonable(?) non-zero distance - say, 20 meters (just over the upper bound of MWO 'Mech height) as an example) - that is:

• a torso-mounted set Medium Lasers (a common feature on several 'Mechs) could have their harmonization point set to between 20 and 270 meters
  
• a torso-mounted set of (non-ER) PPCs (e.g. AWS-8Q) could have their harmonization point set to between 90 and 540 meters
  
• a torso-mounted set of ER-PPCs (e.g. AWS-9M) could have their harmonization point set to between 20 and 810 meters
  
• a single torso-mounted AC/20 (e.g. AS7-D, HBK-4G) could have its "harmonization" point (not that one can really "harmonize" a single weapon, but the same alignment/sighting process could be applied) set to between 20 and 270 meters
  
• a torso-mounted set of Gauss Rifles (e.g. "Gaussapult") could have their harmonization point set to between 20 and 660 meters

and so on and so forth.

The inclusion of limits has the advantages to gameplay of requiring mixed-arms high-alpha builds (such as the "3 PPC + 1 Gauss" setup) to choose the lowest range of the weapons in the set as their focal point (with the ability to put all of the damage in one place in one salvo necessarily decreasing as the target either closes or backs away) while also generally discouraging literal "face-hugging" (as the weapons will not all aim at the same single point at 0 meters).

Thoughts?

I like it.

[Mister Blastman]

Strum Wealh, on 19 June 2013 - 11:51 AM, said:

Thoughts?

Another excellent take on the obvious solution--convergence!

Different than my solution but it still addresses the problem. It limits convergence to a set distance (or none at all) and in your case, the idea of limiting it to each weapons max range would certainly create more of a challenge for players using multiple types (say for instance 2x ER PPC and 2x regular PPC on the same mech--the pairs would have different points of convergence further increasing the spread and challenge).

[keith]

Roland, on 19 June 2013 - 01:12 PM, said:

Chromehounds actually did convergence after you pushed the trigger, because even in a group, each weapon fired a fraction of a second after each other, and each weapon produced kick. And the kick they produced caused a certain change in where the other weapons would fire, based on the location of the weapon firing...

i.e, if you put one big gun on each arm, and fired them both, with the left arm firing first in the group, then the result would be that the left gun would fire exactly where you were aiming, but in the process it would jerk your mech to the left, which would cause your right hand gun to miss slightly left, and then kick your mech back to the right.

The overall effect was actually really great, since it resulted in a predictable system which fed directly into the mech construction aspect of the game.

never played chromehounds but that sounds like a decent system. works on real world affects. better then some RNG affect. would let u play where to put X wep and how it would affect while firing your alphas.

[Reported for Inappropriate Name]

divergence would definitely help at ranges where boats are most effective. Not sure how all my weapons pinpoint at close ranges when they appear to be in fixed mounts, magic, probably.

[EyeOne]

Strum Wealh, on 19 June 2013 - 11:51 AM, said:

Rather than have multiple crosshairs, all torso weapons could/would be locked in place (both horizontally and vertically) relative to the torso so that they converge on the reticle's center point at their max. effective/optimal range and dicerge when .

This is essentially how the wing-mounted guns on WWII military aircraft were set, in a process called "harmonization".

(In this example, the red lines show some of aircraft's guns are harmonized to a distance of ~200 meters, the green lines show some of aircraft's guns are harmonized to a distance of ~800 meters, and the blue lines show that the unharmonized guns fire straight ahead in parallel paths and do not converge at all.)

For example, twin torso-mounted PPCs (as found on the stock AWS-8Q, for instance) would converge to a single point at 540 meters, with the impact points diverging as one moves away from that point (either toward or away from the firing unit).

Likewise, twin torso-mounted Medium Lasers (such as seen on the stock AS7-D, CPLT-C1, CN9-A, and CTF-3D) would converge to a single point at 270 meters, with the impact points diverging as one moves away from that point (either toward or away from the firing unit).

In the case of non-twinned weapons (a Large Laser in one side-torso and an ER Large Laser in the other side-torso), each weapon would be set to converge at its respective effective/optimal range (540 meters for the LL and 675 meters for the ERLL).

By contrast, arm-mounted weapons would still be able to (non-instantaneously) adjust themselves vertically (assuming an undamaged Upper Arm Actuator is present in the arm(s) in question) and horizontally (assuming an undamaged Lower Arm Actuator is present in the arm(s) in question).

Thoughts?

I have no issues with this. I submitted a ticket about a year ago suggesting that they limit or do away with convergence.

[Roland]

keith, on 19 June 2013 - 01:16 PM, said:

never played chromehounds but that sounds like a decent system. works on real world affects. better then some RNG affect. would let u play where to put X wep and how it would affect while firing your alphas.

Ya, it worked very well, and heavily influenced mech design.

Their mechlab was far more configurable than mechwarrior though. It was more like little hex lego pieces that let you build all kinds of crazy designs.

[OneEyed Jack]

Darren Tyler, on 19 June 2013 - 10:51 AM, said:

Then make a 6 ppc mech with the mechs from 3050 and show me how hot it gets.
I also said from lore, novels as well. That is very well canon. A mech would not be able to withstand the heat.

Here ya go. Did this on a Stalker. Std 255 that came with it. Can fire 6 PPCs and be at 28 heat. It'll most likely fail the shutdown roll, but has exactly zero chance of exploding, since there's no ammo. In fact, if by some miracle it made the roll, it could fire again next turn and still not explode, because that doesn't happen in BT.

Zyllos, on 19 June 2013 - 12:19 PM, said:

Do you have any idea how much training many of "fighting game" players play to get to the point where they are at? I guarantee you that if you played Marvel vs Capcom 3 at any large tournament and randomly hit buttons, you will lose.

That has got to be one of the worst arguments against CoF I have seen.

Well, that's got to be the stupidest, most blown out of proportion response to humor I've ever seen, and yet had nothing to do with anything I was actually talking about.

Um... gratz on that... I guess...