Jump to content

[Disco] Minor Changes To Aiming Without Randomness


57 replies to this topic

Poll: Slower Convergence? (82 member(s) have cast votes)

Do you support the OP's suggestion?

  1. Yes (65 votes [79.27%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 79.27%

  2. No (11 votes [13.41%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 13.41%

  3. Abstain (6 votes [7.32%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 7.32%

Vote Guests cannot vote

#1 Renthrak

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 902 posts

Posted 25 April 2013 - 10:02 PM

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.

Slower convergence should even help ballistic weapons, which require leading the target. With the current system of rapid or instant convergence, leading targets is difficult because your weapons will converge at whatever point is under the reticule immediately, even if that is a building 300m behind the 'Mech you are leading. With my suggested adjustment, a player could place the crosshair over their target while their weapons converge, then move the crosshair off-target to lead the shot. Since convergence is slower, it should be possible to fire before the aim point adjusts very far away from the intended target. This would have a similar effect to 'locking' convergence at the distance of your selected target with current convergence speed, without the need for any extra coding.

Another effect of slower convergence would be a change to the risk/reward for jump-sniping and Alpha-Strike builds. In the case of jump snipers, their weapons would converge on the cover they are hiding behind while they wait for their jump jets to recharge. Thus, in the brief time that they can actually see their target while jumping, convergence would not have time to adjust to a target more than a couple hundred meters away. The only way to get around this would be to expose the cockpit of the jump sniper while they wait for their jump jets to recharge, so they can put the reticule on-target early, which also means that they would be vulnerable to return fire during that time. Similarly, holding the reticule over the cover that a jump sniper is hiding behind would move convergence much closer to the jump sniper's 'Mech, so that they are easier to hit by players waiting for them to pop up again.

High-Alpha builds often function similarly to jump snipers, staying behind cover while their weapons recycle and their heat dissipates. As long as a team mate keeps their target locked, they know exactly where to aim the moment they emerge from cover. With slowed convergence, this is impossible. Instead, they would be forced to expose their cockpit to put the reticule on-target while they cool down, making them vulnerable and giving away their exact position. At the same time, this would allow their opponents to let their weapons converge either on the exposed cockpit or the cover they are hiding behind, shifting the targeting advantage away from the Alpha build. Instead, 'Mechs that have a variety of weapons that can fire while keeping the crosshair on the target should be competitive again.

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.

Taken from another thread for independent discussion.

(EDIT: Target leading effects clarified.)

Edited by Renthrak, 26 April 2013 - 12:50 PM.


#2 Alkospike

    Member

  • PipPip
  • 20 posts

Posted 25 April 2013 - 11:44 PM

Agree. As PPC's are now, its obvious that current convergence model is far from perfect. What i suppose, tho, is not some "gray out", but good, old dynamic crosshair. Have been in shooters for decades, very easy to grasp.
Posted Image

PS: sorry for my english, its not my native.

#3 Brilig

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Philanthropist
  • 667 posts
  • LocationTexas

Posted 26 April 2013 - 12:03 AM

I'm right on board with convergence being the big issue we have with weapon balance. I'm not sure that slowing down the time till convergence is the right fix.

With the high heat alpha builds we see, waiting a little bit in between alpha strikes to reach full convergence probably wouldn't hurt them any. They already have to wait to cool down.

#4 Alkospike

    Member

  • PipPip
  • 20 posts

Posted 26 April 2013 - 12:27 AM

View PostBrilig, on 26 April 2013 - 12:03 AM, said:

With the high heat alpha builds we see, waiting a little bit in between alpha strikes to reach full convergence probably wouldn't hurt them any. They already have to wait to cool down.

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.

#5 Skoll Lokeson

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 137 posts
  • LocationMalmö

Posted 26 April 2013 - 12:34 AM

The problem I see is that I would make it impossible to achieve any amount of coverage at all on moving targets beyond point blank range with projectile weapons and unguided missiles - when you need to hold the reticule ahead of the target to hit. I personally don't like the idea on nefing deflection shooting as it is (IMO) one of the more important skill based aspects of any shooter - FPS, flight sim or tank sim etc.

That said I don't mind making pin-point precision harder to achieve, i.e. making it better risk/gain balanced than it ATM.

#6 Alkospike

    Member

  • PipPip
  • 20 posts

Posted 26 April 2013 - 03:51 AM

View PostSkoll Lokeson, on 26 April 2013 - 12:34 AM, said:

The problem I see is that It would make it impossible to achieve any amount of coverage at all on moving targets beyond point blank range with projectile weapons and unguided missiles.

If i understand this post correctly, then there is no issue with SRM or LRM convergence on hand at all.
What are we talking about is pinpoint accuracy, achieved too easy by PPC's and ballistics. Ballistic overall DPS would be another issue altogether, i believe.
Missiles should be threated a little differently from ballistics\PPC's IMO. Slow travel speed, more damage, and all that. Higher skill requirement.
What we have right now is "point-and-shoot" mechanics, which, i believe, is too simple.
A little "depth" would be nice, IMO.

#7 Skoll Lokeson

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 137 posts
  • LocationMalmö

Posted 26 April 2013 - 04:49 AM

I agree with the problem of the "easy" mode precision we have now. But I don't see the solution being allowing e.g. large puls laser to be group fired with high conversion on a moving target (with enough skill) but not PPCs, AC5s or MGs that have to be aimed ahead of the same target in the same situation. With this system you could spend all day aiming at (leading) a moving target and still get 0 conversion with a ballistic load out (regardless of gunnery skill). It would make it harder to achieve high conversion with lasers (fine) on moving targets but impossible (not good game design IMO) with projectiles . Hard vs impossible is just too much of a skill gap I think.

But maybe I have misunderstood how this system is supposed to work for weapons that you need to lead to aim correctly. (I can't find it in the OP.) Or is conversion supposed to be impossible to achieve with projectile weapons beyond point blank range on moving targets?

EDIT: I just remembered that MWO weapons don't converge when you lead the target anyway. But still... ATM you can overcome this by timing you shots "just right", that wouldn't work projectile weapons with delayed conversion. Still not convinced...

Edited by Skoll Lokeson, 26 April 2013 - 05:16 AM.


#8 Renthrak

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 902 posts

Posted 26 April 2013 - 12:51 PM

View PostSkoll Lokeson, on 26 April 2013 - 12:34 AM, said:

The problem I see is that I would make it impossible to achieve any amount of coverage at all on moving targets beyond point blank range with projectile weapons and unguided missiles - when you need to hold the reticule ahead of the target to hit.


OP edited to include details on this effect.

#9 Particle Man

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • FP Veteran - Beta 1
  • FP Veteran - Beta 1
  • 1,029 posts
  • LocationPhoenix, AZ

Posted 26 April 2013 - 01:12 PM

So the tldr; is to slow down convergance a slight bit?


it may be worth a try

#10 Renthrak

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 902 posts

Posted 26 April 2013 - 05:44 PM

View PostParticle Man, on 26 April 2013 - 01:12 PM, said:

So the tldr; is to slow down convergance a slight bit?


Basically, yes. It seems like a lot of people don't have a good idea of what this would do to the game, thus the wall of text detailing the result.

#11 FrostCollar

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,454 posts
  • LocationEast Coast, US

Posted 01 May 2013 - 06:02 PM

Hm... this is an interesting suggestion. It might just have the potential to solve the boating of large weapons that dominates the meta, so I'll tenitiavely vote yes.

I'll also shamelessly promote a thread of mine that suggests a convergence system that makes convergence slower if you mount larger weapons. :huh:

#12 Hellcat420

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Bad Company
  • 1,520 posts

Posted 01 May 2013 - 06:19 PM

voted yes for now, is worth a try and is better than what we have now and any other suggestions i have seen so far.

#13 Hammerfinn

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Bad Company
  • Bad Company
  • 745 posts

Posted 01 May 2013 - 08:04 PM

Interesting. I like the reasoning theoretically, but I don't think it would work in-game.

#14 Renthrak

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 902 posts

Posted 01 May 2013 - 11:29 PM

View PostHammerfinn, on 01 May 2013 - 08:04 PM, said:

Interesting. I like the reasoning theoretically, but I don't think it would work in-game.


If you have noticed problems that I haven't accounted for, please share the details so that I can revise or discard my idea. That's what the discussion is for, after all. ;)

#15 MoPo

    Member

  • PipPipPip
  • Survivor
  • 69 posts
  • LocationUK

Posted 02 May 2013 - 01:05 AM

I think this would work quite well for ballistics against lights. If you keep the reticule over the target until you're ready to fire, then pull it forward to lead, your weapons wouldn't have time to "de-converge" too much for an accurate shot.

Edited by MoPo, 02 May 2013 - 01:05 AM.


#16 Karl Streiger

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Wrath
  • Wrath
  • 20,369 posts
  • LocationBlack Dot in a Sea of Blue

Posted 02 May 2013 - 01:41 AM

View PostMoPo, on 02 May 2013 - 01:05 AM, said:

I think this would work quite well for ballistics against lights. If you keep the reticule over the target until you're ready to fire, then pull it forward to lead, your weapons wouldn't have time to "de-converge" too much for an accurate shot.


Could work...but it also means...that it is more hard to hit fast movers...not just lead the fire...you have to fire a hail storm of gun fire (chain them if you could) to achieve hits some where.

Although ...with keeping the eye of the reticule over the light mech...and do not lead at all...the Mech does it for you. But you will need some moments...so you can risk a shot...before the enemy is in cover again...or you spare ammunition until you know it will hit.
So light mechs have to break the lock - with surprising manouvers...because just sprinting in a line and hoping that ping and bad leading fire will spare them will not work anylonger.

#17 Jape

    Member

  • PipPipPip
  • 58 posts

Posted 02 May 2013 - 01:59 AM

Maybe different weapons should have different convergence speeds...

#18 Karl Streiger

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Wrath
  • Wrath
  • 20,369 posts
  • LocationBlack Dot in a Sea of Blue

Posted 02 May 2013 - 02:10 AM

View PostJape, on 02 May 2013 - 01:59 AM, said:

Maybe different weapons should have different convergence speeds...


Good Idea...would be nice too if a player can disable the "auto" convergence too...or adjust a spread....for example for the Hunchback Laser ShotGun.

#19 Renthrak

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 902 posts

Posted 02 May 2013 - 12:54 PM

View PostMoPo, on 02 May 2013 - 01:05 AM, said:

I think this would work quite well for ballistics against lights. If you keep the reticule over the target until you're ready to fire, then pull it forward to lead, your weapons wouldn't have time to "de-converge" too much for an accurate shot.


That is exactly what I had in mind. Once your weapons have converged on a target, moving the crosshair off for a second or two won't move so far away that it becomes difficult to get a hit.

View PostKarl Streiger, on 02 May 2013 - 01:41 AM, said:

Could work...but it also means...that it is more hard to hit fast movers


That's what I'm hoping for. With HSR in, light 'Mech survivability has been reduced quite a bit.

View PostKarl Streiger, on 02 May 2013 - 01:41 AM, said:

So light mechs have to break the lock - with surprising manouvers...because just sprinting in a line and hoping that ping and bad leading fire will spare them will not work anylonger.


That is the idea, yes. Slower convergence should make skilled maneuvering the key to survival, rather than just relying on speed and small size alone. Light 'Mechs should be able to survive much longer at 800m than they can at 150m, but that just isn't the case most of the time with instant convergence.

On the other side, it would require more skill to properly track and then hit a light 'Mech at long range. It raises the skill cap on both sides of the equation.

#20 Jestun

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,270 posts

Posted 02 May 2013 - 01:14 PM

View PostKarl Streiger, on 02 May 2013 - 02:10 AM, said:


Good Idea...would be nice too if a player can disable the "auto" convergence too...or adjust a spread....for example for the Hunchback Laser ShotGun.


I'd use a HB if you could disable the convergence - I want to fire them all straight!





2 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 2 guests, 0 anonymous users