69 replies to this topic

[Andi Nagasia]

Because allot of Convergence Topics are coming up, Again,
Many have Ideas of how Convergence could be Implemented, no To are alike,
i thought perhaps i should take a swing at the Problem and perhaps a Solution,


=First the Problem=
now this is a Simple Problem, Pin-Point & High Alphas,
But what is wrong with Mechs having Pin-Point & High Alphas?
Well, Pin-Point(Everything hitting 1 spot) & High Alphas(lots of damage),
so allot of damage all hitting a single point on a mech destroying it,

most FPS style games work off of what is known as a ray cast,
here a Ray or beam is cast out from the camera, into the 3D Space,
when this ray hits something it in the 3D world, its sends its location,
usually to a weapon, which then points to the location of contact,
-
this is how no mater where your weapon is located,
you always can hit what in aim at, this is also true for MWO,

-Example-

(Convergence1)
this is how MWO behaves right now when playing,


=My Idea & Solution=
not all Simple Problems have overly complicated solutions,
so i looked for a way Convergence could be implemented into MWO,
without much Coding and Scripting trouble, and without a large patch,

my Idea is to make weapons target past the target to simulate an Anti-Convergence,
what this would mean setting the distance to the Target Past that Target for targeting,
in Essence the father past the target you Aim at the less converged your weapons will be,
-
to allow for Sniping not to Suffer From this Change ive Made it Speed Based,
in a Ratio, of 1Kph:%1Range, this way at Not moving will still give you Perfect Convergence,
-
in this Below Example the Left Atlas is moving 50Kph, so its Aiming %50 Father way,
so if an enemy is 300m away, your weapons instead target 450m past them(+150m),
this will make Alphas Wail Moving Full Speed Less Accurate, without much Coding,

-Example-

(Convergence2)

But what about my Convergence Changing as the Range Changes?
well this system takes into account your Mechs distance to the Enemy Mech,
so as-long as the Mech is going a Constant Speed it will have Stable Convergence,
Speed,.......Distance to Enemy,.......Weapons Target,.......Convergence%,...
50Kph,................100m,..........................150m,........................-50%,..............
50Kph,................200m,..........................300m,........................-50%,..............
50Kph,................300m,..........................450m,........................-50%,..............
50Kph,................400m,..........................600m,........................-50%,..............
50Kph,................500m,..........................750m,........................-50%,..............
no matter the distance to target the Convergence would remain Static and Stable,
your shots will always hit in the same locations at any range at Constant Speed,

-Example-

(Convergence3)

But what about my Convergence Changing as the Range Changes?
well this system takes into account your Mechs Speed to the Weapon Convergence,
so as-long as the Players Mech is Slowing down the Mechs Convergence will Increase,
Speed,.......Distance to Enemy,.......Weapons Target,.......Convergence%,...
80Kph,................300m,..........................540m,........................-80%,..............
60Kph,................300m,..........................480m,........................-60%,..............
40Kph,................300m,..........................420m,........................-40%,..............
20Kph,................300m,..........................360m,........................-20%,..............
0Kph,..................300m,..........................300m,.........................-0%,..............
no matter the distance to target the Convergence would remain Linked to Speed,


=Conclusion=
yes wail decreasing Pin-Poin, this may increase aiming Difficulty in MWO,
but because of its Dynamic nature, it would be Easy-To-Learn/Hard-To-Master,
remember this proposed Cone-of-Fire does not widen the farther away it gets,
because of this players wont have to Adjust every time they look down range,
-
i dont feel this System will turn away New Players, if anything it may call to them,
distinguishing MWO from other Point-Click Mech shooters, wail Increasing TTK,
and Living longer in a battle will always help with Strategy and tactics,
which i believe is the Foundation of all Great MechWarrior Games,


=BUT LIGHTS!=
but what about lights? will they be harder to hit with this?
yes they will be, but they will also have less Convergence at High Speed,
in so keeping balance with the rest of the game, wail lowing Pin-Point Alphas,


=Extra if Above is not enough=
also to add in some External realism to MWO and this Solution,
a slight rumble could be added to a Mechs walk(think 1/4th JJ shake wail moving),
standing still will remove the slight rumble and allow you to aim more effectively,
at the cost of course of being a still target to your Enemies(Give&Take),


=For GD=
(Click Here)

Thoughts? Comments? Concerns?
Please Vote, Thanks

Edit- Spelling,
Edit2- Added Lights,
Edit3- Added New Options,
Edit4- Added Conclusion,
Edit5- Full Rewrite,

Edited by Andi Nagasia, 09 February 2016 - 05:10 PM.

[Void Angel]

Convergence is a dead issue, my friend. The only good way to implement it is to integrate it with HSR - anything else makes you use Kentucky windage just to fire your weapons at thing. Not all things which are simple to suggest are simple in practice - hard-locking convergence at a set proportion of distance to the target would make an already difficult-to-learn game even more impenetrable to the uninitiated.

[Andi Nagasia]

Void Angel, on 07 April 2015 - 08:09 PM, said:

Convergence is a dead issue, my friend. The only good way to implement it is to integrate it with HSR - anything else makes you use Kentucky windage just to fire your weapons at thing. Not all things which are simple to suggest are simple in practice - hard-locking convergence at a set proportion of distance to the target would make an already difficult-to-learn game even more impenetrable to the uninitiated.

the way this is implemented would not have that problem,
as its taking into account your Mechs distance to the Enemy Mech,
so no matter how far away you are the Convergence would be the same,
distance to Enemy,.......Where Weapons Aim,.......Convergence%,...
100m,.....................................300m,..............................5%,..............
200m,.....................................600m,..............................5%,..............
300m,.....................................900m,..............................5%,..............
400m,.....................................1200m,............................5%,..............
500m,.....................................1500m,............................5%,..............
no matter the distance to target the Convergence would remain static,

another way to look at it, real life at a shooting range,
distance to Target,.......Where your Aiming,.......Distance off Target%,...
10feet,...............................30feet past,.....................3Inches,................
20feet,...............................60feet past,.....................3Inches,................
30feet,...............................90feet past,.....................3Inches,................

[Void Angel]

Void Angel, on 07 April 2015 - 08:09 PM, said:

Convergence is a dead issue, my friend. The only good way to implement it is to integrate it with HSR - anything else makes you use Kentucky windage just to fire your weapons at thing. Not all things which are simple to suggest are simple in practice - hard-locking convergence at a set proportion of distance to the target would make an already difficult-to-learn game even more impenetrable to the uninitiated.

[Hotthedd]

Void Angel, on 07 April 2015 - 08:09 PM, said:

Convergence is a dead issue, my friend. The only good way to implement it is to integrate it with HSR - anything else makes you use Kentucky windage just to fire your weapons at thing. Not all things which are simple to suggest are simple in practice - hard-locking convergence at a set proportion of distance to the target would make an already difficult-to-learn game even more impenetrable to the uninitiated.

It is not a dead issue, as evidenced by the continuous topic posts on the subject.
God forbid we make the game require more than a mouse click to have all of your shots instantly converge perfectly. Think of the e-peens! So many players who think they are leet because they can point and click would actually have to AIM! Oh, the humanity! This game was SUPPOSED to be closer to a sim, but we keep edging closer and closer to the arcade. 3PV, re-spawns, etc....

SAVE THE E-PEENS! KEEP MW:O as a minimum viable product appealing to the lowest common denominator!

[Koniving]

Void Angel, on 07 April 2015 - 08:09 PM, said:

hard-locking convergence at a set proportion of distance to the target would make an already difficult-to-learn game even more impenetrable to the uninitiated.

Strangely, cone of fires don't make games difficult to get into, but something that would essentially introduce a literal cone of non-random fire would?

Hotthedd, on 08 April 2015 - 05:59 AM, said:

It is not a dead issue, as evidenced by the continuous topic posts on the subject.

I wonder if he means in the sense that PGI won't do something that would increase time to kill instead of decreasing it (like, oh, I dunno, the plethora of quirks to super-enhance weapons as if they weren't already deadly enough)?

[Void Angel]

We're not talking about cone-of fire, though - certainly I've not mentioned or advocated it -we're talking about forced inaccuracy. I'm just not sanguine about not being able to aim my weapons with the computer-assisted reticles whose pupose is to let me aim my weapons. Certainly, we already have projectile speeds and such, but this is a qualitatively different approach. Personally, I'd rather have delayed convergence; I like the idea of having to focus on a target instead of simply snapping off shots - that's what was great about Counterstrike's accuracy system, though I wouldn't want that ported here.

Hotthedd, people keep on posting in other areas that the earth is flat. Just because a few of the same people insist on talking about it doesn't mean that it's a relevant topic. Similarly, embarrassing yourself with a straw man says nothing about my argument.

Edited by Void Angel, 08 April 2015 - 09:49 PM.

[Xione87]

Found a slight problem with your suggestion: it would only reduce pin-point damage on certain mechs. Specifically: the weapons would have to be mounted on different limbs for the cone to have a marked effect. Mount 2 ERPPCS on a TDRs right shoulder or a HBK-4P or a SHD-2K and I'm sure these would still hit the same component. While the ERPPCS on an Awesome will likely spread to different components.
So this implementation will see other mechs rise as the PPFLD masters but it likely will not eliminate the problem (entirely).

I do like the idea of a very slight shake when moving, but only for certain weapons (Gauss/PPC) to encourage standing still for snipers

[Hotthedd]

Void Angel, on 08 April 2015 - 09:36 PM, said:

We're not talking about cone-of fire, though - certainly I've not mentioned or advocated it -we're talking about forced inaccuracy. I'm just not sanguine about not being able to aim my weapons with the computer-assisted reticles whose pupose is to let me aim my weapons. Certainly, we already have projectile speeds and such, but this is a qualitatively different approach. Personally, I'd rather have delayed convergence; I like the idea of having to focus on a target instead of simply snapping off shots - that's what was great about Counterstrike's accuracy system, though I wouldn't want that ported here.

Hotthedd, people keep on posting in other areas that the earth is flat. Just because a few of the same people insist on talking about it doesn't mean that it's a relevant topic. Similarly, embarrassing yourself with a straw man says nothing about my argument.

Let's talk about a straw man, Void Angel.

For example, comparing a supposed alternate topic to this one (flat earth), and tearing down that topic.

Pinpoint Alphas (even pinpoint group fire) ARE a bad game mechanic when coupled with the section system we have in MechWarrior. Even if I were the only person to say anything about it, the problem would exist.

[Void Angel]

That's not a straw man - it's called reductio ad absurdum. You claimed that people continually making posts makes the topic relevant; I disagreed, and pointed out that your flawed reasoning on that point applies equally well to whether the Flat Earth Society is relevant. This is not a straw man, and simply accusing me of your own failings does not excuse your own - nor does it make your unsupported and illogical accusation valid. Instead, you are engaging in an ad hominem attack combined with a false cause fallacy - and then throwing out a red herring for good measure:

Your response is, first and foremost, false-to-fact. I did not "tear down" the flat earth position; I mentioned it as a clear case example - an example so unambiguous that it is not expected to be challenged by the listener, such as the morality of murder for fun, and the idea that the earth is actually flat. So I haven't built up or torn down anything, nor have I misrepresented anyone's reasoning or position, as is required by a straw man. You did that in the post I was calling you on; I did not do it to you - yet you've done it again to me here. I'd admire your persistence if you didn't so resemble a child with a hammer finding nails. You follow up by using a red herring - whether or not pinpoint alphas (which do not require a title case) are bad for MWO is not the topic under discussion. Rather, you were failing to defend your faulty reasoning that a few people continually posting threads on a topic means that the issue is important to enough players that spending time and resources is justified: that it is, in a word, "relevant" - simply because a few people want it to be.

Pinpoint convergence isn't a hugely important issue just because you want it to be. Instead, it's a dead issue, like the heat system and removing the Gauss charge-up. PGI has already made a decision and moved forward with these things, and at no time in the foreseeable future will they return to them - whether or not you (or I) agree with them, they have selected different solutions and moved on. Simply being stubborn and reposting the topic over and over and over will not change this; misrepresenting other people and trying to cheat your way out of being wrong isn't going to change it - and neither will the fact that you still have not succeeded in actually addressing my objection with a single valid thought.

[Nightmare1]

I vote no on this for several reasons.

1) There is already a form of convergence in the game. Granted, it is not as significant as many would like, but it does exist. If I belly up to another Mech and Alpha with something wide like a TDR, not all of the shots will go into the component I'm targeting. Some of them will strike other parts of the enemy Mech. Similarly, if I'm firing at a moving Mech, I have to adjust for his movement when firing from different places, even if the weapons I'm using are all the same. Case in point, if I fire two PPCs from different locations on my Mech (let's say like on a Kit Fox Prime), they will not strike the same component. Even if the enemy Mech is still and I am the only one moving, the PPCs will often hit separate components. To remedy this, I have to fire them separately, making a slight adjustment in between shots to make the second PPC strike the desired target area. Really, the only time you completely defeat convergence is if you are using instantaneous weapons like lasers or pulse lasers. They strike as soon as you pull the trigger and, so long as you keep distance between yourself and your target, will not miss the component. That makes sense since they have no recoil and it can be thought that a simple targeting computer could adjust their fire for Mech movement (that was the idea behind pulses in the first place anyways - hyper accurate laser bursts with computer managed micro adjustments in between each pulse). The only other way is if identical weapon systems are mounted in the same component. This is akin to triple AC/2s being mounted in a BLR-1Ds arm.

2) I really don't believe that pin-point Alphas and TTK are a problem. Frankly, if your personal TTK is too low, then you are doing something wrong in this game. I frequently see matches go ten minutes with sizable groups on each side. On top of that, good groups will concentrate fire. Even with convergence, concentrated fire will still drop you very quickly, resulting in only a negligible change to TTK. Pin-Point Alphas, while sometimes frustrating, are high-risk, high-reward attack methods that result in high heat and a reduced ability to fight systematically. In short, if you miss or fail to kill your enemy, you may not be able to continue fighting effectively because you have accrued too much heat or have too long a recharge time. Personally, I don't like the idea of an artificially induced nerf to my personal accuracy. It's a irritation to me when I play games that have it because it makes the game more frustrating to play and is often unrealistic.

3) Your convergence suggestion would essentially kill long range combat. The IS Gauss Rifle is already a scarcity due to its propensity to detonate and difficulty in firing. Adding in artificial inaccuracy based on your suggestion will put it in the grave along with all other slow-firing, heavy hitting weapons. What we will see instead is the rise of fast brawlers mounting rapid fire weaponry, with the new meta being Mechs that can get in close to each other quickly while firing as fast as possible to overcome convergence by their sheer rapidity of fire and proximity to each other. We'll also see a resurgence of LRMs and an increase in Streak usage.

4) Lights will become invincible with your suggestion. Even if all their quirks were removed, the chance of accurately killing a Light would be very low. If I fire at a Locust moving at 170 kph at 300 meters, and my weapons think they're hitting 900 meters away, then only dumb luck would enable me to actually hit the Locust.

5) We have enough hit reg problems as it is. Any kind of convergence idea should be shelved until that is fixed. Otherwise, it's like trying to put a 500 lb weight on a scale that can only measure up to 100 lbs. The only thing you wind up with when you're done is a broken scale. Similarly, convergence...would...WRECK...this game, breaking it so badly that it might not be fixable.

As such, here is what I predict:

Lights become the dominant chassis
SPLs, MGs, Streaks, LRMs, MPLs, and AC/2s become the preferred weapons of choice
Long range combat dies
Hit reg finally bites the dust and there is a mass exodus of players to games that work

[Lightfoot]

I think Convergence protects Lights because a miss misses completely, but with a 1-3 meter wide footprint one to several weapons will hit everytime like a shotgun. That benefits the mech with the most armor and Lights would get shot up pretty fast.

[Nightmare1]

Lightfoot, on 09 April 2015 - 02:14 PM, said:

I think Convergence protects Lights because a miss misses completely, but with a 1-3 meter wide footprint one to several weapons will hit everytime like a shotgun. That benefits the mech with the most armor and Lights would get shot up pretty fast.

That basically reduces us to Halo or CoD sprayin' and prayin' though.

Personally speaking, I can put an AC/20 into a Locust or Spider. It's not easy, but it's possible. Convergence would prevent me from being able to do that, rending my AC/20 useless for fighting anything faster or smaller than a Heavy Mech.

[Andi Nagasia]

Xione87, on 08 April 2015 - 10:42 PM, said:

Found a slight problem with your suggestion: it would only reduce pin-point damage on certain mechs. Specifically: the weapons would have to be mounted on different limbs for the cone to have a marked effect. Mount 2 ERPPCS on a TDRs right shoulder or a HBK-4P or a SHD-2K and I'm sure these would still hit the same component. While the ERPPCS on an Awesome will likely spread to different components.
So this implementation will see other mechs rise as the PPFLD masters but it likely will not eliminate the problem (entirely).

I do like the idea of a very slight shake when moving, but only for certain weapons (Gauss/PPC) to encourage standing still for snipers

well its not a perfect idea and i guess i have to work on it,
but every post on whats wrong with it lets me work to fixing it,

[Andi Nagasia]

Xione87, on 08 April 2015 - 10:42 PM, said:

Found a slight problem with your suggestion: it would only reduce pin-point damage on certain mechs. Specifically: the weapons would have to be mounted on different limbs for the cone to have a marked effect. Mount 2 ERPPCS on a TDRs right shoulder or a HBK-4P or a SHD-2K and I'm sure these would still hit the same component. While the ERPPCS on an Awesome will likely spread to different components.
So this implementation will see other mechs rise as the PPFLD masters but it likely will not eliminate the problem (entirely).

I do like the idea of a very slight shake when moving, but only for certain weapons (Gauss/PPC) to encourage standing still for snipers

actually this pinpoint reduction would be weapons in relation to their cockpits,
so the farther the weapon from the cockpit the more inaccurate the Weapon,

[Void Angel]

Nightmare1, on 09 April 2015 - 02:45 PM, said:

Personally speaking, I can put an AC/20 into a Locust or Spider. It's not easy, but it's possible. Convergence would prevent me from being able to do that, rending my AC/20 useless for fighting anything faster or smaller than a Heavy Mech.

Point of order: it is actually impossible to put an AC/20 in a Locust - you literally don't have the tons.

[Nightmare1]

Void Angel, on 09 April 2015 - 06:18 PM, said:

Point of order: it is actually impossible to put an AC/20 in a Locust - you literally don't have the tons.

ROFL

Clarification: I can send an AC/20 shell through...etc, etc, etc...

[Hotthedd]

Void Angel, on 09 April 2015 - 12:43 PM, said:

That's not a straw man - it's called reductio ad absurdum. You claimed that people continually making posts makes the topic relevant; I disagreed, and pointed out that your flawed reasoning on that point applies equally well to whether the Flat Earth Society is relevant. This is not a straw man, and simply accusing me of your own failings does not excuse your own - nor does it make your unsupported and illogical accusation valid. Instead, you are engaging in an ad hominem attack combined with a false cause fallacy - and then throwing out a red herring for good measure:

You did not tear down MY argument that pinpoint alpha strikes (combined with the mech section system) is a game design flaw.
You did not tear down my argument that it IS a relevant topic, due to a significant amount of the player base continuously claiming that it is, AND providing feasible alternatives.
Instead, you falsely equivocated that to many people claiming the earth is flat (reduction ad absurdum) and attacked THAT position (straw man)
You are the only one to throw in any ad hominem attack, please show me where I attacked you.

Void Angel, on 09 April 2015 - 12:43 PM, said:

I'd admire your persistence if you didn't so resemble a child with a hammer finding nails. You follow up by using a red herring - whether or not pinpoint alphas (which do not require a title case) are bad for MWO is not the topic under discussion. Rather, you were failing to defend your faulty reasoning that a few people continually posting threads on a topic means that the issue is important to enough players that spending time and resources is justified: that it is, in a word, "relevant" - simply because a few people want it to be.

Still, you do not attack the argument, nor do you support your own, but you attack me.

Void Angel, on 09 April 2015 - 12:43 PM, said:

Pinpoint convergence isn't a hugely important issue just because you want it to be. Instead, it's a dead issue, like the heat system and removing the Gauss charge-up. PGI has already made a decision and moved forward with these things, and at no time in the foreseeable future will they return to them - whether or not you (or I) agree with them, they have selected different solutions and moved on. Simply being stubborn and reposting the topic over and over and over will not change this; misrepresenting other people and trying to cheat your way out of being wrong isn't going to change it - and neither will the fact that you still have not succeeded in actually addressing my objection with a single valid thought.

Pinpoint convergence is an issue, whether you or I want it to be or not. Your claiming otherwise does not make it so.
I have not misrepresented other people.
I have not tried to cheat ANYTHING. If anything, your personal attacks are an attempt to silence the opposition by bully tactics.
Your objection to the removal of instantaneous pinpoint multiple weapon convergence is based on WHAT?
What YOU want.
NOT the Battletech universe.
NOT physics.

(In case you missed it, those are the bases of MY argument to remove it)

If all you plan to do from this point on is to attack me, let me save you the time and effort. Message received. We can end our little part of this discussion here.

If you actually have a valid reason to keep it, other than:

PGI is keeping it (appeal to authority), or
Most people have no problem with it (argument ad populum),

then by all means lets hear it.

[Void Angel]

Calling you out on your tactics is not "attacking you." Similarly, "tearing down" conclusions you have presented without support and called arguments is neither required of me nor germane to the topic of your rhetorical misconduct - which can be easily seen by simply clicking the backlink arrows on the quote boxes.

You've not actually argued any of the positions you hold here. You just make ex cathedra pronouncements, assuming facts not in evidence, and then challenge me to disprove arguments you haven't made, and conclusions you haven't justified. You're expected to support your own position in any debate; trying to get out of doing that, as you are, is cheating - and so is characterizing any criticism of your reprehensible debate practices as "personal attacks."

In short, your amateurish attempt to shift the burden of proof (and, ever so conveniently, the topic) onto me and my claims isn't going to work. Your objection to my statement was invalid; your attack on my rebuttal was invalid, and your subsequent misbehavior is not valid argument either. You have utterly failed to challenge (or possibly evenunderstand) my reasoning, or to defend your own. Remedial instruction in logic and rhetoric are available at your local institute of higher learning.

Come up with something other than "no, you are!" You're embarrassing yourself.

PS: Poisoning the well against an anticipated argument by accusing it a priori of the very fallacy you yourself are committing was especially clumsy.

Edited by Void Angel, 10 April 2015 - 12:36 PM.

[Hotthedd]

Void Angel, on 10 April 2015 - 12:34 PM, said:

Calling you out on your tactics is not "attacking you." Similarly, "tearing down" conclusions you have presented without support and called arguments is neither required of me nor germane to the topic of your rhetorical misconduct - which can be easily seen by simply clicking the backlink arrows on the quote boxes.

You've not actually argued any of the positions you hold here. You just make ex cathedra pronouncements, assuming facts not in evidence, and then challenge me to disprove arguments you haven't made, and conclusions you haven't justified. You're expected to support your own position in any debate; trying to get out of doing that, as you are, is cheating - and so is characterizing any criticism of your reprehensible debate practices as "personal attacks."

In short, your amateurish attempt to shift the burden of proof (and, ever so conveniently, the topic) onto me and my claims isn't going to work. Your objection to my statement was invalid; your attack on my rebuttal was invalid, and your subsequent misbehavior is not valid argument either. You have utterly failed to challenge (or possibly evenunderstand) my reasoning, or to defend your own. Remedial instruction in logic and rhetoric are available at your local institute of higher learning.

Come up with something other than "no, you are!" You're embarrassing yourself.

PS: Poisoning the well against an anticipated argument by accusing it a priori of the very fallacy you yourself are committing was especially clumsy.

Do you know what "projection" is?

Once again your ENTIRE response was an ad hominem attack. Address the issue, or end our discussion.

Philosophy 1021 was the course my University offered on Logic. I got an A.