185 replies to this topic

[mistformsquirrel]

DocBach, on 12 July 2013 - 06:29 AM, said:

Again, instantly articulating several 15 ton cannons at once to the exact point wherever you swing your crosshairs?

Easier than you think. Keep in mind the actual distance the guns have to move is in the single digit degrees or less in most cases - this is a lot less complicated than you make it sound.

Also just to give you an idea how old the technology we're dealing with is - consider that the first targeting computers in wide use... were on Battleships in WWII. Multiple large ballistic weapons? Check. Keep in mind those guns could fire 40km. Granted the accuracy with the old targeting computers was probably not anything near what we're talking here, but we're also not firing 40km either, we're firing half of a kilometer in most cases.

[Multitallented]

Convergence if fine. Now shew.

[DocBach]

Shooting adjustments are angular, so sure, slight adjustments are only needed at long ranges. However, the problem comes from shooting several of them at once that are located in funky positions across a 'Mechs body that are somehow able to articulate INSTANTLY to put all of their rounds into a single neat hole at a km away. Weapons would be required to dramatically point inwards to gain pinpoint point of aim point of impact at close ranges.

Battleship cannons aren't a very good analogy, they are more akin to artillery and are area effect weapons, not pinpoint precise weapons like we are use to in MWO.

Edited by DocBach, 12 July 2013 - 10:27 AM.

[Ransack]

Roughneck45, on 11 July 2013 - 04:55 PM, said:

But that is only 500m and less. You are trying to remove sniping from the game if you get rid of convergence.

Not if you fire one weapon at a time. No need for them to converge.

[3rdworld]

DocBach, on 12 July 2013 - 06:42 AM, said:

Shooting adjustments are angular. However, the problem comes from shooting several of them at once that are located in funky positions across a 'Mechs body that are somehow able to articulate INSTANTLY to put all of their rounds into a single neat hole at a km away.

Battleship cannons aren't a very good analogy, they are more akin to artillery and are area effect weapons, not pinpoint precise weapons like we are use to in MWO.

if the weapon is mounted 4m away from the cockpit the adjustment from 200m to 500m is ~0.688 degrees.

I find it very difficult to believe that in the year 3000, the computer which controls a multi-million C-bill machine running on a fusion reactor can't do the calculations of my free-bee solar powered calculator. It would be inconceivable that the weapon is just hardlocked to a torso.

[Syllogy]

DocBach, on 12 July 2013 - 06:42 AM, said:

Shooting adjustments are angular. However, the problem comes from shooting several of them at once that are located in funky positions across a 'Mechs body that are somehow able to articulate INSTANTLY to put all of their rounds into a single neat hole at a km away.

If your target is moving laterally to your position, this is an invalid argument. Leading the target removes any pinpoint accuracy.

[Roland]

mistformsquirrel, on 12 July 2013 - 06:36 AM, said:

Easier than you think. Keep in mind the actual distance the guns have to move is in the single digit degrees or less in most cases - this is a lot less complicated than you make it sound.

Actually, making such precise adjustments with giant robot arms, while the robot itself is moving by much LARGER increments through running over broken terrain in a bipedal form, is what makes the notion somewhat silly.

But the argument is moot, because any convergence system should be based upon its gameplay implications, not some foolish attempt to simulate "realism".

Every time any argument about GIANT ROBOTS FIGHTING IN SPACE comes down to realism, you have crossed the line into crazy town.

[DocBach]

3rdworld, on 12 July 2013 - 06:47 AM, said:

I find it very difficult to believe that in the year 3000, the computer which controls a multi-million C-bill machine running on a fusion reactor can't do the calculations of my free-bee solar powered calculator. It would be inconceivable that the weapon is just hardlocked to a torso.

that's actually the entire premise of Battletech, actually. The weapons aren't suppose to be hardlocked, but their computers are suppose to be equivalent of 1980's computers that have degraded over 2000 years.

Syllogy, on 12 July 2013 - 06:48 AM, said:

If your target is moving laterally to your position, this is an invalid argument. Leading the target removes any pinpoint accuracy.

Pinpoint point of aim, point of impact.

[Livewyr]

Doc, I would care about convergence except for two things:

1: Without it, trying to kill a damned light mech would make streaks pretty much a requirement again.
2: PGI doesn't have a great track record of changing core things based on the player base.

[Kaldor]

DocBach, on 12 July 2013 - 06:22 AM, said:

This isn't an MBT targeting for a single main gun, its the equivalent of an MBT lining up four or five main guns instantly at any range.

Lasers should be pretty quick, ballistics and the such, however, would require quite a bit of calculation and articulation to aim that accurately this consistently.

The game only targets whats under the reticule. And ballistics under 1000m the calculations would be laughable, even with todays technology. Beyond that, its up to the player to hit at long range. Ballistics have travel time. Ever hear of Kentucky windage?

DocBach, on 12 July 2013 - 06:29 AM, said:

Again, instantly articulating several 15 ton cannons at once to the exact point wherever you swing your crosshairs?

Several would imply more than 2 by definition, and closer estimation of several is probably 4 or more as a few is usually considered 3-4. Now that the stupid English lesson is over....

How many mechs can actually mount a pair (2) AC20s, AC10s, or gauss rifles? Umm, 2, the K2 and Jager. Yeah, not really game breaking. How many mechs can run 3-4 AC5s or UAC5s or AC2s? Possibly a Jager, but better done on an Ilya or Phract 4X. Ilya has one in the torso, which could potentially cause some convergence issues, but the 4X and Jagers are all in the arms, so no real convergence issues there in my mind. Beyond that, you have plenty of mechs that can run pairs of smaller caliber ACs.

Convergence will not change into a CoF mechanic. Get used to it. We may see convergence times increase slightly as you move your reticule/crosshair giving the pinpoint perk an actual use, but thats about it.

I wish people would stop talking about this crap.

[DocBach]

Kaldor, on 12 July 2013 - 06:51 AM, said:

The game only targets whats under the reticule. And ballistics under 1000m the calculations would be laughable, even with todays technology. Beyond that, its up to the player to hit at long range. Ballistics have travel time. Ever hear of Kentucky windage?

today's technology and what balances a game are completely different things.

Guess what? I'm a squad designated marksman and a Bradley gunner in real life. I understand how well I can engage targets with my 25mm or rifle; what I am discussing, however, is how weapons should work in a video game which is a simulation of a board game.

Kaldor, on 12 July 2013 - 06:51 AM, said:

Convergence will not change into a CoF mechanic. Get used to it. We may see convergence times increase slightly as you move your reticule/crosshair giving the pinpoint perk an actual use, but thats about it.

That's all I'm asking for, really.

http://mwomercs.com/...active-reticle/

[Syllogy]

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.

[mistformsquirrel]

DocBach, on 12 July 2013 - 06:50 AM, said:

that's actually the entire premise of Battletech, actually. The weapons aren't suppose to be hardlocked, but their computers are suppose to be equivalent of 1980's computers that have degraded over 2000 years.

Alright, I've been a Battletech fan for over a decade - I've read novels, I have the technical readouts and the old boxed set... where are you getting this from? I'm being sincere here, I do not in any way shape or form remember this being the case. Note that even in the 80s we had things like laser guidance and early iterations of fly-by-wire, so the technology is still there.

@Roland - Really? It's crazy to want just a little versimilitude in my giant robot game? But let's ignore that for a moment - let's focus like you want, purely on gameplay:

How does my brawler stand up to a PPC machine if neither of us can aim accurately? Because I guarantee you that PPC boat is going to be ripping limbs off my machine before I do, simply because my damage (being built around DPS and multiple varied weapon systems), is going to be spread all over their machine - while theirs is still going to be focused on whatever locations their weapons hit.

Consider this: It's entirely possible for a Heavy Metal to mount 2 PPCs on one arm. Those 2 PPCs are still going to hit together doing 20 points of damage wherever they land, even without convergence (that's not even boating of course, but it's an example) - meanwhile my Heavy Metal with it's 2 AC/5s, SRM4s and Medium Lasers is going to be spreading it's damage all over creation.

Removing convergence isn't going to change the meta, it's just going to make battles take longer - the same people win in the end though.

[Roland]

Quote

How does my brawler stand up to a PPC machine if neither of us can aim accurately? Because I guarantee you that PPC boat is going to be ripping limbs off my machine before I do, simply because my damage (being built around DPS and multiple varied weapon systems), is going to be spread all over their machine - while theirs is still going to be focused on whatever locations their weapons hit.

Ok, two key points here:
1) I consistently argue in support of a perfectly ACCURATE, if not perfectly precise, system. I do not want any randomization injected into the game at all. Accepting that...
2) Under the current system, with perfect convergence, your DPS mech can't stand up to the PPC boat anyway.. so I'm not sure what you are trying to argue here. He can just dump massive alphastrikes into a specific panel and kill you, while your mech just sprays damage all over his mech. DPS builds are terrible, largely because of the current system that favors large, perfectly converging alpha strikes.

Quote

Removing convergence isn't going to change the meta, it's just going to make battles take longer - the same people win in the end though.

The better pilot is SUPPOSED to win in the end.

[3rdworld]

DocBach, on 12 July 2013 - 06:55 AM, said:

today's technology and what balances a game are completely different things.

Guess what? I'm a squad designated marksman and a Bradley gunner in real life. I understand how well I can engage targets with my 25mm or rifle; what I am discussing, however, is how weapons should work in a video game which is a simulation of a board game.

And the gameplay implications are even worse.

Are converging SPLs an issue? Are converging AC/2s an issue?

are converging

SL
ML
LL
ERLL
SPL
MPL
LPL
AC/2
AC/5
UAC/5
AC/10
an issue? (personally I would throw gauss an AC/20 into the list of non issue weapons).

So your fix for PPCs, Gauss, and AC/20s is to nerf all the weapons? Do you really expect the meta to change by doing this?

[Roland]

3rdworld, on 12 July 2013 - 07:06 AM, said:

are converging

SL
ML
...
an issue? (personally I would throw gauss an AC/20 into the list of non issue weapons).

Apparently they were, which is why they nerfed them back in closed beta, because fast hunchback 4P's were wrecking folks.

[mistformsquirrel]

Roland, on 12 July 2013 - 07:03 AM, said:

Ok, two key points here:
1) I consistently argue in support of a perfectly ACCURATE, if not perfectly precise, system. I do not want any randomization injected into the game at all. Accepting that...
2) Under the current system, with perfect convergence, your DPS mech can't stand up to the PPC boat anyway.. so I'm not sure what you are trying to argue here. He can just dump massive alphastrikes into a specific panel and kill you, while your mech just sprays damage all over his mech. DPS builds are terrible, largely because of the current system that favors large, perfectly converging alpha strikes.

My point is the problem isn't convergence - it's PPCs. Nerf their damage or rate of fire; make it so that a PPC boat (as opposed to someone with 1 PPC), has to actually aim carefully - if they hit it should hurt, but if they miss they ought to regret it. As noted in a previous post, I prefer lowering ROF, since that means you can preserve the shock value of a big hit; but it requires a sniper to actually act like a sniper - if a big brawler gets in their face they're in trouble because their actual damage per second is simply not up to snuff.

I also want to add a specific note about 2: I don't spray damage all over their mech at present. I can, with effort, keep my guns on a specific body part as I move and fight; I'm not saying it's the easiest thing ever (or that I'm all that good a pilot); but someone with even a modicum of skill *can* use a brawling set effectively. My point is that with convergence as it is, I can actually maintain this kind of aim - without it, my shots WILL hit all over their mech because the range I operate at means my guns will be hitting shoulders and arms rather than torso most of the time. (I'm generally within 150m if I can help it, keeps the LRMs from being a pain).

The PPC guy is going to be having the same problem of course, but their PPCs are as much as possible going to be clustered together so that as many hit single locations as possible - sure they aren't going to be coring me as fast, but they will take my arms and legs off faster than I can them. Hence my point that it's PPCs that are at issue, not convergence.

Quote

The better pilot is SUPPOSED to win in the end.

Right, more PPCs = Better Pilot, I consider myself informed.

[Kaldor]

DocBach, on 12 July 2013 - 06:55 AM, said:

today's technology and what balances a game are completely different things.

Guess what? I'm a squad designated marksman and a Bradley gunner in real life. I understand how well I can engage targets with my 25mm or rifle; what I am discussing, however, is how weapons should work in a video game which is a simulation of a board game.

That's all I'm asking for, really.

http://mwomercs.com/...active-reticle/

Im not disparaging your military service in the Army as I was in the Marines from '93-'96. Im a great shot, best round of fire at the range for me was 245/250. If you know anything about Marine range training, thats 5 shots out of the black in 50 rounds at ranges from 200-500 yards with an M16A2 with iron sights. I still keep my multi expert awards away at home put away because I still think its a hell of an accomplishment.

Now that the ***** measuring is over...

Im all for balance. However, I think that removing convergence at some level is a nerf to player skill, both good and bad players. Ive read thru your thread about convergence, and while I could get behind some opening of the reticule while making fast jerky movements with the torso and arms. However opening the reticule while moving forces players to stay static to get the best shot possible, when getting that best shot while moving at times is hard enough when taking fire that obscures your vision. My other concern goes back to static play. It only enforces the current long range meta as it hurts movement and only really benefits snipers. The mentioned change to adding 3 aim points is bad for new players. As a seasoned player I could handle it, but it would be really bad for the noobs that are just picking the game up for the first time. There has to be a fun factor, and honestly this game is hard enough for alot of people to pick up and just play. Lets NOT make it even more complex.

[3rdworld]

Roland, on 12 July 2013 - 07:08 AM, said:

Apparently they were, which is why they nerfed them back in closed beta, because fast hunchback 4P's were wrecking folks.

You do understand, your example was fixed without having to use a convergence system?

[Syllogy]

DocBach, on 12 July 2013 - 06:55 AM, said:

Guess what? I'm a squad designated marksman and a Bradley gunner in real life. I understand how well I can engage targets with my 25mm or rifle; what I am discussing, however, is how weapons should work in a video game which is a simulation of a board game.

I feel the need to point out that Mechwarrior does not simulate a boardgame. It is a Mech simulation which happens to take place in the same universe as a board game. These are very different interpretations of the same subject matter.