53 replies to this topic

[SerEdvard]

Yes, yet another convergence thread....

Problem: The current system of perfect convergence at the distance of the object under the reticle results in damage concentration on a single point, which encourages high alpha builds and boating. As long as we have perfect convergence, boating and high alpha builds will always be a problem.

While many others have posted some very good concepts to fix weapon convergence that are simple in concept, I fear that these ideas may never see the light of day in MWO because either 1) most add a completely new system or dynamic that will require the devs to invest a lot of time and effort to design, test, and implement, and/or 2) they add an element of randomness or luck that many players would find undesirable (cone of fire, recoil, etc).


My Proposed Solution: GROUP-FIRED Weapons now converge at a distance 15% beyond the object under the targeting reticle. CHAIN-FIRED weapons would continue to benefit from the current system of perfect convergence.


Rationale: By converging slightly beyond the distance of the target, weapons will no longer converge to a single point on the target and will have a small amount of lateral spread. This small amount of divergence will spread out the damage from weapons mounted in different locations in a subtle and predictable way... just enough to spread the damage out between adjacent locations on the target. Because the added convergence distance is a percentage rather than a fixed amount, the amount of spread on the target will be the same regardless of distance (about the width of one torso) and may not even be noticeable in many situations (weapons still fire straight at the reticle).

Here's a diagram:



This is meant to be a simple and straightforward (albeit imperfect) fix to a very complicated and hot issue. I do not mean to imply that this will fix all of the issues with the current high alpha/boating meta, but I hope that this idea could provide a fix that does not involve a new gameplay system or dynamic and does not involve any luck/randomness.

What do you think?

EDIT: Updated with the great idea suggested in the replies that this convergence fix should only apply to group-fired weapons, not chain-fired weapons

Edited by SerEdvard, 30 July 2013 - 08:04 PM.

[aseth]

Nice and simple. I'd start the value a little bit higher, and make that Pinpoint ability actually do something useful reduce it down to 15%.

Edit:
I'd ideally want some representation on the reticle, but as a quick fix it would probably work out well.

Edited by aseth, 12 July 2013 - 09:29 AM.

[SerEdvard]

aseth, on 12 July 2013 - 09:28 AM, said:

Nice and simple. I'd start the value a little bit higher, and make that Pinpoint ability actually do something useful reduce it down to 15%.

Edit:
I'd ideally want some representation on the reticle, but as a quick fix it would probably work out well.

Yeah, agreed. This is just meant as a quick fix. The 15% number seemed to be a good starting point based on some quick trig calcs, but is by no means the best value (especially if pilot quirks and modules were to adjust it).

[jakucha]

I'd be willing to try it in the test server.

[Nasty McBadman]

What would be the effect on individually fired weapons? Would one gauss round fired individually miss from point of aim by 15%

[BlackIronTarkus]

Wow, very good and simple idea! +like

Just to add my grain of salt, maybe using the advanced zoom module could decrease the %? Anyway your idea is great and should be implimented asap.

Edited by BlackIronTarkus, 12 July 2013 - 10:41 AM.

[SerEdvard]

Nasty McBadman, on 12 July 2013 - 10:36 AM, said:

What would be the effect on individually fired weapons? Would one gauss round fired individually miss from point of aim by 15%

I did some maths...

Assuming a mech to be 10m wide (5m from CT to each arm), then a convergence distance modifier of 1.15 (15% further) would result in a lateral offset from center of 0.65m for arm-mounted weapons and 0.33m for torso-mounted weapons. This means that a weapon fired from each arm would hit about 1.3m apart. This is independent of distance to target.

Again, assuming that each torso hitbox is about 2m wide (obviously depends on what mech you're shooting at), this means that the offset for am-mounted weapons would be just about the width of a torso, less for torso-mounted... probably hardly noticeable in most situations (good aiming is still rewarded), but just enough to spread an alpha strike across adjacent hitboxes.

[Sheraf]

No objection to this idea

[SerEdvard]

BlackIronTarkus, on 12 July 2013 - 10:38 AM, said:

Wow, very good and simple idea! +like

Just to add my grain of salt, maybe using the advanced zoom module could decrease the %? Anyway your idea is great and should be implimented asap.

Thanks! I can imagine a lot of ways in which pilot skills, modules, or even mech quirks could be used to modify the convergence distance modifier in interesting ways, but for now I'd be happy with getting to try out a quick implementation of this on the test server...

[Nasty McBadman]

SerEdvard, on 12 July 2013 - 11:00 AM, said:

but just enough to spread an alpha strike across adjacent hitboxes.

I understand the concept of the alpha spread accross some distance, my question was for the INDIVIDUALLY fired weapon, not an alpha. Would an individually fired waepon miss the point of aim by 15% ?

[Homeless Bill]

It's not comprehensive and I think that any solution implemented should hit pinpoint weapons harder than ones that will spread damage.

That said, I totally support this over a lot of other ideas (including anything to do with boating heat penalties).

[Tombstoner]

i am in favor of any thing that makes group fired weapons hit multiple hit boxes.
However the skill crowd will not like this because it can cause some weapons to hit and others to miss. since your adding wepons spread even thought its fixed its still going to be a RNG to them.

What if your targeting a very small and thin mech. some weapons will miss on both sides. what if your trying to hit a leg? i t would actualy help in that case but some want to one shot your leg off with there L337 skill's

This idea is also very simple so i think PGI has consider it.

Edited by Tombstoner, 12 July 2013 - 11:24 AM.

[SerEdvard]

Nasty McBadman, on 12 July 2013 - 11:18 AM, said:

I understand the concept of the alpha spread accross some distance, my question was for the INDIVIDUALLY fired weapon, not an alpha. Would an individually fired waepon miss the point of aim by 15% ?

Depends on where the weapon is mounted. CT/H weapons would still fire perfectly straight, LT/RT weapons would be offset to the left/right by 0.33m, and LA/RA weapons would be offset to the left/right by 0.65m. I'm not exactly sure what the "width" of the targeting reticule is (will depend on distance to target), but I expect that these offsets are probably still within or just on the edge of the reticule, especially at longer ranges. Thus I assert that this offset wouldn't be noticeable, especially in the heat of battle with moving targets.

Hope that answers your question!

[Unbound Inferno]

SerEdvard, on 12 July 2013 - 09:15 AM, said:

Yes, yet another convergence thread....

Problem: The current system of perfect convergence at the distance of the object under the reticle results in damage concentration on a single point, which encourages high alpha builds and boating. As long as we have perfect convergence, boating and high alpha builds will always be a problem.

While many others have posted some very good concepts to fix weapon convergence that are simple in concept, I fear that these ideas may never see the light of day in MWO because either 1) most add a completely new system or dynamic that will require the devs to invest a lot of time and effort to design, test, and implement, and/or 2) they add an element of randomness or luck that many players would find undesirable (cone of fire, recoil, etc).


My Proposed Solution: Weapons now converge at a distance 15% beyond the object under the targeting reticle.


Rationale: By converging slightly beyond the distance of the target, weapons will no longer converge to a single point on the target and will have a small amount of lateral spread. This small amount of divergence will spread out the damage from weapons mounted in different locations in a subtle and predictable way... just enough to spread the damage out between adjacent locations on the target. Because the added convergence distance is a percentage rather than a fixed amount, the amount of spread on the target will be the same regardless of distance (about the width of one torso) and may not even be noticeable in many situations (weapons still fire straight at the reticle).

Here's a diagram:



This is meant to be a simple and straightforward (albeit imperfect) fix to a very complicated and hot issue. I do not mean to imply that this will fix all of the issues with the current high alpha/boating meta, but I hope that this idea could provide a fix that does not involve a new gameplay system or dynamic and does not involve any luck/randomness.

What do you think?

http://mwomercs.com/...20#entry2549120

Unbound Inferno, on 11 July 2013 - 09:23 PM, said:

An odd thought occurred to me while piloting my new favorite 6x LRM5 A1 today on convergence.

What if convergence only happened when you had a target lock?

Your weapons would dumb-fire straight ahead without it, but you would need to actually lock your target to get it to track.

Then add a convergence mechanism for a delay and keeping pace.


Say, it takes 2 seconds to converge on a target after locking with Torso weapons. Partial arms take 1.5 seconds and 1 second for a full arm with upper and lower actuators.

The system could only track a target movement slower than 50kph, so the faster you and your target move move the less the targeting system could keep up and lead to more inaccurate shots cause its converging for a point behind (or in front of) the moving mech.


It would encourage gaining target locks, and for kicks the system could be disrupted by ECM like missile locks - you won't have any. Maybe then they'll want to fix ECM too so it just makes it take longer.


Anyway, that's my late night crazy idea.


EDIT:

What about long range sniping? beyond what you can target?

In Battletech....

Your chance to hit was modified by the surroundings and distance. Woods, clear terrain, hills.. all affected you.

After the Clan invasion, when Clan Mongoose introduced a revolutionary technology called a Targeting Computer. It took the IS until 3062 to duplicate it. The Targeting computer allowed a drastic increase in the chance to hit a target. Think that of convergence.

But what if you couldn't see the target, but your weapons might reach it? Dense enough woods or far enough out of your sensor range, but not out of your weapons range? Damn near impossible to hit because you couldn't do it - the targeting computer had no buff for it on its own.


There comes the C3 network we talk about sometimes.

The Draconis Combine introduced it around 3050, and it worked by coordinating information from several mechs in this C3 Network, using 3 C3 Slave units and a C3 Command module. It could also work with 6 C3i units and the Command module. In MW;O we have that entire heavy, bulky, sophisticated system simplified, featherweight and invisible in every mech. This allows secondary targets to be gotte when an ally targets something - or what missile users better relate to indirect fire. Specifically it allows a target to be aquired by an ally spotting it within their sensor range, but well outside your own.

As a result through a secondary target your targeting computer can track the target for precise shots at extreme range.


And so, that is how you can gain convergence at extreme range sniping - by a spotter.

Take your idea, toss in the requirement for a target lock and have the tracking limited by speed difference to end up with a slightly off convergence... yeah, I like it.

[SerEdvard]

Homeless Bill, on 12 July 2013 - 11:21 AM, said:

It's not comprehensive and I think that any solution implemented should hit pinpoint weapons harder than ones that will spread damage.

That said, I totally support this over a lot of other ideas (including anything to do with boating heat penalties).

Tombstoner, on 12 July 2013 - 11:23 AM, said:

i am in favor of any thing that makes group fired weapons hit multiple hit boxes.
However the skill crowd will not like this because it can cause some weapons to hit and others to miss. since your adding wepons spread even thought its fixed its still going to be a RNG to them.

What if your targeting a very small and thin mech. some weapons will miss on both sides. what if your trying to hit a leg? i t would actualy help in that case but some want to one shot your leg off with there L337 skill's

This idea is also very simple so i think PGI has consider it.

I totally agree. This is an imperfect fix and is not comprehensive. Having said that, I hope that it is a simple and effective enough to warrant some consideration by the devs for quick inclusion, perhaps on the public test sever.

Just trying to pick the low hanging fruit, even if its not perfectly ripe.

Edited by SerEdvard, 12 July 2013 - 11:29 AM.

[Modo44]

No. The problem with "temporary" fixes is in the quotation marks. There really needs to be a long weapon convergence time, not a "you never hit what you aim at" penalty. Something that kinda sorta works would only stick around for way too long.

Edited by Modo44, 12 July 2013 - 11:34 AM.

[Joseph Mallan]

I like it, but would also like to see it combined with Unbound Inferno's idea...
...
...
I miss the gold target lock.

[Gallowglas]

I'm much less opposed to this idea than the idea of just having every weapon go straight.

[Warge]

SerEdvard, on 12 July 2013 - 09:15 AM, said:

Yes, yet another convergence thread....

What do you think?

http://mwomercs.com/...16#entry2551416

[SerEdvard]

For those interested in the maths of this, the equation to determine lateral offset from the centerline is:

D = C * w / (1+C)

Where

D = lateral weapon offset on the target from dead center of the reticle
C = convergence distance modifier (1.15, or 15% further in my example)
w = lateral distance from centerline of the attacking mech to the weapon

Notice that the offset is independent of range to target.

For w, I assumed that the average mech is 10 m wide, this w would be about 5m for arm-mounted weapons and 2-3m for torso-mounted weapons. The closer the weapon is mounted to the centerline of the mech (or the skinnier the mech is), the less the offset will be.

Clearly an imperfect solution, but better than nothing, right?

Edited by SerEdvard, 12 July 2013 - 11:52 AM.