5 replies to this topic

[Hotthedd]

In the latest "Ask the Devs #42- Answers" PGI states that it would be too much of a re-work to "fix" convergence.

Could somebody explain to me how a set convergence point for weapons would be unfeasible from a programming standpoint? The reticle already works as a rangefinder, so it does not seem that the engine could not handle it.

having each weapon set to a convergence distance (the distance that a weapon would hit precisely on the reticle) would not add any RNG to the game, would not introduce the feared "CoF", and should, in theory, be easily coded. (Weapons already have maximum ranges).

Also, how hard would it be to allow players to change each weapon's convergence distance in the mechlab? Again, it seems the mechanics are already in place for the game engine to be able to handle it. Could anybody explain to me why this isn't possible?

Doing this would still allow people to Alpha strike, would not involve any randomness whatsoever, but it would solve the problem of having multiple weapons hit one spot with one mouse click UNLESS the pilot were VERY skilled - a problem that has vexed weapon balance since the beginning.

Or is the problem that PGI WANTS pinpoint Alpha Strikes to always dictate the metagame? Fine if that is the case, just let the players know upfront so we can decide if we want to continue to support the game.

[Ralgas]

It still overly benefits snipers and long raged mechs as the convergence is closer, as well as dis advantages larger chassis up close. Not to mention the meta could just swing back to lrms/ssrms that ignore it.

Trading 1 problem for another, and they didn't say too much work, just too much on top of the priority list. I believe there was twice in there they said we do want to get to it.

[Hotthedd]

Ralgas, on 14 July 2013 - 06:04 AM, said:

It still overly benefits snipers and long raged mechs as the convergence is closer, as well as dis advantages larger chassis up close. Not to mention the meta could just swing back to lrms/ssrms that ignore it.

Trading 1 problem for another, and they didn't say too much work, just too much on top of the priority list. I believe there was twice in there they said we do want to get to it.

That is exactly why I added the option for players to be able to set their convergence distance in the mechlab. Theoretically, a player could set their medium lasers to converge at 90 meters for example. (I would set the default at maximum weapon range, btw)

Snipers would actually have a much harder time alpha striking so that every weapon hits the exact same spot, as they would have to position themselves at the exact distance where their sniping weapons converge, or wait for their target to move to that distance.

Heck, in an effort to promote chain fire, you could even have single-fired weapons hit the reticle no matter what, as it is now.

[Ralgas]

Still also have the chassis that have 3 hard points in 1 location and adjacent sections as well that ignore both systems, (and most convergence systems btw)

hgn 732
ctf-3d/illya
jm6-dd
cat srm6 ears
bj-1x in the arms
hunchbacks 4P 6 pack shoulder

need i go on? The system would shift the variants but not the meta. And as soon as you have the convergence altering outside of whats under the reticule you loop back into the issues outlined in ATD.

Edit: the smartest way they could go about it if they wanted to would be to just add a flat % distance to convergence now, (ie set past the aiming point) but even that has issues with the chassis mentioned above as well as either unfairly penalizing larger frames or overly buffing lights (as if thier current hit detection issues aren't enough)

Edited by Ralgas, 14 July 2013 - 06:47 AM.

[oldradagast]

There are only 2 ways to fix the sniper problem, IMHO:

1) Vastly limit the level of boatable weapons one can use. The problem here is that the boatable weapons are STILL the way to go, so the meta really won't change much, but you won't be able to customize your mech as much, so this may not work.

2) Some way of spreading damage around. While this does punish skill (or "skill"), it will reduce the effectiveness of high-alpha, pin-point convergence builds.

Other ideas have been proposed to fiddle with convergence, from setting in the Mechlab to forcing people to fiddle with it in the middle of battle... which will only make an already hard to learn game impossible. The problem here is that all of these solutions favor relatively stationary mechs since they can "set it and forget it" when it comes to convergence.... which means the meta won't change for the better, snipers will still rule, but things will overall be more complicated.

Edited by oldradagast, 14 July 2013 - 07:01 AM.

[Hotthedd]

Ralgas, on 14 July 2013 - 06:40 AM, said:

Still also have the chassis that have 3 hard points in 1 location and adjacent sections as well that ignore both systems, (and most convergence systems btw)

hgn 732
ctf-3d/illya
jm6-dd
cat srm6 ears
bj-1x in the arms
hunchbacks 4P 6 pack shoulder

need i go on? The system would shift the variants but not the meta. And as soon as you have the convergence altering outside of whats under the reticule you loop back into the issues outlined in ATD.

Edit: the smartest way they could go about it if they wanted to would be to just add a flat % distance to convergence now, (ie set past the aiming point) but even that has issues with the chassis mentioned above as well as either unfairly penalizing larger frames or overly buffing lights (as if thier current hit detection issues aren't enough)

Please, DO go on. Remember, missiles would not be affected by convergence, and lasers are already hit-scan weapons. How many chassis can mount multiple front damage weapons in the same section? Sure there are a few (AS7-RS, etc.) But even that one maxes out at 2 PPCs per location.

I disagree that this would penalize larger mechs and/or buff light mechs, but for the sake of argument, if it DID, that would not necessarily be a bad thing given the current state of the game where it is "Go big or go home".