185 replies to this topic

[Odinson]

I hadn't thought a LOT about this subject before, but after reading this thread and weighing all of the suggestions so far I have to say that I am in favor of convergence in general.

I'm not sure the heat nerf to fix boating is the only or best solution to the high-alpha snipes (I agree, it torques my jaws pretty bad when I get slammed by a bunch of ERPPCs from a kilometer away and I lose most or all of my armor in that location) but I want to see how it plays out. It does make some sense to me that firing a lot of high energy consumption weapons would necessitate more reactor output and therefore more heat, and that the more missiles fired the more internal heat would be generated by the exhaust from the rockets before they left their tubes, though I'm not one hundred percent certain that it makes sense applied to ballistic weapons, and I cannot fathom why LRM 5, 10 and 20 don't suffer penalties but 15 does. Not from a "realism" standpoint, anyway.

Finally, convergence is NOT instant. It is very, very fast (and nearly instant with the convergence speed boost skill) but I absolutely HAVE moved from targeting one extreme range to another and seen my weapons converge on a point somewhere in front of or behind the range my reticle says it is pointing at.

My final thoughts on this are that if convergence really does need tweaked, perhaps its speed should be dependent on the chassis, much like torso/arm rotation and pitch. Slightly reduced convergence speed for 'Mechs without lower arm actuators, perhaps, since the lack thereof already affects arm rotation? Though I suspect this is already somewhat in place, since the few times I've genuinely noticed my weapons not converging instantly has been on my Jagermech.

I believe the reality is that there is no *single* fix to a *single* game mechanic that will properly balance every weapon system and resolve "boating" issues.

[3rdworld]

Nicholas Carlyle, on 12 July 2013 - 08:10 AM, said:

mmm...pretty sure 6 PPC's can one shot a Centurion unless he leaves only 18 armor on back, and 60 in front, but you have basically stripped him of all of his armor, with no recourse.

Doesn't include the possible Centurion using an XL (yes, it does happen), which would get one shotted.

But lets bring it to 2 shots. 4 PPC stalker, 2 shots, kills the Centurion, with no recourse.

I am glad the cent is just standing there taking it like a champ. for a CT one shot to kill a cent he would need to be running 28 armor in the front. why on earth would a cent be doing that.

Also i run mine 40-8 front back on the sides. So even a 6 ppc stalker wouldn't take my side off in a single volley.

Edited by 3rdworld, 12 July 2013 - 08:23 AM.

[Michido]

Unbound Inferno, on 11 July 2013 - 03:56 PM, said:

In Battletech lore, you couldn't.

It required a target lock - which means BAP to see that far or a secondary target from another - in order to attain the convergence calculations. It was a horrid shot on your own, but with a Targeting Computer system installed you had a chance of making some good sniping shots.

Right now we have that TC installed alongside the C3 system in an invisible hardpoint, coupled with a line-of-sight auto-target-aquisition cursor that automatically adjusts for perfect shots on a negative timeframe that's some point before instantaneous. Hence the pinpoint accurate sniping you all are becoming accustomed to.


The entire idea that this is anywhere near the lore of Battletech for the timeframe is ludicrous. The IS isn't supposed to catch up to the Clan tech for the TC until 3062.

I really like this point. And it's probably in line with Homeless bills convergence system. In addition this eliminates sniper shots taken from across the map when target locks are not possible without a spotter.

If convergence required a target lock i'd also like to suggest that TAG or NARC speeding up convergence time, making those two pieces more universally useful.

[Obadiah333]

Roughneck45, on 11 July 2013 - 03:57 PM, said:

Or they could make SRMs viable so that brawl builds work again.

Ignoring 90% of the players? There is probably less than 15% even on the forums lol.

They are not ignoring 90% of the players. They are just listening to the silent majority - you know, the guys that wanted 3rd person view.

[Maj Motoko Kusanagi]

Also, you don't need pinpoint accuracy for multiple shots to hit a center torso. I estimate the width of a medium mechs torso to be about 6-7 meters wide. No pinpoint accuracy is required for multiple simultaneous shots to the torso.

[Ramseti]

Kabenla Armah, on 12 July 2013 - 08:06 AM, said:

Thirdly the 3050 folks may have been in a dark age, but they built and maintained had fusion reactors using complicated magnetic fields to hold the nuclear reactions together. Certain technologies need to be available to accomplish such a feat. I am pretty sure that computers capable of quickly calculating a tangent should be one of them. Its find of like saying there is a society which built and maintained internal combustion engines, but had no knowledge of metallurgy. That is ludicrous!!

You keep arguing that you want a game other than battletech. I'm not arguing your logic, but ... and you don't seem to get this ... its not battletech. You want realism, but the game is using tech from the 80s. It doesn't provide realism, it provides fun. Point and click was never part of battletech. I don't seem to recall reading books where pilots had a keyboard and mouse in their cockpit, just pointing and clicking at the enemy. The 3050 technology sucks, got it. But thats a big part of the point, as others have mentioned.

When I get home I'll try to look up some examples, they're in almost every novel ever printed for the game.

[Mister Blastman]

Roughneck45, on 11 July 2013 - 04:37 PM, said:

Battletech is not real life.

Besides, out autocannons operate in an entirely different manner, and are not flying through the air as they fire (only falling down from it! haha)

The A-10 automatically stabilizes the flight path of the plane when firing the cannon unless the pilot flips the override switch in the cockpit beforehand. The reason behind this is in order to kill a tank, they have to hold the cannon on target for an extended period of time to penetrate the armor with multiple rounds. When firing under stabilization, the pilot has to truly try pretty hard to bring the pipper off the point it is stabilized to. Remember, the A-10 is an extremely stable flying platform to begin with given the wing/tail configuration.

Even when stabilized... the rounds do not impact the same identical point.

[Maj Motoko Kusanagi]

Ramseti, on 12 July 2013 - 08:40 AM, said:

You keep arguing that you want a game other than battletech. I'm not arguing your logic, but ... and you don't seem to get this ... its not battletech. You want realism, but the game is using tech from the 80s. It doesn't provide realism, it provides fun. Point and click was never part of battletech. I don't seem to recall reading books where pilots had a keyboard and mouse in their cockpit, just pointing and clicking at the enemy. The 3050 technology sucks, got it. But thats a big part of the point, as others have mentioned.

When I get home I'll try to look up some examples, they're in almost every novel ever printed for the game.

Never played battletech, but as far as I can see, this is not battletech. There is no dice, and we don't take turns to shoot each other. A purely battletech FPS is not going to be fun. You have to break from battletech because this is a computer game and not a board game. The argument that this is not supposed to be realistic, just fun, is also just as flawed. We should expect some fundamental laws of physics to apply, otherwise everything just fly's out the window. There has to be some sort of a plausible framework around which these fantastic technologies work otherwise the game just turns to nonsense.

[Hotthedd]

Kabenla Armah, on 12 July 2013 - 08:06 AM, said:

First off, the only way you get perfect convergence is if your target is standing still. The moment your target moves after your projectile is fired, perfect convergence goes out the window.

Secondly, if you compare the distances we fight to the distance between the multiple weapons on a mech, the compensation angles to allow for convergence are very small. That combined with the fact that the trignometric calculations for such an operation are trivial, means the the time for convergence is negligible. Seriously it is reaaallly easy to calculate. You know the distance to the target, and the distance from the weapon the range finder (it is fixed). This is done on a weapon by weapon basis, no need to solve simultaneously for anything. Try it, you will see that the delta angle is typically less than a degree.

Thirdly the 3050 folks may have been in a dark age, but they built and maintained had fusion reactors using complicated magnetic fields to hold the nuclear reactions together. Certain technologies need to be available to accomplish such a feat. I am pretty sure that computers capable of quickly calculating a tangent should be one of them. Its find of like saying there is a society which built and maintained internal combustion engines, but had no knowledge of metallurgy. That is ludicrous!!

Now I am not saying that we should not fix high alpha builds, but convergence is not the way, because it basically nerfs everybody as well. Yes your light will die slower if each of the enemy stalkers 6 ppc'***** different panels, but have you thought about how long much longer the stalker would live when each of your measly medium laser were spread out on the stalker, especially when you are trying to aim at his cockpit for or for a specific panel so that you could get rid of him quicker? I cannot count the number of times when I had an exposed torso and I have survived a battle with a bigger mech because I was able to take out a specific component (I drive a K2 with 2 erppcs and 2 ac 5s).

If it is so easy, why can't our current technology do it NOW?

I do not see it as a nerf, but a mechanic that actually ADDS a layer of skill to the game. But for the sake of argument if it "nerfs everybody" as you say, then it is at the very least FAIR.

You picked out a strawman to attack on the point about the technological dark age. Congratulations, you tore that strawman up. (but you failed to grasp the overall point).

Any argument about targeting computers is null and void until we actually HAVE targeting computers in the game. (Three tons, plus one ton for each weapon, plus critical spaces IIRC).

Everybody living longer (harder to kill/harder to be killed) is a GOOD thing for PvP gameplay, btw.

[BlackIronTarkus]

[Maj Motoko Kusanagi]

Hotthedd, on 12 July 2013 - 08:55 AM, said:

If it is so easy, why can't our current technology do it NOW?

I do not see it as a nerf, but a mechanic that actually ADDS a layer of skill to the game. But for the sake of argument if it "nerfs everybody" as you say, then it is at the very least FAIR.

You picked out a strawman to attack on the point about the technological dark age. Congratulations, you tore that strawman up. (but you failed to grasp the overall point).

Any argument about targeting computers is null and void until we actually HAVE targeting computers in the game. (Three tons, plus one ton for each weapon, plus critical spaces IIRC).

Everybody living longer (harder to kill/harder to be killed) is a GOOD thing for PvP gameplay, btw.

1) Here you go http://en.wikipedia....-control_system

2) Ok, so kindly explain the overall point.

3) In overall terms, everyone lives longer, however the relative amount of time you will be unable to use your mech while you sit watching the game progress without you after you die remains the same. I prefer to move to a new game sooner after I am dead.

Aside from that, it is actually worse for the light mech when you realize that his arms and legs and other appendages, have less armor than that of the assault/heavy (the reason, why he was trying to get a quick kill by aiming for the cockpit).

Edited by Kabenla Armah, 12 July 2013 - 09:22 AM.

[Thundercles]

Mister Blastman, on 12 July 2013 - 08:53 AM, said:

The A-10 automatically stabilizes the flight path of the plane when firing the cannon unless the pilot flips the override switch in the cockpit beforehand. The reason behind this is in order to kill a tank, they have to hold the cannon on target for an extended period of time to penetrate the armor with multiple rounds. When firing under stabilization, the pilot has to truly try pretty hard to bring the pipper off the point it is stabilized to. Remember, the A-10 is an extremely stable flying platform to begin with given the wing/tail configuration.

Even when stabilized... the rounds do not impact the same identical point.

True, the Avenger tends to 'walk' a little. Then again, we are basically talking about a Clan MG. (Avenger weighs in at just under 300kg, we'll call it a quarter of a ton with a little fudging.) Unfortunately ballistic physics are lostech, since the Avenger is perfectly fine out to about 1.2 km, and can reach out to ~3.6 km. (Though to be honest, battletech/mechwarrior would be pretty dull if combat took place at realistic ranges, so its understandable for physics to take a back seat to gameplay. It's just hilarious to see all the hoops they have to jump through to explain why such 'high tech' combat machines have the inherent accuracy of an Imperial Stormtrooper.)

[MaddMaxx]

Joseph Mallan, on 11 July 2013 - 03:55 PM, said:

Put cross hairs on the target. Pull the trigger.

So just like we do now then?

[Tombstoner]

Kabenla Armah, on 12 July 2013 - 09:08 AM, said:

1) Here you go http://en.wikipedia....-control_system

2) Ok, so kindly explain the overall point.

3) In overall terms, everyone lives longer, however the relative amount of time you will be unable to use your mech while you sit watching the game progress without you after you die remains the same. I prefer to move to a new game sooner after I am dead.

Taken from your link

" required nearly 1000 rounds of 5" mechanical fuze ammunition per kill, even in late 1944.<sup>[2]"

This suggests to me the inherent lack of accuracy for the weapon system but an improvement over the manual system.</sup>

further down the page

Modern systems
"Linked to a digital fire control system, servo-controlled electro hydraulic gun laying subsystems provide extreme pointing accuracy, even in heavy seas."

The problem with this statement is that it provided no information regarding the spread or cone of fire if you will for the inhernate uncontrollable limitations for accuracy. 10 rounds all within one inch vs. 10 rounds all within 10 feet.

even modern computer control weapons have a COF.

[Hotthedd]

Kabenla Armah, on 12 July 2013 - 09:08 AM, said:

1) Here you go http://en.wikipedia....-control_system

2) Ok, so kindly explain the overall point.

3) In overall terms, everyone lives longer, however the relative amount of time you will be unable to use your mech while you sit watching the game progress without you after you die remains the same. I prefer to move to a new game sooner after I am dead.

Aside from that, it is actually worse for the light mech when you realize that his arms and legs and other appendages, have less armor than that of the assault/heavy (the reason, why he was trying to get a quick kill by aiming for the cockpit).

1) Supports MY point, not yours. Read the whole article. We do not have the technology to have instant pinpoint convergence with multiple weapons. Even after several salvos, those weapons are still not simultaneously hitting a 5 meter by 5 meter square (as they are in MW:O.

2) the overall point being that the ability to insta-kill your enemy with relative ease, and through no error by the enemy results in players not enjoying the game. (Frustration for the new player, boredom for the old player)

3) I understand that todays short attention span player would rather beat a game than experience a game, and therefore wants to move on as soon as possible. Might I suggest Hawken?

I pilot light mechs very often, and am fully aware of the implications. However the role of the light mech is NOT to try and get a quick kill by cockpitting an Assault or Heavy mech.

MaddMaxx, on 12 July 2013 - 09:28 AM, said:

So just like we do now then?

Except for the fact that you would have to do that for each weapon to attain perfect accuracy.

[MaddMaxx]

Joseph Mallan, on 11 July 2013 - 04:15 PM, said:

Point being how you will hit a target at range is to aim and shoot. Will you hit with everything? Probably not. Will you hit the same location if you do? Probably not. Sounds about right to my experience shooting stuff!

Despite being crazy talk, as this is a game ffs, Joseph, if somehow, at your range, one day you arrived to find an Atlas BattleMech standing down range @500m, do you think you could hit a RT CT or LT panel perhaps 8 of 10 times, knowing what we know about how big the thing must be?

Hitting the target with some consistency is not at issue. The amount of damage delivered is. The Dev are working to reduce, or cause a penalty, to those who continue to try and deliver large damage loads.

In regards to a previous post,

Anyone who says that a Cone-of-Fire system does not add a Random element to that equation, needs to look up what CoF actually entails.

Next we will have folks wanting CoF with damage based Penetration rules...

Edited by MaddMaxx, 12 July 2013 - 09:40 AM.

[Ramseti]

Kabenla Armah, on 12 July 2013 - 08:53 AM, said:

Never played battletech, but as far as I can see, this is not battletech. There is no dice, and we don't take turns to shoot each other. A purely battletech FPS is not going to be fun. You have to break from battletech because this is a computer game and not a board game. The argument that this is not supposed to be realistic, just fun, is also just as flawed. We should expect some fundamental laws of physics to apply, otherwise everything just fly's out the window. There has to be some sort of a plausible framework around which these fantastic technologies work otherwise the game just turns to nonsense.

There is a framework, you just don't like it. The targeting computers typically can't do the legwork you think they should. This isn't a point that's glossed over in-universe, its explained multiple times. Advanced targeting computers are made later on to help, but even they can't pinpoint alpha after alpha. You can keep arguing all you want, but it basically sounds like you want a game other than battletech.

[Maj Motoko Kusanagi]

Tombstoner, on 12 July 2013 - 09:30 AM, said:

Taken from your link

" required nearly 1000 rounds of 5" mechanical fuze ammunition per kill, even in late 1944.<sup>[2]"

This suggests to me the inherent lack of accuracy for the weapon system but an improvement over the manual system.</sup>

further down the page

Modern systems
"Linked to a digital fire control system, servo-controlled electro hydraulic gun laying subsystems provide extreme pointing accuracy, even in heavy seas."

The problem with this statement is that it provided no information regarding the spread or cone of fire if you will for the inhernate uncontrollable limitations for accuracy. 10 rounds all within one inch vs. 10 rounds all within 10 feet.

even modern computer control weapons have a COF.

Now that is hardly fair. You neglected to mention that this was for Analogue systems of 1944. I will give you kudos for pointing out that modern systems have extreme pointing accuracy even in moving seas, which Hotthead chose to ignore. Lets even say that the modern targeting systems were accurate to within 10 sq feet. How wide is a mechs center torso?

[MaddMaxx]

Joseph Mallan, on 11 July 2013 - 05:13 PM, said:

They went with it cause many of the original Testers were worried about their mad Skillz being undermined by CoF as I heard it.

Rough, To be fair, Sniping usually involves shooting a single high powered gun, not alpha striking.

Then why do you think a BattleMech has more than 1 gun? Seems stupid otherwise, can't Snipe with more than one, even on a Sniper based Mech, why have a bunch?

Edited by MaddMaxx, 12 July 2013 - 09:58 AM.

[Hotthedd]

Kabenla Armah, on 12 July 2013 - 09:52 AM, said:

Now that is hardly fair. You neglected to mention that this was for Analogue systems of 1944. I will give you kudos for pointing out that modern systems have extreme pointing accuracy even in moving seas, which Hotthead chose to ignore. Lets even say that the modern targeting systems were accurate to within 10 sq feet. How wide is a mechs center torso?

Nope. Read the entire article. Even TODAY'S targeting computers are unable to do what you claimed as "easy".
I ignored the "moving seas" as an equalizer to the Battlemech's OWN running and jumping. Why did YOU ignore the fact that hitting a 300 meter long Battleship is not the same as hitting a 5m X 5m bullseye?