12 replies to this topic

[MovinTarget]

The blowback on this is going to be awesome but I'm going to put it out there anyway... Lots of complaints and such about high/low torso weapons and such and I was just thinking that it would be a lot more realistic if torso weapons did not aim, they just shot straight forward. It would make them harder to alpha with (no complete convergence to a single point) but unless the point of convergence could be set in your mechlab so it could be tuned the pilots preferred fighting style I don't see another way.

Doing this would make alphas harder as mentioned before, but would also make arm mounted weapons, even if they are at the ankles (I'm looking at you cataphract!) much more attractive.

This is just a late night musing, I'm not convinced its a great idea, but I've never seen it discussed either...

[happy mech]

implementing some form of convergence would be good

another thing could be to make twisting and turning slower, so arm aiming is more useful, however it could hurt the twisting to shield which is a big part of the game imo

[Spleenslitta]

The title for your thread made me think it was about something completly different.
I got an alternative for this that i made in my own thread. I'll just paste in the post.


Instead of one circle representing our arm weapons we get two.
The closer we are to where we aim the further apart the arm circles are since it only converges at longer ranges.
I'm thinking full arm convergence at 300-600 meters. But who knows really...




Example 2 has an individual X shaped crosshair for each torso mounted weapon and circles for the arms.
This is so we don't confuse torso and arm mounted weapons so easily.

Example 3 is my favorite. My Vindicator 1X is a good example since it has a bit of everything.
3xMG's in LA, PPC in RA, SRM6 in LT and ML in head.

It actually tells us how far the spread could become for SRM, LBX and MG if fired at where it's currently aimed.
The bigger the circle or X is the further the spread will be.

Color coded crosshairs too. Red = energy, blue = ballistics, green = missiles....you know the drill.
When a weapon is within optimal ranges it goes bright colored, but darkens when it's within maximum range.
And it becomes almost black when it won't do any damage at all since it's beyond maximum range.

I know some will think it's too advanced but i think it wouldn't be too hard to get used to.

[Mazzyplz]

this is all unnecesary.
all you need is to get rid of arm lock completely, and add slow convergence to the torso weapons too.

it would take 1-1.5 seconds to line up a shot with all weapons, so if you get hit by 6 ppcs, then it means you were standing still for too long

[Nightmare1]

I say no to all of this, lol.

Game is fine as is. Learn to use cover and not to stand still.

[Spleenslitta]

Nightmare1, on 28 May 2015 - 11:51 AM, said:

I say no to all of this, lol.

Game is fine as is. Learn to use cover and not to stand still.

If convergence was gone chances are good PGI would remove Ghost Heat too since pinpoint damage is harder to do.

[Nightmare1]

Spleenslitta, on 28 May 2015 - 12:06 PM, said:

If convergence was gone chances are good PGI would remove Ghost Heat too since pinpoint damage is harder to do.

They tried convergence.

It was horrible.

I'd rather not relive that experience.

As for Ghost Heat, they could balance the game without using it.

[Spleenslitta]

Nightmare1, on 28 May 2015 - 12:08 PM, said:

They tried convergence.

It was horrible.

I'd rather not relive that experience.

As for Ghost Heat, they could balance the game without using it.

Ummmm....Convergence is in the game right now.
It's what makes all the weapons focus on a single spot no matter where the weapons are mounted on your mech if you didn't know.
The drawings in my post #3 is an alternate take on how our crosshairs could work if convergence was removed from the game.

[Nightmare1]

Spleenslitta, on 28 May 2015 - 12:15 PM, said:

Ummmm....Convergence is in the game right now.
It's what makes all the weapons focus on a single spot no matter where the weapons are mounted on your mech if you didn't know.
The drawings in my post #3 is an alternate take on how our crosshairs could work if convergence was removed from the game.

Listen to what I mean, not what I say.

What I'm trying to articulate, but didn't do very well in my last post, is that what we have now is preferable to what we used to have and what you are suggesting. I've seen no convergence; there's a reason why convergence was implemented.

[Spleenslitta]

Nightmare1, on 28 May 2015 - 12:18 PM, said:

Listen to what I mean, not what I say.

What I'm trying to articulate, but didn't do very well in my last post, is that what we have now is preferable to what we used to have and what you are suggesting. I've seen no convergence; there's a reason why convergence was implemented.

That's better. Please look at it this way.

Advantages from having convergence.
- Easier to learn to play.
- Easier to play means a wider audience of players.
- Some like doing lots of damage to single point and win quick.
- Smaller differences between mechs from weapon locations makes for easier balancing.

Removing convergence gets us these advantages.
- More individuality in mechs.
- Possible removal of Ghost Heat which really doesn't make any logical sense.
Some mechs will still be able to boat with good effect though. Huncback 4P for example.
- It's canonical. In the novels mechs are very inaccurate.
- Possible bigger differences between players ELO because of accuracy values. So players are more likely to fight at their own skill level.

- Less boating means more fun playing since we won't be firing 7 MPL's all the time.
- Longer TTK (time to kill) means PGI get what they want. They'll be happy which isn't exactly a bad thing.
- Game will demand more of you to play with high skill. Whenever my brain switches into idle mode while i play i get bored.

Do you want the game to be point and click or do you want to boil the brain figuring out your next move?
I prefer having a challenge so i choose the later. Tried boating a few times back in Founders beta...got bored reaaaallly fast.
I play using non meta tactics with non meta builds to challenge myself and prevent brain idle mode from activating.

[Nightmare1]

Spleenslitta, on 28 May 2015 - 12:37 PM, said:

That's better. Please look at it this way.

Advantages from having convergence.
- Easier to learn to play.
- Easier to play means a wider audience of players.
- Some like doing lots of damage to single point and win quick.
- Smaller differences between mechs from weapon locations makes for easier balancing.

Removing convergence gets us these advantages.
- More individuality in mechs.
- Possible removal of Ghost Heat which really doesn't make any logical sense.
Some mechs will still be able to boat with good effect though. Huncback 4P for example.
- It's canonical. In the novels mechs are very inaccurate.
- Possible bigger differences between players ELO because of accuracy values. So players are more likely to fight at their own skill level.

- Less boating means more fun playing since we won't be firing 7 MPL's all the time.
- Longer TTK (time to kill) means PGI get what they want. They'll be happy which isn't exactly a bad thing.
- Game will demand more of you to play with high skill. Whenever my brain switches into idle mode while i play i get bored.

Do you want the game to be point and click or do you want to boil the brain figuring out your next move?
I prefer having a challenge so i choose the later. Tried boating a few times back in Founders beta...got bored reaaaallly fast.
I play using non meta tactics with non meta builds to challenge myself and prevent brain idle mode from activating.

Not sure about you, but my brain is always calculating my next move, lol.

Like I said, I've seen the game without convergence. It wasn't fun. In fact, it was frustrating. I'd rather not have that again. I currently play other games that have convergence mechanics like you suggest, rather than instant convergence. They're frustrating too; it always boils down to who has the fastest and most powerful weapon. They aren't thinking games; they're run-and-gun games where the best reflexes and most volume of firepower win. With MWO, the game is more precision-oriented and has a nice emphasis on offensive and defensive fighting, something you don't see in other games that lack instant convergence.

Other downsides to non-convergence:

*Decrease in the number of Lights and Meds
*More problems with Hit-Reg
*Creates a spray-and-pray style game with more run-and-gun tactics and close up brawling to counter convergence
*Panders to lasers and SRMs and makes it harder to hit with ACs
*Will push things towards LRMs again
*Drive away new players from a game that already has a steep learning curve
*Kills snipers, skirmishers, and quick gameplay elements
*Makes the matches less fluid and far more static

Side factors you aren't considering at all:

*TTK isn't a problem if you're smart. Simply put, don't stand around in the open or charge into the enem ranks.
*The game is currently high-risk, high-reward which is a lot of fun. Removing convergence makes it more dull and less exciting; you have more of a ponderous slugging match that favors heavier chassis and less of a biting, volatile match that favors all weights.
*Boating is not a bad thing
*Metas always evolve and merely removing convergence won't stop them. In fact, I predict the new metas will be large engines with lots of armor, LBX, SRMs, SSRMs, LRMs and SPLs (fast cycle times, spread weapons, and lock-on weapons to defeat non-convergence).
*Certain Mech chassis that rely on pinpoint damage will disappear entirely.

Personally speaking, I got past the hand-wringing over metas a while back. I've never been one to run them and still run favorite, non-meta builds that I can use to ROFLStomp meta pilots. I play this game for fun and relaxation; I don't want to get all tensed up because I've got to wait for my cross-hairs to line up in m Locust so that I can try to get a quick shot before an Assault Mech fly-swatters me with a massive array of weaponry. I also want to run whatever I want, whenever I want without being forced to sell my Mechs and weapons to buy replacement ones simply because there's no way to hit accurately without making myself incredibly vulnerable.

No convergence is a bad idea. I've been there. Trust me.

Edit: If it is optional, like 3d-person view, then I don't have an issue with it. I don't want to be forced into using yet another broken system though.

Edited by Nightmare1, 28 May 2015 - 12:54 PM.

[Spleenslitta]

Nightmare1, on 28 May 2015 - 12:53 PM, said:

Not sure about you, but my brain is always calculating my next move, lol.

Like I said, I've seen the game without convergence. It wasn't fun. In fact, it was frustrating. I'd rather not have that again. I currently play other games that have convergence mechanics like you suggest, rather than instant convergence. They're frustrating too; it always boils down to who has the fastest and most powerful weapon. They aren't thinking games; they're run-and-gun games where the best reflexes and most volume of firepower win. With MWO, the game is more precision-oriented and has a nice emphasis on offensive and defensive fighting, something you don't see in other games that lack instant convergence.

Other downsides to non-convergence:

*Decrease in the number of Lights and Meds
*More problems with Hit-Reg
*Creates a spray-and-pray style game with more run-and-gun tactics and close up brawling to counter convergence
*Panders to lasers and SRMs and makes it harder to hit with ACs
*Will push things towards LRMs again
*Drive away new players from a game that already has a steep learning curve
*Kills snipers, skirmishers, and quick gameplay elements
*Makes the matches less fluid and far more static

Side factors you aren't considering at all:

*TTK isn't a problem if you're smart. Simply put, don't stand around in the open or charge into the enem ranks.
*The game is currently high-risk, high-reward which is a lot of fun. Removing convergence makes it more dull and less exciting; you have more of a ponderous slugging match that favors heavier chassis and less of a biting, volatile match that favors all weights.
*Boating is not a bad thing
*Metas always evolve and merely removing convergence won't stop them. In fact, I predict the new metas will be large engines with lots of armor, LBX, SRMs, SSRMs, LRMs and SPLs (fast cycle times, spread weapons, and lock-on weapons to defeat non-convergence).
*Certain Mech chassis that rely on pinpoint damage will disappear entirely.

Personally speaking, I got past the hand-wringing over metas a while back. I've never been one to run them and still run favorite, non-meta builds that I can use to ROFLStomp meta pilots. I play this game for fun and relaxation; I don't want to get all tensed up because I've got to wait for my cross-hairs to line up in m Locust so that I can try to get a quick shot before an Assault Mech fly-swatters me with a massive array of weaponry. I also want to run whatever I want, whenever I want without being forced to sell my Mechs and weapons to buy replacement ones simply because there's no way to hit accurately without making myself incredibly vulnerable.

No convergence is a bad idea. I've been there. Trust me.

Edit: If it is optional, like 3d-person view, then I don't have an issue with it. I don't want to be forced into using yet another broken system though.

I make a point of never really laying plans actually. It in the link below and it's freakin' weird in a major way.

Good point about weapon choices, Hit-reg.
Please look at example 3 in my post #3. Would you have a hard time adjusting to those crosshairs? I think you would adapt fast.
If new players can manage to learn to aim with unlocked arms they can do this too.

Kills snipers? It just makes snipers rely on fewer long range weapons rather than 4 of them.
I snipe with a single ER LL or ER PPC in my Kit Fox depending on my mood. I even tried a single UAC2 once with some limited success.

As for me not thinking about TTK...i'm never in the open unless i'm the last one on my team and i do a kamikaze charge.
Guess the ultimate proof of that is here-
http://mwomercs.com/...-tactics-guide/

I think removing convergence would make the game more exciting.
Maybe a small point in your favor when it comes to light mechs but i don't think it would be a big deal at all.
Kit Fox is my favorite mech.

Pinpoint dependant mechs would dissappear? Would it not be the opposite?
Hunchback 4P would be easier to play than other mechs since it's good at dealing damage to a single location with many weapons.
I find that when i'm tensed up in a game it's a sign i'm enjoying the challenge.

I guess we agree on one thing....we disagree.

Edited by Spleenslitta, 28 May 2015 - 01:17 PM.

[MovinTarget]

Wow, I post half-delirious a couple of weeks ago and a real conversation comes about.

Just to be clear though, I would still expect convergence for all Arm weapons, the thought is that torso/head weapons would not converge to arm weapons. It would be an interesting thing to have the ability to tinker w/ the convergence of non-arm weaps, setting weapons to converge at a fixed distance and perhaps even having it configurable per weapon/weapon group.

Sometimes I almost wish that they had two tiers of gameplay; normal and expert where perhaps we incentivize high level players to play in expert mode and opening up an new level of configuration and competition. This way new players wouldn't have to deal with higher level concepts like convergence and stuff and perhaps not get thrown in with the wolves, while the uber-pilots would be facing consistently higher level competition and perhaps better rewards. Make it unattractive regress from expert level b/c the gameplay would be more basic or something...