185 replies to this topic

[Maj Motoko Kusanagi]

Hotthedd, on 12 July 2013 - 09:36 AM, said:

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.


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

Read the article, nothing was said about not being able to hit 5 meter by 5 meter target simultaneously. Please stop inventing stuff, and let us have a fact based discussion.

That maybe have been the point that the poster was advocating, but he used a spurious analogy to promote it. You should be chastizing him for that, not me for showing the ridiculousness of his assertions. Sure insta-killing with one alpha is not fun, but cof is a bad way to solve the problem. I would rather go of massive heat penalties.

As for Hawken, there are many more things that I do not like about the game than MWO. Instead of insinuating that you have some sort of attention disorder and suggesting that you go play some other game, I will just end this post here. Thanks for the respect that you have shown me in this discussion.

[MaddMaxx]

Gallowglas, on 11 July 2013 - 05:55 PM, said:

Yes, and if slow convergence were to be implemented, people would gripe about it being an artificial nerf to skill and would move on to other amazing suggestions that would miraculously cure everything. The community isn't magically enlightened about how balance works. After all, it was in part community feedback that put us in the situation we're in with PPC's.

Personally, I think slow convergence is a bad idea. It feels arbitrary and counter-intuitive. I also think it would be incredibly annoying to deal with. YMMV.

And "zero" convergence, except for the arms, would drive players to those Mechs with multiple arm mounts, or all Torso mounts would make for a very immobile game play style.

Imagine the fun it would be trying to hit the enemies damaged Left torso, with your remaining lower right torso weapon, yes we will still lose weapons btw, while on the run. It is tough enough now with convergence ffs.

Let's not suck the "fun" out of MWO for the sake of some need to not be precise. If you don't want precision, just miss the odd time on purpose and call it done. Leave everyone else out of your stale and ****** game play reality. Thanks.

Edited by MaddMaxx, 12 July 2013 - 10:06 AM.

[Maj Motoko Kusanagi]

Hotthedd, on 12 July 2013 - 10:00 AM, said:

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?

Oh I agree that it is not the same thing, one is definitely smaller than the other, but where does it say that they cannot hit a 5 x 5 m bullseye? Also remember, that the engagement ranges of battleships are waaaay further than that of mechs.

Edited by Kabenla Armah, 12 July 2013 - 10:14 AM.

[MaddMaxx]

DocBach, on 11 July 2013 - 08:47 PM, said:

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

make a player have to work for convergence, keep single shots accurate, make group fire either spread out or make a player sacrifice mobility and time to earn convergence of all his weapons, make battlefield conditions affect the speed convergence is obtained.

Can't allow a speed reduction to be a factor dude. Sorry. If a players run across and opening and his/her target is already standing still, you propose that he/she would have to slow down to get a good accurate shot?

Slowing down causes death for those who need speed as an ally. What do those BIG guys have to do, speed up?

[Hotthedd]

Kabenla Armah, on 12 July 2013 - 10:05 AM, said:

Oh I agree that it is not the same thing, one is definitely smaller than the other, but where does it say that they cannot hit a 5 x 5 m bullseye?

Where does it say they CAN? Even the Mk 110 57mm gun (the most accurate in your link) does not make that claim.

Besides, the game mechanic allowing this is a game-breaker, even if it WERE possible.

[MaddMaxx]

Hotthedd, on 12 July 2013 - 04:29 AM, said:

You say it is easy to point 2 laser pointers so that the beams converge to one spot. Fine. Now, do that while running and jumping. Still easy? Okay, do that while running and jumping and switch targets from 50m away to 500m away and back. Still easy? Okay, do all that with the targets moving. Easy? Now strap a laser pointer to your head, RT, CT, LT, and each arm and have all the beams converge on one spot of a moving target 500 meters away while you are running and jumping.

FIXED convergence I could endorse. Pinpoint accuracy for any SINGLE fired weapon I could endorse. But one click/six hits takes far less skill than having to aim each weapon individually.

Although what you point out is true, and no one can dispute it, the point you make also misses out on a key factor that most, if not all, players want or games have to have\be to survive.

You get 3 guesses. I bet you get it in 2.

Edited by MaddMaxx, 12 July 2013 - 10:15 AM.

[Hotthedd]

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

Can't allow a speed reduction to be a factor dude. Sorry. If a players run across and opening and his/her target is already standing still, you propose that he/she would have to slow down to get a good accurate shot?

Slowing down causes death for those who need speed as an ally. What do those BIG guys have to do, speed up?

Yes. Those that need speed as an ally do not get the luxury of pinpoint alphas.

Have you ever seen an expert shot hitting bullseyes while sprinting? Sure, I used to bullseye womp-rats in my T-16 in beggar's canyon, and those are not much bigger than two meters, but every pilot does not have the Force with them.

MaddMaxx, on 12 July 2013 - 10:15 AM, said:

Although what you point out is true, and no one can dispute it, the point you make also misses out on a key factor that most, if not all, players want or games have to have\be to survive.

You get 3 guesses. I bet you get it in 2.

Most players want an easy button and will scream like a 2-year old if they don't get it?

[DocBach]

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

Can't allow a speed reduction to be a factor dude. Sorry. If a players run across and opening and his/her target is already standing still, you propose that he/she would have to slow down to get a good accurate shot?

Slowing down causes death for those who need speed as an ally. What do those BIG guys have to do, speed up?

Big guys moving slow become easier to shoot; fast guys moving fast become harder to shoot; most little guys don't alpha strike large groups of large weapons, so accurate single fire isn't as much as a penalty for them, and if it is, gaining convergence against large slow 'Mechs is quicker, so they can still put accurate fire on a target, it just isn't pinpoint accurate; at longer ranges damage may be more spread, but up close even with maximum convergence for moving you could hit a single panel.

The movement speed of the target is what factors the penalty to convergence speed so the faster your target, the slower you converge and vice versa; the movement penalty for a firing 'Mech opens up the tightness of the group a bit, but it's only a little bit more than pinpoint.

Edited by DocBach, 12 July 2013 - 10:23 AM.

[Training Instructor]

The technology isn't the issue, it's the damage to playability.

Some Jager can run some mixed build with a technical 50 point alpha, but most people won't prioritize him if there are multiple targets. That same guy puts 2xAC20 or Gauss on his mech though, and all of a sudden he's target number 1. Why? Because of ******** convergence.

Weapons wiggling a bit in their sockets is one thing, but the massive wiggling required for some of these convergence shots defies the entire concept of critical allocation inside the mech. If you're telling me I don't have room for a simple double heatsink or ton of ammo because all of my crit spaces are filled, then there shouldn't be much room for massive weapons to wiggle. Machine guns, medium lasers, and the like I could definitely see having a lot of wiggle room. A gauss, AC20, PPC, etc though? Give me a frakking break.

[MaddMaxx]

Syllogy, on 12 July 2013 - 06:57 AM, said:

If convergence times change from 0.0sec to 1.0sec, it won't change much in the way of people being dumb enough to stand still or run in a beeline towards the snipers.

Lots of damage will still be done to a small area.

Yup. Word is, every time someone creates something "*****" proof, Mother nature simply creates a better "*****".

Make it 5 seconds. Why not have to really wait to make that perfect kill shot. lol

[Tombstoner]

Kabenla Armah, on 12 July 2013 - 10:05 AM, said:

Oh I agree that it is not the same thing, one is definitely smaller than the other, but where does it say that they cannot hit a 5 x 5 m bullseye? Also remember, that the engagement ranges of battleships are waaaay further than that of mechs.

Exactly and the ranges we play at could realistically support pin point targeting with real weapons. the thing many many people forget is that range is an abstraction and was compressed along with time in order to fit onto a table.
MG with a max range of 120 feet is absurd.

I think the level of targeting accuracy is way to high to support good game play. It need some sort of difficulty in hitting the exact same pixel at 1200 meters with 6 or more weapons. Why not give a targeting bonus for firing one weapon. why should 6 ppc's have the same accuracy as one. this is the heard of the convergence game play issue along with how to fix it.

[BlackIronTarkus]

Thanks thundercles for the idea!

[DocBach]

BlackIronTarkus, on 12 July 2013 - 10:36 AM, said:

Thanks thundercles for the idea!

exactly why I wouldn't support a complete random cone; however, I'd like convergence to take longer, how long exactly depends on combat conditions, and give you some kind of indication for how well your weapons are converged. Almost like gaining a missile lock, but for convergence.

Edited by DocBach, 12 July 2013 - 10:38 AM.

[Maj Motoko Kusanagi]

Hotthedd, on 12 July 2013 - 10:14 AM, said:

Where does it say they CAN? Even the Mk 110 57mm gun (the most accurate in your link) does not make that claim.

Besides, the game mechanic allowing this is a game-breaker, even if it WERE possible.

You know what? You are right, it doesn't say that. I took "extreme accuracy" to mean you could consistently hit something that is 5x5 sqr meters from less than a mile away especially since the range is over 10 miles.

In terms of game-breaking, that is another argument, and I do not think COF/Convergence is the way to fix instant alpha issues.
I have be insta-killed in my K2 on a few occasions, and I know it is not pleasant, but it made me move more ofter. I think a better solution is stiff heat penalties for high alpha, upfront damage weapons. You could say that firing 6 ppcs requires a lot of power, and when you demand alot of power from a system, you lose efficiency by an exponential increase in heat production. That coupled with serious damage to your mech should discourage high alpha mechs.

[GingerBang]

BlackIronTarkus, on 12 July 2013 - 10:36 AM, said:

Thanks thundercles for the idea!

You do realize convergence means the weapons aim to a point, and without it they will just shoot straight forward right? There seems to be a huge issue here with people not having a 4th grade vocabulary. Weapons will not just shoot random directions.... They just shoot straight forward from where the weapon is pointing. If you fire two PPC's from a mech, and on the mech those PPC's are spaced 1.5M apart, they will land however far away at 1.5M apart.


I don't understand how people do not understand this concept. Or those that do somehow think you can't snipe, like the bullets are just going to zig-zag through space still. All it means is you can't alpha strike and expect to hit your target. You actually have to aim each weapon individually. Oh noes, pilot skills guys, watch out!

Edited by GingerBang, 12 July 2013 - 10:42 AM.

[Strum Wealh]

Kabenla Armah, on 12 July 2013 - 10:05 AM, said:

Oh I agree that it is not the same thing, one is definitely smaller than the other, but where does it say that they cannot hit a 5 x 5 m bullseye? Also remember, that the engagement ranges of battleships are waaaay further than that of mechs.

"Under the firepower enhancement package (FEP), DRS Technologies was also awarded a contract for the GEN II TIS to upgrade US Marine Corps M1A1 tanks. GEN II TIS is based on the 480×4 SADA (standard advanced dewar assembly) detector.

The FEP also includes an eyesafe laser range finder, north-finding module and precision lightweight global positioning receiver which provide targeting solutions for the new far target locate (FTL) function. FTL gives accurate targeting data to a range of 8,000m with a CEP (circular error of probability) of less than 35m." - source, regarding the improved (circa 2006) targeting system on the Abrams MBT

"In the military science of ballistics, circular error probable (CEP) (also circular error probability or circle of equal probability[1]) is an intuitive measure of a weapon system's precision. It is defined as the radius of a circle, centered about the mean, whose boundary is expected to include the landing points of 50% of the rounds."

"The accuracy of strike on the target is given by the Circle of Equal Probability (CEP) value, which is the radius of the circle within which half the strikes will impact. The Mark 6 guidance system on Trident II is a star-sight aided inertial guidance system, which gives a CEP of 120m. The missile is ejected from the submarine by high-pressure gas. When it reaches the surface the first rocket stage fires automatically. The missile's inertial guidance system calculates flight behaviour and guidance." - source, regarding the accuracy of the guided missiles used by the Vanguard-class ballistic missile submarines fielded by the UK's Royal Navy (introduced in 1994)

A modern tank with a modern targeting system on solid ground can, at best, hit within a 35-meter radius (that is, within a circle with a diameter of 70 meters) at 8 kilometers.
A modern ballistic missile submarine using a modern targeting system can, at best, expect said guided missile to land within 120 meters of a given target.

It seems highly unlikely that a conventional ship, firing unguided shells and even in smooth waters, would be able to match the Abrams' accuracy at 40-kilometer ranges (or even at the same 8 kilometer ranges).

[MaddMaxx]

Hotthedd, on 12 July 2013 - 10:19 AM, said:

Yes. Those that need speed as an ally do not get the luxury of pinpoint alphas.

Have you ever seen an expert shot hitting bullseyes while sprinting? Sure, I used to bullseye womp-rats in my T-16 in beggar's canyon, and those are not much bigger than two meters, but every pilot does not have the Force with them.

Most players want an easy button and will scream like a 2-year old if they don't get it?

Those with the true speed do not carry the damage profiles everyone is bitching about though. Score one for the little guy right?

The answer was FUN. Who plays computers games that are not FUN? Besides, FUN has SFA to do with easy or hard. FUN is a straight up entity. All you can do to it is usurp it, then it is called UnFun. Name a game that you play that has lots of UnFun and you expect it to survive?

Saying MWO makes you one of those 2 -year olds you don;t like btw, just for a different reason...

Edited by MaddMaxx, 12 July 2013 - 10:45 AM.

[Hotthedd]

MaddMaxx, on 12 July 2013 - 10:44 AM, said:

Those with the true speed do not carry the damage profiles everyone is bitching about though. Score one for the little guy right?

The answer was FUN. Who plays computers games that are not FUN? Besides, FUN has SFA to do with easy or hard. FUN is a straight up entity. All you can do to it is usurp it, then it is called UnFun. Name a game that you play that has lots of UnFun and you expect it to survive?

Saying MWO makes you one of those 2 -year olds you don;t like btw, just for a different reason...

Define fun. It is different things to different people. For me, personally, if something is not challenging and does not require skill and practice to master, it is not fun.

For the shorter attention span crowd, fun is beating a game and moving on.

For goons, fun is making their opponent rage quit.

If we were to only apply your definition of fun as a benchmark, it would NOT be fun for may others. And vice-versa. If that is the case, I say MW:O should concentrate on doing what they set out to do a year ago: Make a "thinking persons' 1PV sim/shooter." Not easy mode arcade.

[Maj Motoko Kusanagi]

Strum Wealh, on 12 July 2013 - 10:43 AM, said:

"Under the firepower enhancement package (FEP), DRS Technologies was also awarded a contract for the GEN II TIS to upgrade US Marine Corps M1A1 tanks. GEN II TIS is based on the 480×4 SADA (standard advanced dewar assembly) detector.

The FEP also includes an eyesafe laser range finder, north-finding module and precision lightweight global positioning receiver which provide targeting solutions for the new far target locate (FTL) function. FTL gives accurate targeting data to a range of 8,000m with a CEP (circular error of probability) of less than 35m." - source, regarding the improved (circa 2006) targeting system on the Abrams MBT

"In the military science of ballistics, circular error probable (CEP) (also circular error probability or circle of equal probability[1]) is an intuitive measure of a weapon system's precision. It is defined as the radius of a circle, centered about the mean, whose boundary is expected to include the landing points of 50% of the rounds."

"The accuracy of strike on the target is given by the Circle of Equal Probability (CEP) value, which is the radius of the circle within which half the strikes will impact. The Mark 6 guidance system on Trident II is a star-sight aided inertial guidance system, which gives a CEP of 120m. The missile is ejected from the submarine by high-pressure gas. When it reaches the surface the first rocket stage fires automatically. The missile's inertial guidance system calculates flight behaviour and guidance." - source, regarding the accuracy of the guided missiles used by the Vanguard-class ballistic missile submarines fielded by the UK's Royal Navy (introduced in 1994)

A modern tank with a modern targeting system on solid ground can, at best, hit within a 35-meter radius (that is, within a circle with a diameter of 70 meters) at 8 kilometers.
A modern ballistic missile submarine using a modern targeting system can, at best, expect said guided missile to land within 120 meters of a given target.

It seems highly unlikely that a conventional ship, firing unguided shells and even in smooth waters, would be able to match the Abrams' accuracy at 40-kilometer ranges (or even at the same 8 kilometer ranges).

True, but we are talking less than a kilometer.
Do you know what the accuracy is for less than a kilometer?

[MaddMaxx]

Tombstoner, on 12 July 2013 - 10:31 AM, said:

Exactly and the ranges we play at could realistically support pin point targeting with real weapons. the thing many many people forget is that range is an abstraction and was compressed along with time in order to fit onto a table.
MG with a max range of 120 feet is absurd.

I think the level of targeting accuracy is way to high to support good game play. It need some sort of difficulty in hitting the exact same pixel at 1200 meters with 6 or more weapons. Why not give a targeting bonus for firing one weapon. why should 6 ppc's have the same accuracy as one. this is the heard of the convergence game play issue along with how to fix it.

If you introduce even the slightest chance of a Miss, even under Docs proposal, what would you do when a shot misses, that should have hit, based on your visual understanding of what you saw happen, as it happened? Then got your *** shot to death?

Simply say "oh well, bummer!" and carry on. Unlikely. Everyone that it happened to would scream blue murder and want the Dev's heads on Pikes.

So, some form of timed convergence may be acceptable, but how long? To some even .5 seconds would be an unacceptable eternity when the fur is flying and the need to expend "everything" is required, even if it means shutting down for 12 seconds after.

To others 1.5 seconds would be an acceptable time frame despite the fur is flying and the need to expend "everything" is required, even if it means shutting down for 12 seconds after because it makes it seem more "real".

Who is right and what # gets selected? Sounds like another Forum foray in to the minds of the armchair Developer to me. Anyone else want to come along? (shivers)

Edited by MaddMaxx, 12 July 2013 - 10:58 AM.