387 replies to this topic

[Unbound Inferno]

Aim64C, on 09 July 2013 - 08:11 AM, said:

Unless you're talking radically different convergence times - it's not going to matter. The high-alpha streak will prevail. You're forcing the light mech into a situation where it must focus for a long duration on its target - this destroys damage mitigating principles of MechWarrior, and also creates a perfect firing opportunity for the defending mech (which is often going to be larger and pack a more destructive arsenal - even if it is taking an accuracy penalty).



That's even worse.

There won't be a battle to be on the periphery of. No one will do much in the way of moving. Everyone is gong to stay nut-to-butt behind a few buildings. A few adventurous teams will waddle out under the cover of ECM and just spray and pray anything that moves.

The first team to actually advance a position loses automatically.

Unless they use LRMs.

You're using the argument that "a mech is exposed to fire to get convergence" - but the reality is that what you're talking about means that there's almost no reason to worry about exposure unless it's to the whole team and they all happen to spray you with vital ammunition.



Sure. Why not.

After this gets implemented, I will return and tell you: "I told you so." Yes. I'm that vain. I'll find the whole thing quite hilarious.

Then solo a whole team in my C4 until LRMs get nerfed to 0.2 damage per missile so they can be in line with every other weapon.

You may want to go back to re-reading it.

Many instances of light mechs I see them using only one weapon at a time. A single PPC, LL or cycing the MLs.

The result of that impact on DocBach's system has it so they are perfect pinpoint accurate when single-fired. They land where you intend it to.

Most that are affected are Mediums and the faster Large mechs that tend to brawl in the longer ranges of 200m-600m. And that might be okay, since in those ranges and what they usually fight they will hit with the reticle adjustments.

I do not see what you fear in it at all.

[DocBach]

So the base reticle without any convergence would be the size of a target box at 1000m

A Running 'Mech's (Moving greater than 2/3 throttle) maximum convergence is half this; a Walking 'Mech's (less than 2/3 throttle) is 1/4 the size of maximum convergence

The base modifier for convergence speed is based on the level of experience tier;

Basic Qualified 'Mechs have a 4 second to maximum convergence base time
Elite Qualified (Pinpoint Skill) have a 3 second to maximum convergence base time
Master Qualified have a 2 second to maximum convergence base modifier

Long Range adds 4 to the modifier
Medium Range adds 2 to the modifier
Minimum Range adds 1 to the modifier for each 30 meters of minimum range, ie a weapon with a minimum range of 90 would have a 2 modifier or being 30-60m

Firing at a 'Mech that is stationary subtracts 4 from the modifier
'Mechs moving 1-20kph have no modifier
'Mechs moving 20-50kph have a +1 modifier
'Mechs moving 50-70kph have a +2 modifier
'Mechs moving 70-90kph have a +3 modifier
'Mechs moving 90-120kph have a +4 modifier
'Mechs moving > 120kph have a +5 modifier

Heat Level at 20% adds a 1 modifier
Heat Level at 40% adds a 2 modifier
Heat Level at 60% adds a 3 modifier
Heat Level at 80% adds a 4 modifier

Pulse Lasers Subtract 2 from the modifier

The time to gain maximum convergence is this formula

Base Skill Time + Modifier/2 = amount of seconds required to gain complete convergence

So an Elite Tier Stalker that is stationary at long range decides to try to use group fire to attack a Centurion 9D moving 108kph at 30% heat. To gain maximum convergence it would take

3 seconds Elite base time to maximum convergence + 4 for long range + 3 for target movement speed + 1 for heat/2 = 7 seconds to gain maximum convergence.

The Centurion is also elite and moving at full throttle so its maximum convergence is not pinpoint; he is returning fire at the stationary Stalker.

3 seconds base time for skill tier + 4 for range - 4 for firing on a stationary target = 3 seconds. However, because his reticle will not fully converge to pinpoint, he will achieve maximum accuracy for his movement in 1.5 seconds

This means that firing a group of weapons against a 'moving 'Mech takes much longer to converge weapons to pinpoint precision like we have now; an alternative would be to firing in chain fire mode if accuracy at long range is desired, without necessitating the firing 'Mech expose themselves for long periods of time.

Edited by DocBach, 09 July 2013 - 01:51 PM.

[Fgump]

BUMP

[bucew]

I've read first 3 pages so i dont know if it was mentioned, but wouldn't this system "nerf" ammo type weapons since you will miss more than now meaning you will have to carry more ammo and sacrifice HS/armor?

Also how are you going to "lead" your target if you have to keep your crosshair on the enemy for it to converge (long range shots)?

[Lavi]

Voted yes 'couse OP idea is fair and would increase survivabilit for every mech

But I don't feel that the Fixed convergence for weapons is right.

I don't know if it's been said on any of the 12 pages... but let me explain my idea... it maybe be TOTQALLY MAD and AWFULL, but.. hey, it's just an idea.
(TL:DR at the end)

Make weapon convergence be switchable.
*Computer controlled convergence
*Human guided convergence

On computer convergence, the simulator takes control of the convergence, it moves the arms and gimballs of torso weapons as it tries to put all the weapons hit points on the spot the reticle is aiming. Clan mechs, with it's weapon computer, could do it way faster, or apply convergence to the selected enemy mech.
Of course, the convergence should not be almost instant like now... taking into account own movement, enemy movement and heat level.

On Human convergence level (like an override of computer) player can apply the convergence with the mouse wheel (Same speed as computer, maybe a little faster to encourage using this approach.. couldnot apply movement-heat modifiers as the computing is made by the player mark I computer) .
This way, the player can, with the wheel apply a progressive convergence from 0 (if arms have the proper actuators) to infinite.
Let me explain which benefit you get.
You have 6PPC 2 in each arm an2 2 on torso. Map is tourmaline and you are snipping from a cover position at 800 m from one ridge the enemy surely will appear
You select with the wheel 800m convergence (a visual clue should guide while you move the wheel). Now all your weapons are pointing at the llittle circle on the HUD.
You find one target hidding after the ridge. you point.. you click.. all weapons fire with already fixed convergence. 60 point to the torso...
another mech appear, almost 800m, maybe 10m +-
move torso (weapons dont loose convergence) you point, you click... weapons are aligned to 800 but at this distance, the convergence point is almost the same... 60point to the head.

I cannot explain better, but the benefit is that as you have fixed the convergence, there is no need to wait for weapons to align to ensure pinpoint damage at the selected convergence.

with the computer assisted convergence, players can still do pinpoint damage if they want.. just wait for computer to put your arms on position.
In the example .. between the first and second shot, our reticle could have travelled throught ridge (800m), open sky (infinite) and an obstacle at 20m from his position.. computer would have to constantly calculate convergence as the reticle moves

TL:DR
implement switchable convergence,
*Computer assisted convergence: like we have now, but not instant and depenant of movement heat
*Player selectable via mouse wheel: weapons dont change convergence until the player selects another convergence.

[Sir Wulfrick]

OP's idea is well thought through and well reasoned. I'm not sure it's perfect and I suspect that there may be a slight tendency amongst newer players to believe that they will now have to snipe, but in the absence of any idea that's remotely as good I'd support it as being a very viable solution. I'm sure the numbers could be tweaked by testing but then MWO is one of the most measured games ever created.

Barvo Sir, a definite +1 from me.

[WarGruf]

Im with the GREAT Idea crowd!

Well put forward and thought out Have a Beer on me!
This would, I think, increase the games "Feel" tenfold. At the moment its just point and click repetition which feels cheap and plastic and not Uber Mechs of death where your choices put your mech on the line...

Just because you would have to think more about how you play is not a bad thing, sometimes change can be for the better and this could definately help with the imersion factor.

Now all we need to do is get the Devs to look at it and say.... "Ahhh, thats the right way to do it!"

[Daemir]

Didn't read all 13 pages, read couple first and didn't notice it brough up (probably was later), but

what about LRMs then? If all this makes long range sniping either a) be inaccurate in a short period of time (snap shot someone) or require extended aiming time

then everyone just switches to LRMs that don't give a fig about convergence? Especially if you'd then be much more safer to be in line of sight to keep artemis bonus/tag active on your target instead of just indirect firing over elevation.


I hate the alpha meta as much as anyone, but I also don't wanna go into "our LRMs will blot out the sun" meta either. Trading LRM fire over obstacles is even more boring than trading sniper shots.

[Theodor Kling]

Erish II, on 10 July 2013 - 02:52 AM, said:

Didn't read all 13 pages, read couple first and didn't notice it brough up (probably was later), but

what about LRMs then? If all this makes long range sniping either a) be inaccurate in a short period of time (snap shot someone) or require extended aiming time

then everyone just switches to LRMs that don't give a fig about convergence? Especially if you'd then be much more safer to be in line of sight to keep artemis bonus/tag active on your target instead of just indirect firing over elevation.


I hate the alpha meta as much as anyone, but I also don't wanna go into "our LRMs will blot out the sun" meta either. Trading LRM fire over obstacles is even more boring than trading sniper shots.

Erish II, on 10 July 2013 - 02:52 AM, said:

Didn't read all 13 pages, read couple first and didn't notice it brough up (probably was later), but

what about LRMs then? If all this makes long range sniping either a) be inaccurate in a short period of time (snap shot someone) or require extended aiming time

then everyone just switches to LRMs that don't give a fig about convergence? Especially if you'd then be much more safer to be in line of sight to keep artemis bonus/tag active on your target instead of just indirect firing over elevation.


I hate the alpha meta as much as anyone, but I also don't wanna go into "our LRMs will blot out the sun" meta either. Trading LRM fire over obstacles is even more boring than trading sniper shots.

I fear nothing of this sort. Because what currently ,makes LRMs a bad choice compared to boating Gauss or PPC is the lack of pinpoint dmg.. they would still suffer from that.. just others would too.
I would even say staing in LOS for artemis/tag stays as dangerous as ever.. less twitch fire PPC instant death, but if you stay still logn enough for someone to take aim ( which you have to due to LRMs long flight time on longer ranges) you life jsut as dangerous

[DocBach]

bucew, on 10 July 2013 - 12:10 AM, said:

I've read first 3 pages so i dont know if it was mentioned, but wouldn't this system "nerf" ammo type weapons since you will miss more than now meaning you will have to carry more ammo and sacrifice HS/armor?

Also how are you going to "lead" your target if you have to keep your crosshair on the enemy for it to converge (long range shots)?

The convergence lock would be gained sort of like missile locks; the reticle would need to be in the general vicinity of the target box, so players could lead targets without losing convergence. You can still lead your target, though in some cases it might be advantageous to use chain fire over group fire. However, dramatic movements like drawing your torso away from a 'Mech to shield from damage would cause loss of convergence that would need to be reestablished.

Lavi, on 10 July 2013 - 01:29 AM, said:

Voted yes 'couse OP idea is fair and would increase survivabilit for every mech

But I don't feel that the Fixed convergence for weapons is right.

I don't know if it's been said on any of the 12 pages... but let me explain my idea... it maybe be TOTQALLY MAD and AWFULL, but.. hey, it's just an idea.
(TL:DR at the end)

Make weapon convergence be switchable.
*Computer controlled convergence
*Human guided convergence

The reactive reticle is not fixed convergence at all. It is computer controlled convergence. The speed of the convergence is based on battlefield conditions, the maximum convergence is determined by the firing 'Mech's movement.

Edited by DocBach, 10 July 2013 - 07:37 AM.

[Lord of All]

Other.
http://mwomercs.com/...__fromsearch__1

[Lavi]

DocBach, on 10 July 2013 - 06:53 AM, said:

The convergence lock would be gained sort of like missile locks; the reticle would need to be in the general vicinity of the target box, so players could lead targets without losing convergence. You can still lead your target, though in some cases it might be advantageous to use chain fire over group fire. However, dramatic movements like drawing your torso away from a 'Mech to shield from damage would cause loss of convergence that would need to be reestablished.



The reactive reticle is not fixed convergence at all. It is computer controlled convergence. The speed of the convergence is based on battlefield conditions, the maximum convergence is determined by the firing 'Mech's movement.

On some part of OP post, or maybe some response, I'm not sure now.. I've read to stablish "Fixed" default convergence for each weapon (the way convergence was applied in airplanes in IIWW)

maybe I've lost or missunderstood something in the post..

But, anyway, "targetting computer" controlled convergence can coexist with player controlled convergence.. it will allow to twitchy and skillfull players to really exploit their skills... and allow us less talented players or the mech builds that doesn't rely on alpha pinpoint damage to feel more like in a machine reacting to battlefield

[DocBach]

Lord of All, on 10 July 2013 - 07:49 AM, said:

Other.
http://mwomercs.com/...__fromsearch__1

Without the range of the target there is no data for the computer to calculate convergence!

This is the premise of the reactive reticle; the computer has to use the data to calculate how to put all the weapons on to the target and various combat conditions can hinder or improve the computer's ability to obtain a convergence lock.

[Unbound Inferno]

Lord of All, on 10 July 2013 - 07:49 AM, said:

Other.
http://mwomercs.com/...__fromsearch__1

Not a bad simple idea, but I think that's a piece of how DocBach's works - no target, it is kinda blind fire with no convergence.

[DocBach]

Lavi, on 10 July 2013 - 07:52 AM, said:

maybe I've lost or missunderstood something in the post..

I believe you may be confused with the reticle diagram - the reticle contains aiming reference points that remain constant for the location associated with it; however, the reticle converges the longer it is held over a target, meaning that aiming point, and the associated weapons, converge as well.

[Artgathan]

Overall this is a very solid suggestion, but it was a critical flaw (that I haven't seen addressed).

It doesn't solve the problem of mechs that can mount 4 PPC in a single location (for example, the HBK-4P - I know no one would actually build a HBK this way, it just serves to illustrate a point). Since each location on the mech is pinpoint accurate this system essentially nerfs mechs that can't mount multiple hard-hitting weapons in the same body locations.

[Daemir]

Theodor Kling, on 10 July 2013 - 04:16 AM, said:

I fear nothing of this sort.  Because what currently ,makes LRMs a bad choice compared to boating Gauss or PPC is the lack of pinpoint dmg.. they would still suffer from that.. just others would too.
I would even say staing in LOS for artemis/tag stays as dangerous as ever.. less twitch fire PPC instant death, but if you stay still logn enough for someone to take aim ( which you have to due to LRMs long flight time on longer ranges) you life jsut as dangerous

LRMs aren't really a bad choice, you'll just usually need more than 1 mech carrying a healthy amount to properly suppress someone. Artemis guided missiles core assaults in couple of volleys.I disagree that it would that dangerous to try maintain artemis locks if pinpoint damage becomes far less of an issue. Eating spread out damage to 3 torsoes isn't nearly as big a deal for say a stalker that'll have 50-60 on sides and 80 in ct. I'll take 15-20 damage on each if I get 3 volleys on that sniper with artemis any day, I just can't take that 45-60 damage concentrated in a single location, because then I definately can't do more than indirect fire. Besides it's not hard to time out your movement to gain los just in time before a volley lands, even more so if you are in a JJ capable missile boat. I would predict a sharp rise in LRM boating as a direct result to a change like this. Maybe if they fix SRM damage as well...

[DocBach]

Artgathan, on 10 July 2013 - 08:20 AM, said:

Overall this is a very solid suggestion, but it was a critical flaw (that I haven't seen addressed).

It doesn't solve the problem of mechs that can mount 4 PPC in a single location (for example, the HBK-4P - I know no one would actually build a HBK this way, it just serves to illustrate a point). Since each location on the mech is pinpoint accurate this system essentially nerfs mechs that can't mount multiple hard-hitting weapons in the same body locations.

Because of the critical size of most heavy weapons, boating large amounts of heavy weapons in a single location is difficult, though there would be certain chassis that can still do so which would be a perk of their design. It would still mitigate the effects of say the 3 PPC + Gauss highlander, breaking the alpha strike from 45 damage to a single damage as current to 30 damage to one location and 15 to another.

Edited by DocBach, 10 July 2013 - 01:12 PM.

[Lord of All]

Unbound Inferno, on 10 July 2013 - 07:54 AM, said:

Not a bad simple idea, but I think that's a piece of how DocBach's works - no target, it is kinda blind fire with no convergence.

Tried to think of something fast, easy with low overhead and came up with that. It's pretty late in the game to re-invent the wheel.

[Artgathan]

DocBach, on 10 July 2013 - 01:09 PM, said:

Because of the critical size of most heavy weapons, boating large amounts of heavy weapons in a single location is difficult, though there would be certain chassis that can still do so which would be a perk of their design. It would still mitigate the effects of say the 3 PPC + Gauss highlander, breaking the alpha strike from 45 damage to a single damage as current to 30 damage to one location and 15 to another.

The critical size of heavy weapons is only restrictive on ballistic and missile weapons; a PPC only occupies 3 critical slots. A Large Pulse Laser only occupies 2 (though at the moment they're not very useful).

I agree that it helps break up the alpha, I'm just concerned we'll eventually see a heavy or assault mech with 4 energy hard points in a single location (allowing for a 40 pt alpha strike) which would effectively invalidate this solution.