57 replies to this topic

[Kaeb Odellas]

Totally on board with this, especially with a dynamic crosshair that indicates the state of the convergence.

Perhaps you could tie convergence with the targeting system? When you target an enemy 600m away, your targeting system would automatically converge on the point 600m in front of you. That way, you don't have to point directly at the target to achieve convergence and then quickly readjust aim to lead the target and fire before your weapons de-converge. Maybe this could be a feature for the Targeting Computer when that rolls out.

[Renthrak]

Kaeb Odellas, on 02 May 2013 - 02:25 PM, said:

Maybe this could be a feature for the Targeting Computer when that rolls out.

That's a brilliant idea! The Targeting Computer could automatically set your convergence at the distance of your selected target!

With slowed convergence without a Targeting Computer, that should make a pretty big difference in accuracy. That would then make a Targeting Computer almost necessary equipment for anyone who wants to snipe, forcing them to take less tonnage in weapons to make up for it.

Edited by Renthrak, 02 May 2013 - 02:54 PM.

[DubBucket]

I think this is intended already, as one of the Elite skills is a faster convergence speed which right now seems to do nothing (as it's already instant). I'll vote yes, so maybe they'll hurry and get it in the game.

[LowFire]

So based on what i've read in your thread, the system you are suggesting is much like THIS one? vv



If so, then I am in full support. There is a reason why a lot of FPS's have cone of fire or something like it, because it works and helps balance things out. I could see a system like this greatly reduce the effectiveness of boats and make a lot of different builds viable.

[Renthrak]

LowFire, on 05 May 2013 - 01:56 PM, said:

So based on what i've read in your thread, the system you are suggesting is much like THIS one? vv

Yes, something closer to that. Basically, turning the current Convergence system into a pseudo-cone of fire, without actually introducing random spread for direct-fire weapons.

I remember earlier in the closed Beta when there were some problems with MWO's convergence. Sometimes shots would miss a target directly under the crosshair. Some shots would miss high, or low, or to either side, or cross in front of the target. This was frustrating because there was no indicator to tell the pilot whether their weapons are properly converged on target. By adding an indicator and slowing convergence speed, this should do for MWO what the cone of fire does for FPS games, without making significant changes to the existing system. The primary difference would be that a particularly skilled pilot, aware of where their weapons were converged before, could estimate their firing direction before full convergence, though it would still be a guess.

Thus, a hybrid system based on skill that involves variable weapon accuracy, while avoiding the bullets-go-in-a-random-direction-from-a-straight-barrel nature of typical cone of fire mechanics.

[arghmace]

I really really like this idea. Of course we shouldn't forget that we have separate crosshairs for torso and arms, which would make it nicely tricky to control them both. If you move your arms quickly to your side and start converging them, your torso crosshair follows behind without converging in the same distance. Nice

[Renthrak]

arghmace, on 07 May 2013 - 11:23 AM, said:

If you move your arms quickly to your side and start converging them, your torso crosshair follows behind without converging in the same distance. Nice

Now THAT is another good idea. If we go with the color-changing crosshairs to indicate convergence state, then it makes sense for the arm crosshair and the torso crosshair could converge independently, since it would be possible to see the difference. That would make it less desirable to have your arm weapons and torso weapons in the same weapon group. At the same time, it gives a greater importance to the 'Lock Arms to Torso' feature, which would have both converging together.

It would add some nice flavor to the differences between 'Mechs with full arm actuators (Atlas) and those without.(Stalker). The difference is already there for the most part, but it's difficult to perceive. With a visual convergence indicator, it would be clear that you can make quicker shots with more mobile arms.

This is why I put the [DISCO] tag on this thread. There's no way I could come up with all the good ideas by myself.

Edited by Renthrak, 07 May 2013 - 12:47 PM.

[Lyoto Machida]

I think this is an awesome idea...on top of that, Light mechs would last a bit longer than they do now.

Alkospike, on 26 April 2013 - 12:27 AM, said:

The idea is: its not the cooldownwait or heat dissipation wait.
It is wait for convergence to reach high enough to group tight. Different thing, as i see it.
Poptart 1sec+alpha wont be so effective, since you have to wait a little before your grouping is tight enough. Same for PPC stalkers, them have to wait for convergence aswell. And such.

Yes, but the time they have to wait for the heat level to cooldown (since heat takes longer than PPC cooldown) would also allow them to have their convergence zero'd in already unless they moved their reticule(s) off target. This would make torso twisting interesting, as it would effectively change your convergence each time you twisted away (even if only a little bit).

[Renthrak]

Lyoto Machida, on 08 May 2013 - 06:02 PM, said:

Yes, but the time they have to wait for the heat level to cooldown (since heat takes longer than PPC cooldown) would also allow them to have their convergence zero'd in already unless they moved their reticule(s) off target.

True, however that would have them standing out in the open, vulnerable to return fire while they wait. At the moment, you can pop out from behind cover, take your shot, and hide again in a couple seconds.

Lyoto Machida, on 08 May 2013 - 06:02 PM, said:

This would make torso twisting interesting, as it would effectively change your convergence each time you twisted away (even if only a little bit).

Correct. At shorter ranges, this is less of a problem, but snipers will have to choose between making an accurate shot or torso twisting to spread damage. It changes the risk vs. reward balance, particularly for high-heat builds that can quickly overheat and shut down.

[Tombstoner]

Thank you for taking the time to write your post. This issue has been a hot button topic since the first round of closed beta.

MY 2 mc's are if convergence worked we would have it already. it was part of the original PRS(product requirement spec) for the game.

at some point it was removed. i be-leave the functionality is still present, we just cant see it since it happens so fast.
My issues with it and why i think it was removed is it looks f-ing stupid when you miss.

Your weapons are in a constant state of targeting flux trying to focus on to a specific point. if you mouse over your target and fire asap your shots will hit some unknown point between you and your target. if the point is close to you and the target is far away then all your shots will criss cross between you and your target. you will completely miss what your aiming at and in a worse case situation you just shot two team mates in the back.

adjusting the rate of convergence i expect was very problematic. just about everything will throw off your targeting. trying to pop out over a hill and take a quick pot shot would be worth less and leave you very vulnerable to the people camping that ridge line. too fast and you have the current game too slow and you get something that's worse then the current game.

Some form of RNG is the only way to go. well do nothing is an option.

[Renthrak]

Tombstoner, on 09 May 2013 - 03:47 PM, said:

My issues with it and why i think it was removed is it looks f-ing stupid when you miss.

I have no idea why it's currently set to instant, but I had the same issue with convergence earlier in the Beta.

I remember one instance in particular, just after the Raven was released. I bought the 4X and put an Autocannon on it. During one particular match, I was circling a Catapult at close range. I fired more than half a dozen shots at it, and I think one or two actually hit. Most of the rest went up at a 45 degree angle, firing across my own nose and into the clouds. It was absurd.

I think that a big part of why it was so annoying is the simple fact that there was no way to tell what your weapon convergence was doing until you fire. So, you press the button expecting your shot to hit your target, and instead it goes off in some seemingly random direction.

If there was some indicator on the crosshair that would show what your weapon convergence is doing, you could plan your shot better, and you would know why it didn't hit the target if you fire before full convergence.

[arghmace]

Yes the convergence used to cause weird things in close brawl. If you're right next to an enemy mech the weapons have to turn inwards a huge amount compared to aiming at 100 meters for example. So I guess PGI made the convergence extremely fast to accommodate close combat. Now the down side is that this extremely fast convergence makes moving your aim from 500 meters to 800 meters superfast since that doesn't really require a big adjustment to weapon angles.

What I would suggest is making the convergence speed dependant on range. So when you move aim from 100 meters to 5 meters and have to change the angle of the weapons by 20 degrees or whatever, make convergence happen at 20 degrees per second. But when you move your aim from 500 to 800 meters and have to adjust the weapon angle just by 0.5 degrees (these numbers are just thrown off my hat and not accurate, for sure) the convergence speed could be just 0.25 degrees per second. This would sort of simulate the difficulty of real precise aiming at long distances. At close range the gyros can move the weapons fast with brute force but at longer distances the gyros must do precision work.

Then add a circle around the crosshair so the player sees what the convergence is doing instead of having to wonder why the heck my shot missed by a mile.

[Cycleboy]

Just scrolled to the end from halfway through, in case I repeat some else. Suggestion on top of OP: Have the convergence speed calculation go faster for fully targetted mech (ECM still broken IMO for this too!) so that if you have a spotter locking the target for you, like missiles, your computer can run the convergence calc and let you poptart. You still won't be able to jump/target/pin-point all at once tho. A sniper always needs a spotter to be most effective.

This goes into your issues of weapon convergence ALWAYS going on based on rock piece in the way, etc, etc. If your weapons will lock/converge on your selected target, you can move in/out of cover and still have range locked as long as you keep your target box on that mech. Now... if you swing fast on that Jenner running by you without locking target, then your convergence will be all F'd up and you'll scatter shot. (Again... ECM by Dev's is NOT ECM per Battletech!)

Edited by Cycleboy, 10 May 2013 - 07:34 AM.

[Metafox]

This is the first time in a long time that I've read a wall of text on the forums, and I didn't even realize what I'd done until I'd read the whole thing. You've made a very good suggestion, for a snake. Significantly increased convergence would help to reduce overall damage output at long range without nerfing individual weapons. I also like the fact that it keeps the player engaged by allowing them to choose between timeliness and accuracy.

My only concern is that this system could be overcome by aiming at the ground where you know the target will be appearing, thereby maintaining pinpoint accuracy at any range. This problem would be nullified if convergence were limited to targeted mechs, but then ECM would make it impossible to engage anything at long range.

[Cycleboy]

If you can predict your enemies' movement enough that you can aim at ground near that range to auto-tune your firing solution... well... there you go PGI... there is your "skill based" game requirement.

Edited by Cycleboy, 10 May 2013 - 11:09 AM.

[Renthrak]

Cycleboy, on 10 May 2013 - 11:09 AM, said:

If you can predict your enemies' movement enough that you can aim at ground near that range to auto-tune your firing solution... well... there you go PGI... there is your "skill based" game requirement.

Quite so.

The direct benefit would be to force builds that rely on one massive Alpha Strike and then a long cooldown to maintain visual contact with their target to be effective. Consequently, they are vulnerable to return fire while they wait, allowing chain-fired and/or mixed weapon loads enough time to fire back reasonably effectively.

This would make a clearer separation between 'Offense' and 'Defense'. While on 'Offense', 'Mechs would have to expose themselves to enemy fire in order to inflict damage. While on 'Defense', 'Mechs would sacrifice some degree of effectiveness in exchange for added survivability from using cover and/or dodging.

The intention is to reduce one of the larger causes of frustration, which is "He can hurt me but I can't hurt him" scenarios. It's my personal opinion that this should be limited to differences in weapon ranges. A brawler being pinned down by a sniper makes sense. Someone popping out of cover for 2 seconds to hit you in the face with 50 damage from half the map away . . . not so much.

[MasterErrant]

first off the novels are a lousy resource. they rarely follow the rules.
second if pinpoint accuracy was easy in the TT game then it wouldn't be so hard to do...and the whole critial location/hit system would be different.
these are big machines fireing what amounts to very accurate broadsides. from a highly mobile and not terribly stable platform.
it silly. especially at beyond "
long range"

[Renthrak]

MasterErrant, on 10 May 2013 - 01:34 PM, said:

first off the novels are a lousy resource. they rarely follow the rules.

The entire point of using the novels as a reference is because they diverge from the TT rules. It serves as a template for "how far can we go from the rule book and still be 'BattleTech'?" It's an example of the form of combat that the TT rules are intended to portray.

MechWarriors aren't sitting in the cockpit of their BattleMech counting distance by hexes, rolling dice before they shoot, and patiently waiting for the opponent to finish their turn before taking action. Using turn-based pen and paper rules to simulate real-time combat is necessarily imperfect. If we apply a literal interpretation of rules that are already an approximation of something else, it's just stacking compromises over other compromises until the rules themselves are all that remains, and what the rules were trying to represent is lost.

Since we're translating a form of combat into a computer game, it will be necessary to make compromises to make it work. Those compromises are going to be very different from the compromises needed to translate it to a turn-based system. Literally translating from the novels wouldn't work either. The 'Mech's computer handles most of the work in the novels, pilots become fatigued and make mistakes, lucky shots damage various 'Mech systems through armor, smoke from fried wires or a cracked canopy make a pilot's eyes burn, 'Mechs take a bad step on rough terrain and damage an actuator, armor sloughing off under weapon fire interferes with balance, and so on. That doesn't sound very fun for a multiplayer video game.

At best, existing material should be used as a guideline, and that's what I'm using the fiction for. The TT rules don't have to be the exclusive basis for MWO.

[MCXL]

This is a really great idea.

[Jestun]

Renthrak, on 10 May 2013 - 02:38 PM, said:

The 'Mech's computer handles most of the work in the novels, pilots become fatigued and make mistakes, lucky shots damage various 'Mech systems through armor, smoke from fried wires or a cracked canopy make a pilot's eyes burn, 'Mechs take a bad step on rough terrain and damage an actuator, armor sloughing off under weapon fire interferes with balance, and so on. That doesn't sound very fun for a multiplayer video game.

Not to you perhaps.

Star Citizen is like that. A space sim where your ship's maneuverability is dynamically decided by your ships loadout. The thrusters equipped (4 on top, 4 on bottom, main engine on the rear) all have their own stats and act like real thrusters. Taking damage on one or two of them will cause a very realistic loss of maneuverability. The weight and balance of your components and cargo will also effect how your ship flies as it alters the balance of the ship. And so on.

Arcade vs. simulation is a preference, not right or wrong.

That game is going for 100% crowd funding so that it doesn't have to compromise for a publisher who expects mass-market appeal and can instead make a damn good niche game.

As of right now they have raised US$9,566,587 via kickstarter & pre-order items, etc.


Website: http://www.robertsspaceindustries.com/

I'd say it's a good example of how making a good niche game rather than trying to pander to mass-market isn't necessarily the failure that some people seem to think it is.

Edited by Jestun, 11 May 2013 - 12:59 AM.