6 replies to this topic

[Zack Esseth]

Yes, another weapon convergence fix idea thread. I hate them too. But I have an Idea that I don't believe anyone has posted yet and since I touched on my idea in another thread I should make a more detailed thread on how my idea works.

So in my idea, all weapons have a set convergence point in relation to the area they are mounted in. All weapons converge on the CENTER of the reticule at their Max Effective range. No more focusing in and out as targets close or walk away. Pin point becomes extraordinarily hard to accomplish now since different weapons have different sightings. You wouldn't have your Remington 700 sighted at the same distance you sight in your M4.

For ease of explanation, I will do so using a Battle-master 1G. In your 1G you have four medium lasers, two in each side torso. And two ER Large lasers, one in each side torso. All of your medium laser would converge, and ONLY converge at 270m, their respected max effective range. The ER Larges on the other hand, would not cross paths with one another until 675m. So, when you alpha all the lasers in typical a barbaric manner at 270m, all the Mediums would hit on target, ON POINT, wile the ER Larges would yet have come to their intended zero. Hitting high and to the left and right respectively. Now you fire again at a new target at say 540m. This time, your four mediums have passed their point of convergence and expanded out to exactly a mirror of where they had started. Hitting around the crosair in a perfect mirrored image of to locations they fired from. Your large lasers on the other hand having yet reached their intended zero are still off from being pinpoint, but are now much closer to perfect convergence.

Arms would fallow the same mechanic in that weapons mounted in the arm are zeroed to their respective max effective range but with one new advantage. Mechs that carry Lower Arm Actuators can varry how close they converge by bringing the arms together or away but can not change the convergence of the weapons in the respective arm (bringing two weapons in the same arm to the same zero point).

For example, lets take a Timber Wolf Prime in stock load out. Each arm as we know has a ER Large Laser and a ER Medium Laser. These weapons have vastly different ranges but because they are on arms with the ability to move in and out, only the up and down focusing of the weapons in the arms is an issue. Say you fire all the lasers at an enemy standing at 400 meters. The in and out movement will have brought the weapons horizontal convergence point to 400 meters, no issue, both ER large and ER Mediums will hit in the same vertical plane. But the ER Larges will still hit high since they have a convergence point intended to hit targets out at 740.

Example two would be the ever so loved BOOM JAGGER. Jaggers lack lower arm actuators. In doing so, Both AC 20s will cross only at 270 meters. All shots from the arms at shorter distances will be right or left respectively from the gun fired, and shot after the convergence point will have passed the zero point in hit opposite the side fired from after 270 meters.

Problems I for see you all posting about and my short rebuttals.

This will only promote Boating one weapon.
Yes it is easier to only concern your self with on weapon and its converging point. Boating will be at a loss outside of the convergence point. Large weapons like ER Large lasers and ER PPcs are restricted currently by our totally loved Ghost heat system (I dont like it any more than the next guy but it works).

Future questions and answered to be posted here in edits.

[Chadamir Fitzkrieg]

I enjoy this idea

[Jugger Grimrod]

Getting inside of weapon convergence ranges has been a closely held secret of Light pilots awhile! j/k Solid observation, Zack!

[VixNix]

not a bad idea, though I think there are good arguments to be made for using targeting computers etc in these mechs and therefore the whole point s moot...

[Leo Kraeas]

the current system implements a "convergence time" which is by and far less noticeable when under fire in game. This system closes the convergence of your weapons to whatever range the reticule is at over a time of (something like) .5-.75 seconds.
It isn't beyond reason to assume that lasers have moving lenses that allow them to refocus laser beams in minor directional changes or for auto cannons to be on cradles. Arms are a moot point as having actuators allows for extreme convergence in quick fashion.

That being said; I do agree that weapons mounted in the torso should be restricted in how close in they may converge. An AC/20 may be able to converge on a target that is greater than 270m away because the amount of change required to fire beyond that is low, but converging within 120 or even 180 would require the AC/20 cradle to have to drastically change. So in theory the cradle might not be able to swing the cannon inward far enough to converge closer. At the very close ranges the AC/20 would compensate as much as it can, but would still not hit at convergence.
Arms pose a different scenario since much of the convergence is handled by the arm actuators in concert with individual weapon motors (rotors, lenses, etc.). In this case any arms that do not have actuators would be restricted to similar convergence as if they were mounted in the torso (specifically regarding the lack of lower arm actuators in many mechs). This, as posted by the OP would limit the arm weapons inward convergence while leaving outward convergence largely unaffected.

Similarly I do believe that the convergence time is a good system and would go one step further in saying that targeting computers should affect convergence time and optimum range (but not necessarily projectile travel time or maximum range). It isn't unreasonable to assume that these mega tonnage mechs have advanced technology in them that allows for improved weapons control, and this game is still a science fiction adaptation.

[Zack Esseth]

Leo Kraeas, on 06 October 2014 - 06:25 PM, said:

Lots of Good Points!

There is indeed an argument to be made for lasers on a limited amount of lenses movement for some extent of Convergence. The only problem in the research I have done on redirecting light with lenses is that the kind of lens you use to focus light into a pinpoint beam like a laser wont work to redirect light to shoot slightly off from straight forward. Then the kind of lens used to redirect light in a direction other than that of its original direction has a sever adverse effect of dispersing the light entering it into a much less focused out put, lowering the intensity of this beam. On top of that, if you focus the beam first, then redirect it, you burn out re-directive surfaces of this lens, burning out the lens and lowing the reflectivity of the laser.

Weapon cradles is your next brilliant point. And its a tough one to argue against. Unfortunately I don't know of any current turret mounted systems that mount cannons in separate cradles that allow weapons on the same controller to converge with one another. But that point is usually made moot by the fact that both guns are mounted so close together it doesn't really matter. But, I can think of how hard it would become to seal a mech from its environment with large moving weapons inside what is supposed to be a hardened target, sealed away from the elements. In Table top, when a mech enters water and falls over, if a breach occurs in the torsos, it destroys that torso or the mech entirely. You can use flexible seals like rubber boots but they just don't feel like they would work well in situations where mechs get hot, really hot. On top of that, these cradles would need to withstand enormous recoil from these heavy rifles, allow for flexible feed lines and not hurt the reliability of the gun. Yes these can be considered as "already calculated in the weapons weight and crit space" in lore these weapons where typically attached straight to the hardest points on the chassis they could be fitted to. I light of the Targeting computer, that could give justification as to why it adds so much weight to your mech. These advanced cradles on all of your weapons allowing for greater accuracy in "All Ranges" is more in line with what the computer should do. We all know with today's computers that seven tonnes of computers would be SO MUCH MORE physical computer that what would be needed to assist in aiming the weapons on your mech.

And lastly, it is within all reason to believe that a futuristic society could develop devises for exactly what your talking about. But lets remember that the Succession wars basically blew the IS back to using some of the same technology used today. And would be reason why the clans targeting computer is what I just said it could be.

[Zack Esseth]

So it was brought up on another forum on a different site that my Idea would create a shift into making LRMS over powered again. So here is a touch on why LRMs are OP and why they are UP.

Lets start with why are they overpowered. Since basically everything had been made to make cancel out ECM LRMS had received quite a substantial speed boost. That was toned back a touch but they are faster today than they where a year ago when they where complete garbage. The devices that break ECM such as NARC and UAV both provide a target you can lock onto without exposing yourself or an ally for at least 45seconds. On top of that, NARC isn't limited in where it sits and gives no sign to the person impacted that they have become narced. Narc also makes it easy to get everyone to focus fire cause it singles out who you can lock on. And we know, focus fire is force multiplier. Next the UAV, you could have 12 mechs with ecm and the UAV would light you all up. No single device for any amount of tonnage you can carry has that much power. It can be shot down, but you need someone to notice it and someone who is concomitant enough to do so and not all pugs feel it is necessary to shoot down a UAV. We beat Robinson Ranger Brigade using LRMs at Caustic Valley ussing these devises because they enable LRMS to be op. If they had closed on us and we hadn't had those devices to see where they where going, we would have lost.

Now lets see why they are bad. LRMs take about 7 seconds to travel their full 1000 meter range. A gauss rifle firing at a target in the same range window take .5 seconds. Ample time to find cover or break the lock. Learn to Use Cover. Cover does more than protect you from missiles, it protects people from ballistic and lasers too. You get a nice warning too when people launch LRMS at you, not much to be said about the Boom Jagger around the corner about to open you up or the approaching Dire Ultra 5 Russ. And then spotty, if not poor lock on assists from your allies. Of all things I don't want on the battle field is to be dependent on some one else for me to shoot my weapons reliably and not get shot back at. And if you have no allies with a NARC, UAV, or TAG, your in for a rough time finding your own locks and maintaining them.

ECM is another can of worms all its own and is why I have given it its own section. ECM is over powered, has been and nothing has changed in its function outside of it requiring a Hard Point. For 1.5 tons I can completely disappear from all sensors. For 1.5 tons, the beagle active probe doesn't tell me where all the enemies are. It only extends the range of my sensors a measly 145 meters or so. And it only counters ECM if I can get the carrier withing my 180 meter range all wile I can do crap about his 270 meter block out of mine. It grants the same invisibility to all in its 270 meter bubble. Its because of this function that so many devices have been made to counter it when only one device was ever intended to counter it. And without these devises LRMs are completely nullified by a single ECM carrier. There are no down sides to carry ECM, only benefits. TAG does no damage and takes an energy slot. NARC is heavy, and takes up a missile slot plus crit space for ammo. And UAVs can move once you launch them, or get shot down by those smart enough to shoot them. Once ECM is balance properly, and I have seen some great proposals on how to do so, then LRMs can be balanced properly.

With a change of convergence would there be a period of OP LRMs. Probably yes because of all the devises used to make them good and the fact they have no concern for convergence. But PGI responds loads faster to OMG ITS LURMAGEDON than they do to any other plea of the players.