28 replies to this topic

[Artgathan]

Various solutions have been proposed to deal with the issues raised by high powered pinpoint strikes. One of these proposed solutions is the introduction of a Cone of Fire system which would be affected by the Battletech Modifiers for accuracy, namely:

• Speed of Shooter (moving faster reduces shooter accuracy)
  
• Speed of Target (a fast-moving target reduces accuracy)
  
• Range (Whether or not the weapon being used is inside its optimal range bracket - Gauss is inaccurate at close range, but accurate at long range)
  
• Heat Level (higher heat levels reduce accuracy of the shooter)

Most often the argument presented against this sort of system is that it would reduce the need for player skill (since hand-eye coordination is not longer the dominant factor in deciding whether a shot hits or misses). However, as we will shortly see, this is not the case - though there are still arguments against the inclusion of a cone of fire system (which will be presented).

We'll start with the reasons for including a Cone of Fire system.

The Good

• It actually adds a skill requirement to the game. In order to be able to have accuracy, players must actively manage different aspects of their battlemech. This includes trying to maneuver properly to ensure that weapons are inside of their optimal range brackets, managing heat as a risk/reward system (if I fire faster I can do more potential damage, but I risk losing accuracy). Movement speed becomes important - I move quickly to evade enemies and more slowly (even if just tapping 'full stop' for a heartbeat to bring me down a speed bracket to increase my accuracy for a second) when I want to fire. Torso twisting still has a place in the game as pilots can torso twist to protect certain parts of their mechs.
  
• It adds more "Battletech Flavour". In Battletech most mechs were not equipped with extremely powerful targeting computers - the systems they used were old and prone to missing shots (as evidenced by the use of random hit mechanics in the tabletop game).
  
• It reduces the ability of players to land pinpoint alpha strikes, which are a contentious issue in the game at the moment.
  
• It promotes a game of attrition (which I also consider to be the spirit of battletech). Since pilots will often be spreading damage over their targets, the game becomes more about wearing down the enemy and doing the best with what you have left (instead of losing a CT with the rest of the mech untouched).
  
• It adds a layer of weapon balancing currently absent from the game. Weapons such as the Gauss Rifle and PPC can now be balanced in a fashion similar to the way they were in Battletech.

The Bad

• Players feel like the system is punishing them. It's very frustrating to miss a 'almost guaranteed' shot against a target. Some argue that the system decreases the need for skill but, as above, the skill is simply tied more into system management.
  
• Light mech engagements become a nightmare. Two light mechs circle strafing each other at high speeds will both suffer large penalties to their accuracy. If these penalties are not balanced well a large number of misses will take place, frustrating both pilots.
  
• SSRMs become relatively stronger than similar sized SRM racks
  
• The system may encourage boating for several reasons:
  
  • It's easier for pilots to manage 2 of the same thing than 1 each of 2 things
    
  • The "if I miss with the first one I might hit with the second" phenomena
• The HUD may become unwieldy if recitules are added for every weapon system on a battlemech. If I have a Large Laser, a SRM rack and an AC/2, I need 3 reticules to be able to reliably track my Cones of Fire for each weapon.

I think that a well-balanced Cone of Fire system could add some interesting game play to Mechwarrior: Online. To me a well-balanced system would mean that only at the most severe penalty levels (80% Heat, I'm Running, You're Running, I'm firing an AC/20 at 540 meters) should a pilot risk missing a target. At the low levels the Cone of Fire should be small enough that a pilot doesn't risk missing a shot as long as their reticule isn't half-on the outside edge of an enemy mech. Medium-level penalties would mean that if I was aiming at the CT of a mech I would run a slight risk of hitting either the left or right torso (IE: I run an 80% chance of landing a shot on the CT, a 10% chance of hitting the left and a 10% chance of hitting the right).

What do you think?

[One Medic Army]

Well, that's pretty much what I had in mind, a very very minor cone that wouldn't cause people to miss mechs, just sections and cause 4+ppc or 2xAC20 snapshots to land on different sections. The old convergence system did that, but combined with latency-lead people got very annoyed at having arm projectiles converge to completely different distances than where targets were.

Before implementing Cone of fire, it might be worth implementing the old convergence system to see how it works with HSR implemented.

[DocBach]

I hated the old convergence system, it did all kinds of weird wacky things to my shots - However, if the reticule let me know where I was converged on I would have no problem with it.

[Levi Porphyrogenitus]

So long as all of the modifiers are small, and really big penalties to accuracy are only possible from either specific extreme situations (JJs are firing or your heat is really high) or stacking several smaller ones (moderate heat, while moving, at beyond optimum range), then I think some deviation in accuracy is just fine.

Keep individual penalties small. Moving a little? Virtually no change. Moving fast (as a throttle %, not as an absolute speed, to keep things fair for all build types)? Slight accuracy reduction. Heat over 25%? Very small accuracy reduction. Heat over 50%? Small to moderate accuracy reduction. Heat over 75%? Moderate to severe accuracy reduction. Heat over 100% and you're in Override mode? Very severe accuracy reduction (plus internal damage).

A slight accuracy reduction should not cause you to miss the location you are aiming for when reasonably close to your target, unless you're aiming at a point that's pretty much a border between two hit boxes.

A moderate accuracy reduction should at most push your shots to an adjacent hit box (unless you're aiming at the edge of a silhouette, in which case you might miss if the shots deviate in the wrong direction).

A severe accuracy reduction might see you miss shots entirely at long range, but mostly would have a deviation roughly equivalent to the width of two medium-sized hit boxes.

The idea isn't make movement cause you to miss. The idea isn't to make running a little hot cause you to miss. The idea is to make pushing your mech's performance envelope be a trade off, requiring decision-making on the part of the pilot: do you fire under poor conditions and spread your shots over the target (meaning center mass is your best bet), or do you cool down first and fire when your shots will go where you want them to for real precision firing?

[p00k]

no
this idea lowers the skill ceiling
in shooters, the easiest shot is two stationary targets
harder is one person moving, either the target or the shooter
harder still is both shooter and target moving
and as far as movement goes, movement in one direction is easier than in 2 directions, which is easier than in 3 directions
and adding to that difficulty would be weapons that aren't hitscan, and beyond that would be projectiles with bullet drop, which complicates movement and rangefinding in the z-axis

when games add in randomness, it drops the skill ceiling to replace luck in favor of one of those marksmanship skills. those amazing shots in older FPS's when you're jumping one direction, the other guy is jumping another direction, and you nail him midair with an arcing projectile? no more. all it does is negate any incentive on becoming a better player when more difficult shots become impossible by virtue of game-enforced randomness

[Slashmckill]

p00k, on 14 June 2013 - 09:44 PM, said:

those amazing shots in older FPS's when you're jumping one direction, the other guy is jumping another direction, and you nail him midair with an arcing projectile? no more. all it does is negate any incentive on becoming a better player when more difficult shots become impossible by virtue of game-enforced randomness

Except this isn't one of those "older" games, this isn't anything like quake or unreal tournament where you move at breakneck speeds in any direction in the instant you push that direction. Older games like that needed to be pin-point because the pace of the game was so ungodly high that matches were over in the mere blink of an eye. Giant stompy robots aren't that fast, (not even light mechs) nor can they instantly turn any direction they want, they have momentum and perfectly telegraph their every move while in line of sight.

Normally pin-point accuracy at all times would be a good thing, however this game is far too slow for such amounts of constant accuracy. (It's why all games degrade into all assault mechs that carry nothing but ppcs and gauss rifles, because the only way to not get shot is to not step out of cover. Speed ends up being useless in most cases)

Edited for wording

Edited by Slashmckill, 14 June 2013 - 10:35 PM.

[Ralgas]

As stated in the other threads, i'm fine with this as long as the weapon spread more or less in a linear line from aim point to hard point.

a straight "random cone" where you shoot and it goes somewhere in the recticle cone, cant be balanced around our mech size differentials.

to test my point, take out a mg to the testing grounds. shoot a cicada dead center @90m. it should pattern all ct. try the same on a commando, you then hit every hitbox on the mech.

how many mech get shafted or over buffed by the area of the spread circle if that got added?

Edited by Ralgas, 14 June 2013 - 10:22 PM.

[Slashmckill]

Ralgas, on 14 June 2013 - 10:21 PM, said:

As stated in the other threads, i'm fine with this as long as the weapon spread more or less in a linear line from aim point to hard point.

a straight "random cone" where you shoot and it goes somewhere in the recticle cone, cant be balanced around our mech size differentials.

to test my point, take out a mg to the testing grounds. shoot a cicada dead center @90m. it should pattern all ct. try the same on a commando, you then hit every hitbox on the mech.

how many mech get shafted or over buffed by the area of the spread circle if that got added?

Well in regards to that, weapons that already have spread such as mgs and lbx acs should probably be exempt from the system since they can't truly be pin-point as it is.

Edited by Slashmckill, 14 June 2013 - 10:45 PM.

[Ralgas]

Slashmckill, on 14 June 2013 - 10:29 PM, said:

Well in regards to that, weapons that already have spread such as mgs and lbx acs should probably be exempt from the system since they can't truly be pin-point as it is.

which misses the point. If the cone is random on all weapons you essentially end up with what is mg spread, right?. If that spread on a cidada's torso's is missing lights how can it be balanced around lager mechs without going back to giving lights lagshield. Saying "oh you just have to slow down/stop and reduce the spread" doesn't work unless your planning on sitting still and praying said light happens to wander into your los



TL:DR unless the system is predictable in where your shots are going within the cone, it'll either have no effect on big mechs or spiders, ravens, flea's and commandos will become nearly unstoppable trollbots.

Edited by Ralgas, 14 June 2013 - 11:16 PM.

[Artgathan]

p00k, on 14 June 2013 - 09:44 PM, said:

no
this idea lowers the skill ceiling
in shooters, the easiest shot is two stationary targets
harder is one person moving, either the target or the shooter
harder still is both shooter and target moving
and as far as movement goes, movement in one direction is easier than in 2 directions, which is easier than in 3 directions
and adding to that difficulty would be weapons that aren't hitscan, and beyond that would be projectiles with bullet drop, which complicates movement and rangefinding in the z-axis

when games add in randomness, it drops the skill ceiling to replace luck in favor of one of those marksmanship skills. those amazing shots in older FPS's when you're jumping one direction, the other guy is jumping another direction, and you nail him midair with an arcing projectile? no more. all it does is negate any incentive on becoming a better player when more difficult shots become impossible by virtue of game-enforced randomness

Please refer to point one in "The Good". This system doesn't reduce the skill ceiling because pinpoint accuracy is still possible under the right conditions. Player accuracy becomes more about managing your battlemechs systems in order to line up the perfect shot and less about point and click adventure game. Only under the worst conditions in a good CoF system would the chance to miss be present, and then you're being punished for pushing your mech too hard (IE: committing some piloting errors). To add more "skill" to the system a mechanic could be added that reduces the size of the CoF based on how long you've had your cross hairs on the target, which would allow a player with a steady hand to increase their accuracy.

BigMekkUrDakka, on 14 June 2013 - 10:05 PM, said:

deleted

Thanks for the input.

Slashmckill, on 14 June 2013 - 10:07 PM, said:

Except this isn't one of those "older" games, this isn't anything like quake or unreal tournament where you move at breakneck speeds in any direction in the instant you push that direction. Older games like that needed to be pin-point because the pace of the game was so ungodly high that matches were over in the mere blink of an eye. Giant stompy robots aren't that fast, (not even light mechs) nor can they instantly turn any direction they want, they have momentum and perfectly telegraph their every move while in line of sight.

Normally pin-point accuracy at all times would be a good thing, however this game is far too slow for such amounts of constant accuracy. (It's why all games degrade into all assault mechs that carry nothing but ppcs and gauss rifles, because the only way to not get shot is to not step out of cover. Speed ends up being useless in most cases)

Edited for wording

The speed of engagement is definitely a key part of the problem here. Battlemechs are not very maneuverable and therefore not very good at dodging weapons fire. Usually when I miss my shots it's because of what I did and not because of what my opponent did.

Ralgas, on 14 June 2013 - 10:21 PM, said:

As stated in the other threads, i'm fine with this as long as the weapon spread more or less in a linear line from aim point to hard point.

a straight "random cone" where you shoot and it goes somewhere in the recticle cone, cant be balanced around our mech size differentials.

to test my point, take out a mg to the testing grounds. shoot a cicada dead center @90m. it should pattern all ct. try the same on a commando, you then hit every hitbox on the mech.

how many mech get shafted or over buffed by the area of the spread circle if that got added?

I'm not entirely sure what you mean by 'linear line from aim point to hard point'. In my ideal CoF system shots cannot fire outside the circle of the cone - so if the entire cross hair is filled by a target you will hit it.

You raise a very valid point about mech size and cones. I'm not entirely sure how to address this (perhaps add a 'target size' modifier, which makes the CoF relative to the size of your target) well without making moderate accuracy against a Commando seem like sniper fire on an Atlas.

Edited by miSs, 16 June 2013 - 07:42 PM.
quote clean up

[Ralgas]

Artgathan, on 15 June 2013 - 05:05 AM, said:

I'm not entirely sure what you mean by 'linear line from aim point to hard point'. In my ideal CoF system shots cannot fire outside the circle of the cone - so if the entire cross hair is filled by a target you will hit it.

You raise a very valid point about mech size and cones. I'm not entirely sure how to address this (perhaps add a 'target size' modifier, which makes the CoF relative to the size of your target) well without making moderate accuracy against a Commando seem like sniper fire on an Atlas.

it means for example arm weapon would only spread left/right of the crosshair inside the bloom, stopping at fixed forward on the hardpoint. when on spread the aim can still be lined up, (using the edge of the bloom)but you have to choose which arm hits where you want or compomise and have both arms hit target but on very seperate sections of the mech.

while not taking percieved "skill" out of the equation it would add vast layers of tactical depth and quirk to all chassis both offensively and defensively (eg knowing which way to circle away from the front ac side of an atlas so he has to twist further) and encourage trial play in more chassis to understand them.

the only drawback i see here is several variants that have large volumes of harpoints and slot space in 1 section (ie highlanders and swaybacks) although a lot of these are fixed via simple hardpoint shifts

Edited by Ralgas, 15 June 2013 - 06:15 AM.

[Slashmckill]

Ralgas, on 14 June 2013 - 11:06 PM, said:

which misses the point. If the cone is random on all weapons you essentially end up with what is mg spread, right?. If that spread on a cidada's torso's is missing lights how can it be balanced around lager mechs without going back to giving lights lagshield. Saying "oh you just have to slow down/stop and reduce the spread" doesn't work unless your planning on sitting still and praying said light happens to wander into your los

The hell? When did i say anything about all weapons fire should be random? I just wanted to add that weapons that already have a spread don't really need to be re-spread by any such system. (i didin't even state what i even thought of the op)

Besides i'am pushing for Loss of convergence rather than Cone of Fire. Loss of convergence to the point where the weapons predictably move slightly toward their respective hardpoints. (which isn't random) What makes it even more predictable is having this loss in convergence controllable by say reducing speed or having low heat etc. I really don't think anyone is actively trying to get all weapons to just spray in any given direction no matter the conditions, that would just be dumb. It would be enough where you wouldn't miss what you were aimming at but your shots wouldn't hit all exactly in the same place unless certain conditions were met. (firing 4-6 ppcs together would not be one of those conditions because it's not that heat effecient)

Edited by Slashmckill, 15 June 2013 - 07:47 AM.

[Tahribator]

Artgathan, on 14 June 2013 - 05:46 PM, said:

• It actually adds a skill requirement to the game. In order to be able to have accuracy, players must actively manage different aspects of their battlemech. This includes trying to maneuver properly to ensure that weapons are inside of their optimal range brackets, managing heat as a risk/reward system (if I fire faster I can do more potential damage, but I risk losing accuracy). Movement speed becomes important - I move quickly to evade enemies and more slowly (even if just tapping 'full stop' for a heartbeat to bring me down a speed bracket to increase my accuracy for a second) when I want to fire. Torso twisting still has a place in the game as pilots can torso twist to protect certain parts of their mechs.

You make it sound like a space technology. Will we need to do a SWOT analysis before we take a shot as well? You're punishing movement of all sorts and encouraging more campy alpha warfare. Since everyone gets punished for moving, they'll just take their biggest mechs and park at a good camping spot. Why should I risk moving and having my aim screwed?

Artgathan, on 14 June 2013 - 05:46 PM, said:

• Players feel like the system is punishing them. It's very frustrating to miss a 'almost guaranteed' shot against a target. Some argue that the system decreases the need for skill but, as above, the skill is simply tied more into system management.

You know what? I do not want the exchange "having a good aim" or "making that great shot" skills with a "hold on, you didn't wait X seconds after that shot so I'm screwing with your aim" one. You're essentially taking out what makes this game fun for most people(aiming, duh), and replacing it with a chance based system.

I have no idea how this idea got popular recently, because it solves no problems and creates more while dumbing down the game.

[p00k]

Neverfar, on 14 June 2013 - 10:09 PM, said:

That guy wants Quake 2 with giant robots. The fact that the robots are way bigger and way slower than Quake 2 guys just means he gets to farm with his "skill™" more than ever before, with 6-8 sniper rifles bolted together.

and this guy just wants "i can't make those shots so no one should be able to". l2aim

any FPS veteran knows, making shots in this game is pretty damn easy. huge, slow targets. but people who are better shots should still be rewarded for it. with this suggestion, that reward only extends so high as being able to shoot a component when you're essentially a turret. after that and it becomes a matter of luck

it lowers the skill ceiling because the difficulty in making shots when you, the shooter, are in suboptimal positions, has been replaced by a software-enforced randomness.

let's use this example. how many people do you know, can consistently hit a spider midair at max speed with a ppc while also running a spider in midair at max speed, at >600m? i know i'd have trouble with it, i suspect most people in this thread would too. but the people who could, were rewarded for their marksmanship. with this suggestion there's no need to become a good enough shot to do this, because game-enforced cone of fire would make the shot a matter of luck, not aim.



frankly i find it hilarious that OP thinks, in "the good", that this adds a skill requirement to the game. it does nothing of the sort. the optimal conditions OP wants that would still retain accuracy are the easy shots to make anyways. many posters in this thread would be able to make those shots as is now. but people who could go above and beyond that no longer can. it eliminates some of the skill of marksmanship, but adds absolutely no "skill" of mech positioning and management, since those are already in place

Edited by p00k, 15 June 2013 - 09:17 AM.

[HiplyRustic]

Neverfar, on 14 June 2013 - 10:01 PM, said:

I'm just seeing a lot of overuse of the word "skill" here.

Is there anything useful in it or is the usual "I should be able to circlestrafe and rocketjump and fire 6-8 sniper rifles at once without the slightest simulated hinderance because skill skill skill skill" thing?

No, and can you cite one single example of that actually happening?

I thought not. That's not what he said and you know it.

By all means, let's make lights even harder to hit by adding in cones coupled with the RNG that is currently hit registration...that makes sense. Said no one, ever, except light pilots.

Stop trying to turn accurate weapons guided by computers into Garden Hoses of Doom and play the game.

Edited by HiplyRustic, 15 June 2013 - 09:25 AM.

[Artgathan]

Tahribator, on 15 June 2013 - 08:35 AM, said:

[/size]
[/list]You make it sound like a space technology. Will we need to do a SWOT analysis before we take a shot as well? You're punishing movement of all sorts and encouraging more campy alpha warfare. Since everyone gets punished for moving, they'll just take their biggest mechs and park at a good camping spot. Why should I risk moving and having my aim screwed?

[size=4]

You know what? I do not want the exchange "having a good aim" or "making that great shot" skills with a "hold on, you didn't wait X seconds after that shot so I'm screwing with your aim" one. You're essentially taking out what makes this game fun for most people(aiming, duh), and replacing it with a chance based system.

I have no idea how this idea got popular recently, because it solves no problems and creates more while dumbing down the game.

The CoF would automatically adjust itself on your HUD. I suppose you could do the calculations manually if you get a kick out of that. Ideally a good system would have a larger penalty for the moving target than for a moving shooter (IE: I get penalized more if you're moving than if I'm moving).

Again, it is not a chance based system. The system only comes down to chance if you don't understand how to use it in your favour and, as mentioned above you would only risk missing a well aimed shot under the worst conditions possible.

p00k, on 15 June 2013 - 09:16 AM, said:

and this guy just wants "i can't make those shots so no one should be able to". l2aim

any FPS veteran knows, making shots in this game is pretty damn easy. huge, slow targets. but people who are better shots should still be rewarded for it. with this suggestion, that reward only extends so high as being able to shoot a component when you're essentially a turret. after that and it becomes a matter of luck

it lowers the skill ceiling because the difficulty in making shots when you, the shooter, are in suboptimal positions, has been replaced by a software-enforced randomness.

let's use this example. how many people do you know, can consistently hit a spider midair at max speed with a ppc while also running a spider in midair at max speed, at >600m? i know i'd have trouble with it, i suspect most people in this thread would too. but the people who could, were rewarded for their marksmanship. with this suggestion there's no need to become a good enough shot to do this, because game-enforced cone of fire would make the shot a matter of luck, not aim.



frankly i find it hilarious that OP thinks, in "the good", that this adds a skill requirement to the game. it does nothing of the sort. the optimal conditions OP wants that would still retain accuracy are the easy shots to make anyways. many posters in this thread would be able to make those shots as is now. but people who could go above and beyond that no longer can. it eliminates some of the skill of marksmanship, but adds absolutely no "skill" of mech positioning and management, since those are already in place

As above, accuracy would still be high in all but the worst conditions (Max Heat, Max Speed, Fast Enemy, AC/2 @ 10m). Also the skill is not removed; it is simply trans-located. The situation you've described above (spiders in midair) would definitely be a situation in which accuracy would be very low. Also the situation you've described would be one of the very few where players have difficulty making shots in this game as, like you pointed out, combat on the whole is very slow for a FPS.

HiplyRustic, on 15 June 2013 - 09:21 AM, said:

By all means, let's make lights even harder to hit by adding in cones coupled with the RNG that is currently hit registration...that makes sense. Said no one, ever, except light pilots.

A properly balanced CoF system would have the same effect on Lights as other weight classes, having the same relative effect on accuracy.

Let's keep in mind that I (the OP) am not attempting to promote or detract from a CoF system. I wanted to promote an intelligent discussion of the system, it shortcomings and advantages to see if the player base was capable of creating a better system or at least coming up with better arguments against CoF that involved "but my skill!".

I personally favor a return of the convergence system - each component (LA, LT, RT, RA, CT, Head) has a different aiming reticule. At perfect convergence they all fire on the same pinpoint. At convergence decreases (for whatever reasons) the aim points move apart from on another (horizontally in a predictable fashion) until they're essentially shooting straight forwards. However! Each reticule is 100% accurate - if my weapons are completely de-converged every weapon in my RA would hit the same place, but not the same place as the weapons in my LA.

[Stoicblitzer]

i don't like the word cone so i reject this idea.

[Hammish]

Cone of fire doesn't actually impact, or be impacted by, skill in any way. A person with good aim will still land more damage on the target over X seconds of time than a person with bad aim. People who do not understand this need a basic course in probability math.

What cone of fire does do is lowers the speed of fights due to generalized damage spread. It's not an inherently good or bad thing, it's just a different thing, and that ties in with the OP's claim. It doesn't require less skill, it requires different skills like multitasking and far greater situational awareness.

It also does solve plenty of problems. It solves the bad feeling people get when they are instapopped (or close), because there will be less instances of this occuring. It breathes a new life and possible new purpose into weapons like pulse lasers (though it's up in the air as to how you'd want them to function, you could either have them emulate tabletop and be more accurate, translating to a smaller cone, or you could have them spraying the cone and almost guaranteed to produce at least a partial hit, which would make them the perfect counter to the lights that everyone says would run rampant in a CoF system), and it makes pillboxing/static sniping an actual considered tactical move (trading a static position for the increased accuracy).

You could even meld CoF thoughts and aiming skill into guided weapons: as you pile up inaccuracy modifiers, instead of getting a larger cone, you'd both have to holder tighter on a target for a longer period to achieve a lock, and lose it more quickly. Shazam, you just made guided weapons into something requiring more aiming skill, something I hear yelled about often.

You'd do it all while pleasing more of the tabletop crowd, as you'd be adhering more closely to that canon. And the only people who will be angered by the new mode are those few who cannot adapt or have excellent aim but nothing more, lacking the ability to manage multiple systems at once.

And, y'know.. I'll take that trade, personally. There's a reason that Freespace 2 was one of the greatest space dogfighters of all times, and a lot of it had to do with the complexity of systems allowing every 'type' of pilot to shine.

[Tombstoner]

One Medic Army, on 14 June 2013 - 05:53 PM, said:

Well, that's pretty much what I had in mind, a very very minor cone that wouldn't cause people to miss mechs, just sections and cause 4+ppc or 2xAC20 snapshots to land on different sections. The old convergence system did that, but combined with latency-lead people got very annoyed at having arm projectiles converge to completely different distances than where targets were.

Before implementing Cone of fire, it might be worth implementing the old convergence system to see how it works with HSR implemented.

F-yea... its better then nothing.....

For clarifacation a large COF is nullified by range. If your in a circle of death and your straifing a target. the target and the circel will be about the same size or better yet the COF will be smaller then the CT. for Light vs. atlas the size of the atlas will work aginst it. but i would also want lower arm acutationr to help with accuracy helping the atlas and other mech with them.

The COF is the last best hope for Humanity.... baring a long trek across unknown space....

[DocBach]

I think the reticule should open up the faster you move, the effective range of your weapon determines how quickly it converges;

placing weapons of different range profile in the same group like say a large and medium laser uses the range of the shorter weapon, so being at the weapon's long range makes it converge slower, being at short range converges faster. Add C3 Slave and Master equipment, 'Mechs in a C3 network can share range convergence speed with a spotter. The range would also serve as the maximum a reticle would converge.

Targeting an enemy in a weapon's Minimum range makes the convergence MUCH slower.

Heat would also has an affect on convergence.

Basically, to get complete, pinpoint convergence, you would have to be stationary, in your weapon's primary effective range (equivalent of tabletop short range value, ie 90m for a medium laser), with little to no heat.

Edited by DocBach, 15 June 2013 - 06:28 PM.