94 replies to this topic

[Jonathan Paine]

A simple solution that does not require mad programming skills:
Spread out damage from the alpha strikes to several locations
Let chain fire, with a small delay between shots to combat macro, maintain perfect aim despite weapon location.
Pop tarting becomes a lot harder
6 PPC stalkers turns into a joke
2x ac20 builds becomes slightly harder to pull off

[TseTse]

I never put much thought into convergence, but after reading this thread I am a believer that changing the current system can help out the game. I won't throw my 2 cents in on how to fix it because there are many good suggestions already (some not so good too).

I truly believe that changing convergence, hard points, and the economy (R&R) could go along way to helping everything out. Not saying it will fix anything, I think it will, but its a freaking BETA for crying out loud. Crank out some huge changes and if they break the game like crazy dial them back with a hot fix or weekly patch. Honestly, I think this is one of the most worthless "Betas" I have been involved with.

If you ask me it all started with Founder's that didn't understand what they were paying for, and complained when PGI made sweeping changes for testing purposes. Since then the devs have been treating the game like a finished product and have been too scared to test any significant changes.

I suppose you can blame PGI for over estimating the maturity of their founders if you are one of those types that has to externalize everything. Sorry, got a little derailed there. /rant

[Taemien]

Mister Blastman, on 29 April 2013 - 05:59 PM, said:

You didn't play much MW3 competitively, did you?

Along with lasers (striders and shadowcats), UAC 20s were used heavily (knockdown abuse) to exploit further. The main reason no other weapons were used was lag. Lag was terrible in MW 3... it was worse than MW 2 online for lag.

Now, take a 3 PPC + 1 Gauss in instant action within MW 3 and it... murders things. They just die miserably. Part of it is the bad AI but the other is convergence.

Changing damage only hides the problem.

Convergence has been an issue since MW 3. Prior to it, it wasn't an issue because convergence just well, wasn't. We had some convergence but it was rather limited and not perfect.

This game shouldn't be pinpoint warrior from afar. It made small laser boating in MW 3 so viable. It would have made other weapons systems horrifying if the lag wasn't there. Can you imagine two-shotting a Daishi? Yeah. It can happen from 800 meters with the 3 PPC + Gauss combo in the game.

As it is now, that same combo two shots pretty much anything under 6 tons in MWO. That's not fun. That's... boring as hell. Oh, but you can close on them. But his buddies have the same weapons too so they all turn and two shot you!

See the problem?

This isn't a rant against the game from someone who is ********--I can play with the best of them in MWO right now doing the sniper game. I don't want to though. It is boring as hell. I got fed up with it in MW 4 and well, my stomach is churning already in this game in such a short period of time. I've never had such an unfun time playing this game since last June.

Don't cover the problem with band-****. Fix the problem completely.

No I don't see the problem. You just quoted a situation where someone went 2-8 vs 1. Of course the single person should get two shotted. As you said, convergence has been around since MW3. Why is this? Because its MechWarrior. Its just how it is. Every game has its means of being played, this is how MWO is done. There are many games with mechanics and methods I simply don't like too. I don't play those games. For me convergence is a non-issue. Its how the game is and we as the players simply need to adapt. The alternative is to play other games that don't have convergence like they do here.

For some reason many players think because they have a voice on some forums think their word is divine or perfect. But that is hardly the case. The game developers made the game a certain way with mechanics that work a certain way. Convergence isn't something I think they are willing to change or adjust at this point. Therefor I am just being realistic and sticking to balance changes I know they are willing to make.

Does this mean the death of MechWarrior? At this point I want to see if it is or isn't. Its quite possible that MechWarrior cannot succeed with today's gamers. A good many of them are used to watered down games riddled with achievements that tell them how to play and how to beat the levels. They are used to easy controls and a simple control setup. I know many that prefer PC games that are xbox 360 controller friendly over a mouse and keyboard. It may be that the games we played in the mid to late 90s no longer appeal to the market.

If this is true, I want to know it. If its true, then let the game die. Reason I believe this is I'd rather see it fade away rather then turn it into something else.

Of course if these issues were as doom and gloom as these forums claimed, players would have left and PGI would have made the necessary changes. They do have their wallets to be worried about. But they know, as I do, that the forums comprise the vocal Minority and its hardly as bad as they claim it to be. In addition its hardly ever the exact problem they claim it to be. ECM is a good example of that. They found the actual problem behind ECM and fixed that, and did Nothing the community told them they should do to ECM itself.

Devs typically have access to information the players don't. Players sometimes have good suggestions. Players sometimes have decent info. But when a player is whining. Well the saying goes, "they ain't happy unless they are complaining."

And to answer your inquery about my experiences in MW3, yes I did play competitively. I played in Star Lance and another league I can't remember the name of. UAC20s couldn't touch me, I typically used an Avatar with 8 Flamers and 2 LRM20s in MW3, but I usually played Pirates Moon and used either a Centurion or an Elemental.

I also played competitively in MW4 in a few leagues, both ladder and planetary. I made good use of IS vs Clan configurations and non-standard boating configs. Perhaps we handicapped ourselves by doing so (the unit I was in frowned on boating), but we still were able to make good numbers in ladder, and great progress in planetary.

You all (as in the community as a whole, not the individual I quoted) can boat here if you wish. Or if you think its the most effective. But when it comes down to it. I know I'm the better player and will still come out on top.

[DukeDublin]

It's not that simple, take a step back and realise that it affects nothing about the Heavy Metal.

Removing torso convergance would only make specific mechs usable and the same tactics would continue.

Edited by DukeDublin, 30 April 2013 - 12:15 AM.

[Brilig]

DukeDublin, on 30 April 2013 - 12:14 AM, said:

It's not that simple, take a step back and realise that it affects nothing about the Heavy Metal.

Removing torso convergance would only make specific mechs usable and the same tactics would continue.

I like the OP's idea a lot, but that is a very good point.There are several mechs that can mount multiple energy weapons in the arms. Atlas-RS, and Hunchback-4SP have 2 in each arm. Something more would have to be done to keep those mechs from becoming the new op builds.

Slower/imperfect convergence of arm crosshairs might do it. Have Arms start out facing straight out like torso weapons, then when something is under the central crosshair they can start to converge.

[VonRunnegen]

Nauht, on 29 April 2013 - 04:15 PM, said:

Why are we using old WW1/WW2 ideas of calibrating weapon convergence in the hangar?

I think of it as torso mounted weapons on gimbals or some type of rack that can make fine adjustments to fire where you want. I mean the HUD already displays the range where you're pointing your xhairs. The mech computer just automatically adjusts for range there.

Someone had the good idea of making a reticle for each arm and torso and that those reticles sway and move while you walk/get shot. This will make aiming harder unless you're a stable gun platform, ie standing still. Something like the Arma aiming system where the crosshairs get larger while you're moving to account for movement inaccuracy and gets smaller and more precise as you stand, crouch or go prone.

For the same reason we're aiming instead of a computer doing it - because it makes a more fun game.

Edit: Though I prefer the idea of doing via mouse-scroll or similar, so manually but on the fly. Makes it harder but still possible.

Edited by VonRunnegen, 30 April 2013 - 12:57 AM.

[Karl Streiger]

Regarding the "new" thread of Arm Convergene weapons...

the Stalker will still be able to fire 4 PPCs...at zero convergence - hardly anything will change.

The zero convergence could not be acchieved by any means...only thing is that you reduce the distance between the point you are aiming at and the point your weapons will hit.

Means to hit canopy of the Catapult with the AC 20 of the Hunch you have to aim at the left side of the canopy...to hit it with the left and right PPC of you K2 you have to aim at left edge of the nose - firing the right canon, and then aim for the right edge and firing the left canon.

That will become really interesting when you take a look towards the Mech Hitboxes...
Just imagine a Commando that runs directly towards your Stalker.... you think "Stupid" and fire all your guns
...6 PPCs, that are now magicaly able not to push each other away (because its 6 beams of protons OR electrons) - actualy the Commando will be vaporized.

With NO CONVERGENCE...it could become possible that all your shots pass him unharmed.... That will have more impact on the game as HSR and will allow lighter Mechs to carry smaller engines in favour of some weapons... "Fighting Light Mechs"

Edited by Karl Streiger, 30 April 2013 - 01:22 AM.

[Mister Blastman]

Quote

Taemien, on 30 April 2013 - 04:07 AM, said:
No I don't see the problem. You just quoted a situation where someone went 2-8 vs 1. Of course the single person should get two shotted. As you said, convergence has been around since MW3. Why is this? Because its MechWarrior. Its just how it is. Every game has its means of being played, this is how MWO is done. There are many games with mechanics and methods I simply don't like too. I don't play those games. For me convergence is a non-issue. Its how the game is and we as the players simply need to adapt. The alternative is to play other games that don't have convergence like they do here.

I know I'm the better player and will still come out on top.

Not to talk trash or brag but you obviously never faced Star Adder/Wolf Clan (when we were that) in MW 3 or MW 4.

You argue that convergence has been like this since MW 3 and since that's the way it has been done, it needs to stay this way. You also agree that lasers were the main useful weapon in competitive play in MW 3 also. I'm sure you'll /also/ agree that high-alpha configurations such as Large Laser boats or PPC+Gauss boats were the main useful configuration in MW 4 (well, vanilla MW 4--I quit after that but played the expansions... I just had so much seething contempt for the broken game at that point I never came back).

Now, acknowledging those points--you still say, to paraphrase, "this is the way it has been and this is the way it should stay." I'm perplexed. How can you agree that there were broken characteristics of the past games, accept it, and refuse to want this game to avoid those pitfalls?

Right now we are at the apex of those pitfalls. This is the culmination of almost a year of testing and driving down the broken convergence road. The arms race has changed often but now, now it is at the height of fixed configurations (i.e. take this or lose) and I even have a poll soliciting honest answers and shows people are unhappy.

You're correct in that the majority of the playerbase avoids the forums. They stay out of it. They just play the game and go home. The people here, on the other hand, ted to be those who've participated in nearly every iteration of Mechwarrior. You say we don't see everything? Well, there's this old saying that goes something like "experience is the best teacher." It really is!

Our experience has shown us what works and what doesn't. We've seen all the mistakes made before. We've seen what all the changes lead to. Mechwarrior 3 and 4 both attempted to solve the problem by tweaking weapon damage--which ended up making things WORSE, not better.

How so? Well Mechwarrior 3 tweaked Medium Lasers and made them hotter. This had a nasty side effect--it made heavy mechs nearly useless due to medium/small mechs being able to take practically as many small lasers as they could when at the same time--they could abuse the lag mechanics to avoid damage when the heavier mechs couldn't. This remained the case until the pinnacle of MW 3 was discovered--the UAC 20 boat + small laser light mech boat combo. The assault/heavy UAC 20 boat would knock things down and freeze them so the small laser boat could finish them off--well, that or the small would distract so the 20 boat could do the nasty work. Either way, it derived into a boring game. If the developers hadn't tweaked the heat--the game still would have been broken but maybe not as broken. They did it due to the community crying (so you're right here).

In Mechwarrior 4, they also listened to moaning and nerfed medium lasers. Boom! That put the nail in things because Mechwarrior 4 didn't have lag like 3 did and instantly made higher alpha mechs advantageous. The rest is history.

We, we the community, know the history. We simply want the developers to avoid making the same mistakes that were made years ago. The developers can choose to listen or ignore us. But to insist that they know better than we do--that's foolish! History is the greatest teacher!

Convergence is a huge issue that can't be ignored any longer. Mechwarrior 1 and 2 didn't have these same issues (but had others) and were better games. Way better games in some ways. This game can avoid all the pain, suffering and bleeding of players by simply trying to think harder and do better; not by doing more of the same.

Edited by Mister Blastman, 30 April 2013 - 07:29 AM.

[Corvus Antaka]

if the heatcap only let you shoot 3 ppc or 4 larges at once a lot of this would be much less problematic.

[Taemien]

The reason I didn't have a problem with UAC20 assaults was because they were at the mercy of LRMs, MRMs and T-bolts. They were the only mechs that couldn't reliably dodge them. In addition I didn't use the 16 ER Small Laser Striders, I typically stuck with ER Mediums or Heavy Mediums when using a medium mechs. Which put me far outside the range of those mechs. Though to be honest, I didn't see them often, mainly because their users stuck to UA games which I avoided. Loading up a Bushwhacker with 16 hMguns, ECM, Masc, and 5x AMS seemed rather cheap. But of course the real problem with MW3 was there were no hardpoints.

MW4 fixed that, but yes all you saw were big weapons. You're forgetting to mention the LBX totters. I used to load up on LBX10s and Large Lasers, or Large Lasers and Lt Gauss depending on the map. Though I'd use LRMs too if the planetary drop called for missile mechs (we had plenty of Catapults and Chimeras due to how cheap they were in resources).

From what I've been able to tell. MWO is to scale. What this means if you took the dude from Crysis and loaded them up into MWO, he would be man sized. We're not piloting man sized models with the buildings and such downscaled to make us look bigger. The reason I bring this up is because convergence is very dependent on the scale. So I want to say that convergence already does or rather did (in older patches, cause there has been a change) work like many of you are calling for. Its just against a mech, it makes very little difference.

Well you might say revert the changes, or tweak them. Doesn't do anything. Reason for it is most boats are mounting these things in their arms. Stalker, Highlander, Atlas, Awesome, ect are all mounting dozens (figuratively speaking) of energy weapons in their arms. This has already been defined. Slowing down arm movement doesn't really make sense, and at the end of the day won't mean anything to the dude sitting on a hill top alpha striking PPCs till he shuts down.

Now one thing I am not opposed to. Is a reticle sway. I still think anything that the reticle is pointing over, the weapons should fire at and hit whatever is there when the round/burst/blast hits when it gets there. Reticle sway means this still happens. What it does is at higher heat levels is it begins to move in a random pattern. Not all over the screen, but a couple of millimeters around the center. The higher the heat levels, the quicker it moves about.

Reason I like this idea is it promotes smarter heat management. But it still allows for close range hits to be not really affected. If you're close enough it normally doesn't matter where your reticle is pointing anyway. Targeting computers and modules in the future can help slow this mechanic down, giving them more functionality for when they are implemented.

One thing we need to keep in mind is that players will always veer towards the path of least resistance. They will use boats because they can dish out large amounts of damage and only ever have to worry about one point of convergence (PPCs fire differently than AC5s for example), and will not have to spread out their weapon groups. The select few of us who do not boat will always be the better player by principle. Some claim it to be a handicap, but I see it as having flexibility.

How do we bring mixed loadouts into being more effective? Well for the reasons I stated above, convergence won't do it. In fact if we go over board with it. It will only favor the boats. When convergence penalizes where you put your weapons. Those of us in mixed loadouts will be hit the hardest by it. Thats something that hasn't been given alot of thought.

For a mech like a Jenner, will be mostly unaffected. But what about the AS7-D mounting 4 medium lasers? Do I need to put two lasers in one group, and two in another because they all won't hit in the same areas? What about a non-PPC stalker which has lasers and SRMs loaded everywhere? These configs and variants will see a decrease in use, losing favor for more boat friendly configs.

This is why I said the Devs have more data than the players. How many of you are using mixed loadout builds and asking for convergence changes? How many of you thought about how convergence would change how you play those builds? You might say that players have experience, and they do. In what they do. Not in what they don't. The Devs can see a much bigger picture. Again they fixed the real issues with ECM, not the perceived ones.

[Cyberassassin]

I made this post elsewhere...

The crosshairs should not be 100% dead-on for every scenario.

If we care to apply some realistic mechanics, wouldn't a mech "shake" from large ballistic impulses or firing a JJ or just moving faster than a walk speed?

Maybe shake is perfect for some instances, ie JJ or 40 LRMs raining down.

Maybe reduced convergence speed or short-duration enlarged cross hairs are perfect for other instances, ie taking an AC/20 slug to a weapon location or falling X meters.

A solution to every problem:
The Devs could implement within the C3 targeting computer or other module equipment to counteract/reduce these effects.
Equip the targeting computer and the shake or an impulse that effects accuracy gets reduced.

TO sum it up: 'Mechs should still be able to hit accurately at long range when maneuvering. There are instances where it makes sense to have an effect on pin-point accuracy.

[Odins Fist]

Making you're Torso weapons reticle line up with your arm reticle is tough huh..

BTW, you could adjust you're torso weapons to to converge very easily, they did it with the P47 Thunderbolt and (8) .50 cal machineguns mountned in the wings, so what issue would there be in the year 3050 to make those alignment mechanisms be interfaced with your targeting systems computer to provide convergence..?? It would merely be a matter of having to target that mech you were firing upon.

The year is 3050, not all planets are backwater dark age throw backs, I do not see why this would even be an issue..

The only thing I would suggest is this, provide for a time delay for each calculation of the convergence sighting for the torso weapons, that seems reasonable, and would cause spread on twitch/fast turning shots, or switching from target to target long range..

The amount of targeting delay needed..?? That I don't care to speculate about, the DEVs would have to figure out what would be best there.

Or maybe that's what we already have minus the targeting delay..?? Ever think of it that way?

Edited by Odins Fist, 30 April 2013 - 09:34 AM.

[Mister Blastman]

Taemien, on 30 April 2013 - 08:57 AM, said:

From what I've been able to tell. MWO is to scale. What this means if you took the dude from Crysis and loaded them up into MWO, he would be man sized. We're not piloting man sized models with the buildings and such downscaled to make us look bigger. The reason I bring this up is because convergence is very dependent on the scale. So I want to say that convergence already does or rather did (in older patches, cause there has been a change) work like many of you are calling for. Its just against a mech, it makes very little difference.

Not really because not only are the enemy mechs to scale--you are too. As someone else posted earlier if a PPC Stalker shot at a Commando up close... the PPCs might go past the Commando on all sides due to how much wider the Stalker is.

The three-stack Highlander, though, would still be a problem since we only have 3 bars of torso sections, LT, CT, RT. Otherwise, most mechs would spread damage a bit more per my original post than they do now.

Quote

Now one thing I am not opposed to. Is a reticle sway. I still think anything that the reticle is pointing over, the weapons should fire at and hit whatever is there when the round/burst/blast hits when it gets there. Reticle sway means this still happens. What it does is at higher heat levels is it begins to move in a random pattern. Not all over the screen, but a couple of millimeters around the center. The higher the heat levels, the quicker it moves about.

I like this idea a lot. The more you move, the more your arms sway, the harder it is to converge them (Force = Mass * Acceleration and Inertia = Mass * Velocity, right?)

The hotter you get, the harder it is for the gimbals/motors to align the weapons, also. So, say you're at 70% heat and you Alpha, well, you're going to have a far harder time converging your weapons than you would at 0% heat.

Of course, it masks the other problem and that is Alphaing at 80% heat with a 50% heat Alpha should make your mech explode... which it doesn't, currently. It just shuts you down (unless you override... then you explode).

Quote

Reason I like this idea is it promotes smarter heat management.

See above.

Quote

This is why I said the Devs have more data than the players. How many of you are using mixed loadout builds and asking for convergence changes? How many of you thought about how convergence would change how you play those builds?

I've been running mixed loadout builds since closed beta. I have more hours on a Dragon than any other mech and well, they're the king of mixed loadouts. I'd run ACs + Lasers + SRMs all the time, nonstop for months. Mixed loadouts are a lot harder to run--you're right. There are some of us, though, with hundreds or more hours experience running them already. I'm one of them.

[Mister Blastman]

bump

[Saint Scarlett Johan]

*cough* locked heat scale *cough* negative heat effects *cough*cough*

[Taemien]

Mister Blastman, on 30 April 2013 - 09:41 AM, said:

Not really because not only are the enemy mechs to scale--you are too. As someone else posted earlier if a PPC Stalker shot at a Commando up close... the PPCs might go past the Commando on all sides due to how much wider the Stalker is.

The three-stack Highlander, though, would still be a problem since we only have 3 bars of torso sections, LT, CT, RT. Otherwise, most mechs would spread damage a bit more per my original post than they do now.

It already is hard to hit with all weapons against a smaller mech. Some Assaults can't even view the mech that is right up on them. I don't think one should fully miss if they get out of that deadzone just because of the size of the mech (the size should make it hard to aim at, but not hit once you've fired, if that makes sense).

Quote

I like this idea a lot. The more you move, the more your arms sway, the harder it is to converge them (Force = Mass * Acceleration and Inertia = Mass * Velocity, right?)

The hotter you get, the harder it is for the gimbals/motors to align the weapons, also. So, say you're at 70% heat and you Alpha, well, you're going to have a far harder time converging your weapons than you would at 0% heat.

I don't know how I feel about it based on running, walking, or standing still. I think I would like to avoid that. Even if its simulating the TT rules on attacker movement. Simply because I don't want players to want to stand still to fire. This promotes behaviors that are detrimental to the community. The community already plays like noobs, I think we can agree on that.

Quote

Of course, it masks the other problem and that is Alphaing at 80% heat with a 50% heat Alpha should make your mech explode... which it doesn't, currently. It just shuts you down (unless you override... then you explode).

This is something I don't like. But I don't like the fix being for them to simply blow up. That punishes a new player a bit too harshly. I think if you fire weapons past a certain threshold, they simply don't fire and you generate heat normally as if you fired and you shut down. Say for example you have 20 heatsinks, your heat threshold is 50. You should shutdown immediately after generating 50 heat in one go. If you're at 30 heat (60% heat) and fire something that generates enough heat to put you 10 over your threshold then you shutdown at 60+ heat and your weapons didn't actually fire.

If you take away the reward, players won't do it. No need to punish them.

Quote

I've been running mixed loadout builds since closed beta. I have more hours on a Dragon than any other mech and well, they're the king of mixed loadouts. I'd run ACs + Lasers + SRMs all the time, nonstop for months. Mixed loadouts are a lot harder to run--you're right. There are some of us, though, with hundreds or more hours experience running them already. I'm one of them.

Hard to master loadouts are the most rewarding IMO. I like being able to enter a match knowing I can react to just many situations. With a 6x SRM6 Catapult or a 4 PPC stalker, I don't have those same options. I have to worry about protecting myself from being countered where as in a mixed loadout, I can concentrate on completing the objective. I only have to figure out how to make it happen.

[Pht]

Neverfar, on 29 April 2013 - 07:07 PM, said:

I need a protocol droid to interpret this for me and tell me what he's "serious" about.

Droid reporting as requested.

It's simple. In the lore, unless you have an advanced targeting computer, it's not possible to get a significant amount of your weapons to hit a single "section" of a mobile targeted 'mech.

Lore meaning the novels, the fluff text in the source books, and in the tabletop too.

What this means is that we have a game, that, by definition, is about piloting BTUniverse style battlemechs in combat in that fictional setting ... that doesn't emulate how said 'mechs handle their weapons.

In short. The 'mechs don't behave like BTUniverse 'mechs in combat.

[Pht]

... weapons mounted in a 'Mech's torsos can align themselves (converge). They have focusing lenses, and steppers, and the like.

Besides, it's possible to fix the convergence problem without having unpredictable and uncontrollable targeting mechanics.

[Texas Merc]

16ER SL strider pilot here and could moonwalk better than Michael Jackson

[Darwins Dog]

I like the idea of slowing convergence myself. Things like moving, jumping, and getting hit (depending on the size of the hit) would throw your aim off a bit, and it would take time (something on the order of .5 - 1 sec) to get it perfect again.

I don't like the idea of fixing weapon mounts to fire straight ahead. At that point you need a separate reticle for each mount, and having to work with 6 crosshairs moving all around would be a pain in the ***.