74 replies to this topic

[RainbowToh]

Now that HSR is rolling in, PPCs are viable once more, and all the poptarting n boatsniping, i think it is time to review this old bugbear topic.....

The pinpoint convergence vs cone of fire argument then. Or some kind of compromise system of the two.

Moving + Torso tracking = Small cone of fire

Stationary + Torso tracking = Minimal cone of fire

Modern tanks have a speed cap where the maingun can fire accurately on the move. So maybe in the 31st Century they can have a perfect targeting system? Or maybe not?

Bigger the weapon group = Bigger Cone of fire?

Or make it range dependent, say beyond 600m, there will be a minimal cone of fire? What say you?

Edited by RainbowToh, 26 April 2013 - 05:59 AM.

[Zyllos]

RainbowToh, on 25 April 2013 - 12:09 PM, said:

Now that HSR is rolling in, PPCs are viable once more, and all the poptarting n boatsniping, i think it is time to review this old bugbear topic.....

The pinpoint convergence vs cone of fire argument then. Or some kind of compromise system of the two.

Moving + Torso tracking = Small cone of fire

Stationary + Torso tracking = Minimal cone of fire

Modern tanks have a speed cap where the maingun can fire accurately on the move. So maybe in the 31st Century they can have a perfect targeting system? Or maybe not?

Any modern analogy is trumped by gameplay and balance, so I think the statement about modern tanks and Battletech is moot.

But, I do agree, there needs to be some system to bring more spread to the game. From what I can tell, having been discussing this since closed beta, there are many people who are against any type of cone-of-fire. I have given and seen suggestions in removing convergence of non-arm weaponry, leaving them to fire straight ahead. Both suggestions either did not gain traction or the community/PGI just flat out does not want it included.

So this leaves us back at square one...the community and PGI can not agree there is even an issue with pin-point convergence. So, I think it's better to continue pushing the community and PGI, telling everybody that the main reason why weapon balance is impossibly hard to achieve is because all weapons will hit the same location no matter the mounted location on the mech.

If we can not convince PGI and the community that all the balance issues is stiming from pin-point convergence, this will go nowhere and MWO will follow the same path as previous MW titles, there will only be a few builds worth playing because they do not spread damage.

The whole goal of how the armor is distribued on a mech is because of the chance of that location to take hits in gameplay. But the problem is that players can pin-point all their damage onto a specific location. So no amount of armor changing will fix that. If you remove armor from one location, then people will just begin aiming at the location that is easy to take out. It's the nature of PvP games.

That is why people aim for side torsos instead of aiming for arms, it takes the arms along with them. This is especially true when you begin to get into the heavier tonnages, the target becomes easier to hit, thus more damage ends up on those locations.

In the end, having had many discussions on how to fix this issue, I personally think some type of cone-of-fire instead of a non-convergence torso weaponry system is the best solution.

Having a correctly calibrated cone-of-fire allows for balancing full speed movement and jump jetting to walking, or 50% speed movement, and standing still.

Edited by Zyllos, 25 April 2013 - 12:32 PM.

[RainbowToh]

Yup, the only reason TT could work with those weapon and armor values is the random hit location.

Well we dont want a completely random system for MWO as that takes away player control and interaction. But pinpoint accucracy up to 1000m has in itself become a problem as it allows high alpha pinpoint damage which no amount of nerfing the weapons itself can change.

We need something in the middle ground. If PGI thinks they have something (coding n stuff), they need to show us. Since MWO is kind of a revival for Battletech/Mechwarrior, we MUST NOT BE WORRIED about breaking new ground that might be different from TT and/or the past Mechwarrior titles especially if it (new ideas) can accomplish the Battletech/MW 'feel' that we have all come to love.

We have a talented and dedicated community, Im sure (hope maybe ) we can work this out.

Edited by RainbowToh, 25 April 2013 - 12:38 PM.

[MasterErrant]

RainbowToh, on 25 April 2013 - 12:09 PM, said:

Now that HSR is rolling in, PPCs are viable once more, and all the poptarting n boatsniping, i think it is time to review this old bugbear topic.....

The pinpoint convergence vs cone of fire argument then. Or some kind of compromise system of the two.

Moving + Torso tracking = Small cone of fire

Stationary + Torso tracking = Minimal cone of fire

Modern tanks have a speed cap where the maingun can fire accurately on the move. So maybe in the 31st Century they can have a perfect targeting system? Or maybe not?

Bigger the weapon group = Bigger Cone of fire?

Or make it range dependent, say beyond 600m, there will be a minimal cone of fire? What say you?

modern tanks have one main gun not a half dozen and don't fire precise shots at triple thei effective range.

[Bobzilla]

I've suggested that when a weapon with a projectile mechanic is boated, the shots leave at different velocities, basically taking away from the damage concentration at range (assuming the target is moving, if not smoke him) while not hurting the aiming aspect or any other stat on a spacific weapon. I only chose projectiles as every other weapon already spreads its damage.

http://mwomercs.com/...ost__p__2291343

[Hellcat420]

cone of fire is bad idea, especialy for energy weapons. lasers hit what they are pointed at, plain and simple. some form of cone of fire would work for balistic weapons, but putting it on energy weapons would be just plain stupid, since energy weapons dont fire physical projectiles. where the weapons hit should depend on where they are mounted on the mech.

Edited by Hellcat420, 25 April 2013 - 01:06 PM.

[RainbowToh]

Hellcat420, on 25 April 2013 - 01:05 PM, said:

cone of fire is bad idea, especialy for energy weapons. lasers hit what they are pointed at, plain and simple. some form of cone of fire would work for balistic weapons, but putting it on energy weapons would be just plain stupid, since energy weapons dont fire physical projectiles. where the weapons hit should depend on where they are mounted on the mech.

Ok fair enough LASER are somewhat 'balanced' by Damage Over Time effect. How about PPC, Particle Projectile Cannon? While it is energy based, it fires a projectile that has its own speed. Then should some kind of cone of fire be applied to PPCs then, if your rationale is that cone of fire principle should apply to projectiles.

I remember one of the devs mentioning we are actually using some kind of convergence gimbal systems. Maybe a dev can show us some figures or gameplay mechanics diagram?

[peckham33]

I like the "hitting based on where they are" idea. has anyone made a thread/poll for that?

they could allow for things like the arms turning slightly under control of the aiming computer but the actual guns don't tilt/pivot. A skilled pilot could still hit all of them on one section in chain fire or similar but one alpha strike is not as likely to hit only one place. Balanced, realistic, and predicable.

[Hellcat420]

RainbowToh, on 25 April 2013 - 01:20 PM, said:

Ok fair enough LASER are somewhat 'balanced' by Damage Over Time effect. How about PPC, Particle Projectile Cannon? While it is energy based, it fires a projectile that has its own speed. Then should some kind of cone of fire be applied to PPCs then, if your rationale is that cone of fire principle should apply to projectiles.

I remember one of the devs mentioning we are actually using some kind of convergence gimbal systems. Maybe a dev can show us some figures or gameplay mechanics diagram?

ppc does not shoot a projectile. it shoots essentially a blast of lightning, which is not a physical projectile, its a blast of energy.

Edited by Hellcat420, 25 April 2013 - 01:35 PM.

[Hammerfinn]

Particle means some sort of matter--it's even in the name: projectile.

Edited by Hammerfinn, 25 April 2013 - 02:18 PM.

[Hellcat420]

Hammerfinn, on 25 April 2013 - 02:18 PM, said:

Particle means some sort of matter--it's even in the name: projectile.

light and lasers have particles, that does not mean they function like a physical projectile.

[Renthrak]

I recently spent quite a bit of time reading through about a dozen of the novels, by numerous different authors, paying particular attention to targeting and accuracy mechanics. Based on what is consistent between different examples in the books, it is possible to approximate how the TT mechanics were 'intended' to be applied to a real-time environment.

One of the more surprising things that I found is that pin-point accuracy actually is supported. The caveat is that it is far from instant. From what I can determine, MWO's convergence system is theoretically a passable interpretation of this. Don't stop reading, though, it's not that simple.

In the fiction, targeting accuracy is line-of-sight based. Detecting something on sensors doesn't automatically allow the pilot to hit it. In order for the 'Mech to ensure that its weapons will hit the target, the pilot must hold the targeting reticule on the body of the target for a period of time. The precision of the shot depends upon the amount of time that the reticule is held on-target before firing.

If the pilot fires immediately after placing the reticule on the target, it is unlikely that all of its weapons will hit. Intentionally striking the location directly under the reticule is almost impossible.

If the pilot holds the reticule on-target for a few seconds before firing, the vast majority of its weapons will hit the target 'Mech somewhere. The location directly under the reticule will probably be hit by at least 1 of the weapons, but never all of them.

If the pilot holds the reticule on-target for an extended period of time (10+ seconds), pin-point accuracy becomes possible against a stationary target. The best example of this was in the case of a hostile 'Mech taking a hostage in a city. An Atlas arrived to find the enemy 'Mech with its fist poised above a civilian vehicle with people inside. The pilots of the two 'Mechs exchanged several statements before the Atlas could fire. While they were talking, the Atlas had targeted the other 'Mech's cockpit, waiting for the Gauss Rifle in its right torso to achieve pin-point accuracy. When the Atlas fired, the Gauss slug destroyed the cockpit instantly, leaving the rest of the 'Mech undamaged. This demonstrates some important points: Torso weapons can converge; Pin-point targeting is possible; Accuracy increases as the reticule is held over the target.

If we want to emulate this system, there is one very important thing that can be done in MWO: slow down the speed of convergence. The speed suggested in the fiction is probably too slow for MWO, however. I would suggest having the crosshair on the target for maybe 5 seconds for convergence to reach pin-point accuracy. That would force snipers to spend more time exposed before firing if they want to hit their target precisely. It would make it more difficult to hit smaller, fast-moving targets at long range, improving the survival rate of light 'Mechs. It will also make snap-shots at targets that suddenly appear from behind cover much less effective, making the use of cover more important.

It would remain possible for players to fire immediately, before their weapons converge fully, but they would lose the ability to precisely hit a single armor section except by luck. On the other hand, it would actually help faster 'Mechs maintain accuracy at short range. Because convergence moves slower, holding the crosshair on-target to get an accurate shot and then rapidly moving off-target while maneuvering, then aiming on-target again would give less time for convergence to deviate from the desired aim-point.

If this were to be implemented, it might be wise to have some indication of weapon convergence on the crosshair. Maybe the crosshair could turn gray when convergence is aiming at the distance under the reticule, only showing gold when convergence is within 25-50m of the target point? Something to that effect, to make it clear when a shot will be accurate.

It's certainly not a perfect solution, and it won't solve all of MWO's problems by itself, but it might move gameplay in a good direction.

Thoughts?

[JohnoBurr]

Renthrak, on 25 April 2013 - 02:51 PM, said:

-snip-

Thoughts?

I like it. It has the potential to make gameplay more dynamic. Though I'd be shocked if PGI would be willing to try something like that.

[RainbowToh]

Renthrak, on 25 April 2013 - 02:51 PM, said:

I recently spent quite a bit of time reading through about a dozen of the novels, by numerous different authors, paying particular attention to targeting and accuracy mechanics. Based on what is consistent between different examples in the books, it is possible to approximate how the TT mechanics were 'intended' to be applied to a real-time environment.

One of the more surprising things that I found is that pin-point accuracy actually is supported. The caveat is that it is far from instant. From what I can determine, MWO's convergence system is theoretically a passable interpretation of this. Don't stop reading, though, it's not that simple.

In the fiction, targeting accuracy is line-of-sight based. Detecting something on sensors doesn't automatically allow the pilot to hit it. In order for the 'Mech to ensure that its weapons will hit the target, the pilot must hold the targeting reticule on the body of the target for a period of time. The precision of the shot depends upon the amount of time that the reticule is held on-target before firing.

If the pilot fires immediately after placing the reticule on the target, it is unlikely that all of its weapons will hit. Intentionally striking the location directly under the reticule is almost impossible.

If the pilot holds the reticule on-target for a few seconds before firing, the vast majority of its weapons will hit the target 'Mech somewhere. The location directly under the reticule will probably be hit by at least 1 of the weapons, but never all of them.

If the pilot holds the reticule on-target for an extended period of time (10+ seconds), pin-point accuracy becomes possible against a stationary target. The best example of this was in the case of a hostile 'Mech taking a hostage in a city. An Atlas arrived to find the enemy 'Mech with its fist poised above a civilian vehicle with people inside. The pilots of the two 'Mechs exchanged several statements before the Atlas could fire. While they were talking, the Atlas had targeted the other 'Mech's cockpit, waiting for the Gauss Rifle in its right torso to achieve pin-point accuracy. When the Atlas fired, the Gauss slug destroyed the cockpit instantly, leaving the rest of the 'Mech undamaged. This demonstrates some important points: Torso weapons can converge; Pin-point targeting is possible; Accuracy increases as the reticule is held over the target.

If we want to emulate this system, there is one very important thing that can be done in MWO: slow down the speed of convergence. The speed suggested in the fiction is probably too slow for MWO, however. I would suggest having the crosshair on the target for maybe 5 seconds for convergence to reach pin-point accuracy. That would force snipers to spend more time exposed before firing if they want to hit their target precisely. It would make it more difficult to hit smaller, fast-moving targets at long range, improving the survival rate of light 'Mechs. It will also make snap-shots at targets that suddenly appear from behind cover much less effective, making the use of cover more important.

It would remain possible for players to fire immediately, before their weapons converge fully, but they would lose the ability to precisely hit a single armor section except by luck. On the other hand, it would actually help faster 'Mechs maintain accuracy at short range. Because convergence moves slower, holding the crosshair on-target to get an accurate shot and then rapidly moving off-target while maneuvering, then aiming on-target again would give less time for convergence to deviate from the desired aim-point.

If this were to be implemented, it might be wise to have some indication of weapon convergence on the crosshair. Maybe the crosshair could turn gray when convergence is aiming at the distance under the reticule, only showing gold when convergence is within 25-50m of the target point? Something to that effect, to make it clear when a shot will be accurate.

It's certainly not a perfect solution, and it won't solve all of MWO's problems by itself, but it might move gameplay in a good direction.

Thoughts?

Well basically it is like World of Tanks, where you have a centerline crosshair and a progressively shrinking cone or circle (your lockon feature) that informs you how zeroed in are your guns, thus maximum accuracy is only attained as you described, by maintaining aim over a period of 2-3 seconds. So one stat of WOT guns is aim-time, time needed to achieve 'the best' accuracy. You might still miss though

Player skill is involved when you are able to maintain that crosshair on a single spot while on the move or leading the target. Generally the margin of error in WOT is fairly large, creating groan-inducing misses LOL. We can tweak it of course.

Another suggestion I can think is to introduce this to only torso mounted weapons since they need to zero from various points on the mech. Weapons mounted on arms with elbow actuactors can be exempted from this?

[Renthrak]

RainbowToh, on 25 April 2013 - 03:10 PM, said:

Another suggestion I can think is to introduce this to only torso mounted weapons since they need to zero from various points on the mech. Weapons mounted on arms with elbow actuactors can be exempted from this?

Maybe, but PGI seems to be against different systems for arms vs. torso aiming.

[wolf74]

make an Option switch to Manual convergence.
Pro:
Player will have control of the convergence point.
Damage will get spread out more.
CBT targeting computer can be given a job now.


Cons:
Much harder for newer players.

if a player is on manual convergence the battlemech can correct for +-5m. If targeting computers +-30m.


C-Bill's boost could also be given to (only) damage done. 1.5-5x suggested.

Also a meta-score boost could also be given for being in manual convergence.

Edited by wolf74, 25 April 2013 - 04:13 PM.

[SirLANsalot]

http://mwomercs.com/...75#entry2279875

Fixes the issue you are trying to address without actually overnerfing the ENTIRE game.


Oh and SKILL is something that dictates wheather you hit or not, knowing how to lead targets ect.

Also, Gyro's, allows a bouncing/shaking mech to have a stable firing platform.

[Hotthedd]

Torso and Head mounted weapons should be pre-set to converge at their maximum effective range. Once the "Pinpoint" pilot skill is unlocked, the pilot can manually adjust his preferred convergence distance. Arm mounted weapons could converge on the reticle, as now. It would require more skill to aim, without making a good alpha strike impossible, AND there would be nothing random about the mechanic.

[HRR Insanity]

The Devs know about this, they just don't care. I've been asking for this change for almost a year.

[Donas]

Alternate Targeting Idea:

1. Arm weapons converge pinpoint out to their optimal range.
2. Arm weapons are pinpoint out to maximum only with the advanced zoom module (it needs to be fixed for this to be feasible, btw) and deviate without the module.
3. Torso weapons do not converge at all, they point straight downrange relative to the torso reticule but deviate based upon their positional orientation on the mech. (AC20 on an Atlas fires slightly right and low. on a Hunchback it hits high and right. weapons that are similarly hardpointed left right up and down of center also deviate by that same distance and direction at all ranges.)