59 replies to this topic

[verybad]

I'd love recoil. MW3 had it, and it was my favorite part of MW3 (though it was a bit strong in MW3)

[DocBach]

sokitumi, on 17 July 2013 - 09:01 AM, said:

Another convergence thread. Deep sigh. These ideas about bullets not going where you shoot are not a good idea for anyone but truest TT nerds and baddies that are just not very accurate. You want a game that nobody plays?

yeah, nobody but neck beards would play a game with cones of fire like battlefield or call of duty... they don't have pinpoint accuracy and have been critical failures of games.

[Vassago Rain]

Yes, it's totally not possible to tell your game engine that the character is wielding multiple weapons, with different mechanics behind them.

All problems with MWO can be directly traced to cryengine.

[sokitumi]

DocBach, on 17 July 2013 - 09:17 AM, said:

yeah, nobody but neck beards would play a game with cones of fire like battlefield or call of duty... they don't have pinpoint accuracy and have been critical failures of games.

At least they don't have some 1985-board-game-die-hard-following telling the devs what their game should be non-stop. Like PGI isn't struggling enough w/o that.

[MaddMaxx]

DocBach, on 17 July 2013 - 09:17 AM, said:

yeah, nobody but neck beards would play a game with cones of fire like battlefield or call of duty... they don't have pinpoint accuracy and have been critical failures of games.

Silly question I know, but as a single grunt in those games, how many weapons can you carry and fire at one time? If the answer is only 1, then why the need for a Cone of Fire, other than perhaps to quell the QQ from that player base about 1 shot kills right?

If they keep turning up the Heat via the Stacking, eventually, if not there already, Alpha striking will be what it is supposed to be. The last ditch effort to kill an enemy and then be in the right place and have time to cool back down the furnace.

[meteorol]

sokitumi, on 17 July 2013 - 09:01 AM, said:

Another convergence thread. Deep sigh. These ideas about bullets not going where you shoot are not a good idea for anyone but truest TT nerds and baddies that are just not very accurate. You want a game that nobody plays?

I haven't really read all the threads about this issue, but i'm pretty sure almost noone suggest a totally random CoF.
As long as the system gives the player the power to decide if he wants to fire 100% accurate or take the disadvantage of inaccuracy in order to get another advantage (close combat burst damage comes to mind), it isn't really hurting skill or favoring baddies.
Accurate shots vs "spray&pray" is part of almost every FPS on the market nowadays, and they are most certainly not all played by TT nerds and baddies.

On topic:

I think many underestimate how much work it would be to put in convergence in a way that makes sense. I have read a few good ideas, but they all sound like a major change to the current game mechanics.

Lets be honest:
I have NO idea how difficult it is or how long it takes to code something like this. I'm assuming a really large percentage of the guys screaming "convergence" whenever a new thread pops up on this forum have no idea either (I'm just implying this forum is not full of programers/game developers who have written a gamecode before)

But based on what we have seen so far(since closed beta), PGI doesn't have the resources/time/capabilities to pull off something like this on the fly.
New maps roll out painfully slow. New gamemodes are nowhere to be found. We haven't heard a word on CW since this fantastic dreaming like a year ago. Even simple (atleast in our eyes) balance solutions (Srm?) take months to get into the game.

PGI has to split up resources between adding new content and fixing existing one. Changing core game mechanics to get a working convergence system would take ages under this circumstances.

If they would delay lobbies and CW for 6 months to implement a working convergence system, 50% of the forum population would be satisfied, while the other 50% would turn this forum into a burning piece of flamethreads.

Maybe there are dev teams which could pull of something like this in a conceivable time span. But PGI simply can't.

[Purlana]

Add a crosshair with multiple points on it. Each point representing a separate torso / arm.

Edited by Purlana, 17 July 2013 - 09:53 AM.

[Nicholas Carlyle]

I still boggle at people who think getting rid of instant convergence is akin to random fire...

I can't tell if these people are just young and haven't reached their potential yet.

Or if they just completely lack the brain function to understand the concept.

It really makes me weep for people.

Purlana, on 17 July 2013 - 09:53 AM, said:

Add a crosshair with multiple points on it. Each point representing a separate torso / arm.

Or instead, just have 2 points on your reticle that start out an inch a part. The longer you hold them on your target, closer they get, until they are pinpoint.

Super easy.

[Master Q]

Crimson Fenris, on 17 July 2013 - 08:07 AM, said:

I wonder if this "issue" of instant-convergence weapons is simply a matter of flexibility in the Cry Engine 3 itself :

Remember that engine was initially developped for FPS gaming, where are pin-point weapons, and accuracy penalties as well.
But the fact is, in all those FPS games, there was no system of "multiple aim" : only one aim, for one bullet at a time, modified only by accuracy (usually for jumping or running) wich will spread the bullets off target.

I strongly presume, as hinted by the convergence upgrade in the pilot skills tree that had never been working from day one, there is a problem wich require such serious coding upgrades in the core engine to be functional.

Actually, in MWO, we can only see all our shots going into the same point, with the exception of arm-mounted weapons that can fire with another aimpoint.

Basically, to set the intended working convergence, it will require one aimpoint by weapon, varying by the distance aimed, in realtime.
Two aimpoints, one mobile and other fixed, were IMO already a big deal to code properly...

So, if PGI dont want to "fix" convergence, maybe its because the required amount of work currently overwhelm their programming abilities ?
Maybe their knowledge about the CryEngine is not high enough, or even the engine itself doesnt allow those modifications ?

You thoughts ?

The Hunchback's supposed "bug" for Autocannon weapons firing left-of-center proved it is possible.

They "fixed" the bug. But they know how it happened and it'd be easy to re-create as a feature.

Nicholas Carlyle, on 17 July 2013 - 10:04 AM, said:

I still boggle at people who think getting rid of instant convergence is akin to random fire...

I can't tell if these people are just young and haven't reached their potential yet.

Or if they just completely lack the brain function to understand the concept.

I'm leaning towards the latter.

[ExAstris]

Convergence cannot be fixed. It isn't a matter of the engine allowing it (it will, just takes programming time). Its a matter of each mech actually firing from different points.

Even IF convergence on target were the problem (which its not), and even if you put in a factor for cones of fire (which would make some mechs' outer weapon hardpoints bafflingly useless), you are still left with the problem of balancing divergence.

Mechs fire from different locations, mechs with a large number of weapon hardpoints in one location (not just the section, but actually have the weapon mounts physically next to each other) will become the only competitively viable option.

Cones of fire and lack of convergence works great in other shooters where all the weapons fire from the same point (hip or dead center when ADS), but start adding in the fact that each 'avatar' in MWO has its own set of firing points that can then diverge from there, and you quickly have a huge balance problem on your hands because the mech that can fire 3 ppcs from the same hand will be able to put all three of those ppcs into the same statistical cone, while the awesome will have three entirely separate cones of possible landing points that may not even overlap at all.



Not only is convergence not the problem, but 'fixing' it doesn't solve the balance problems, it only turns the balancing table to a new tilt. Even the most elaborate convergence modifications still leave the table tilted.

Edited by ExAstris, 17 July 2013 - 11:06 AM.

[DocBach]

MaddMaxx, on 17 July 2013 - 09:46 AM, said:

Silly question I know, but as a single grunt in those games, how many weapons can you carry and fire at one time? If the answer is only 1, then why the need for a Cone of Fire, other than perhaps to quell the QQ from that player base about 1 shot kills right?

If they keep turning up the Heat via the Stacking, eventually, if not there already, Alpha striking will be what it is supposed to be. The last ditch effort to kill an enemy and then be in the right place and have time to cool back down the furnace.

I suppose you are unfamiliar with the akimbo weapons in shooter games that let you shoot multiple weapons for more damage output at a hit to accyracy . In this game we can take several of the biggest guns and shoot them all into the same place with no sacrifice to accuracy required.

[Master Q]

ExAstris, on 17 July 2013 - 11:05 AM, said:

Convergence cannot be fixed. It isn't a matter of the engine allowing it (it will, just takes programming time). Its a matter of each mech actually firing from different points.

Even IF convergence on target were the problem (which its not), and even if you put in a factor for cones of fire (which would make some mechs' outer weapon hardpoints bafflingly useless), you are still left with the problem of balancing divergence.

Mechs fire from different locations, mechs with a large number of weapon hardpoints in one location (not just the section, but actually have the weapon mounts physically next to each other) will become the only competitively viable option.

Cones of fire and lack of convergence works great in other shooters where all the weapons fire from the same point (hip or dead center when ADS), but start adding in the fact that each 'avatar' in MWO has its own set of firing points that can then diverge from there, and you quickly have a huge balance problem on your hands because the mech that can fire 3 ppcs from the same hand will be able to put all three of those ppcs into the same statistical cone, while the awesome will have three entirely separate cones of possible landing points that may not even overlap at all.



Not only is convergence not the problem, but 'fixing' it doesn't solve the balance problems, it only turns the balancing table to a new tilt. Even the most elaborate convergence modifications still leave the table tilted.

You are joking, or else you really haven't spent any time at all thinking, have you?

Convergence is, and has been, a problem for this game.

In the early alphas of the game, PGI found that making Lasers a point-and-boom weapon made them overpowered, something that had also been observed in every previous Mechwarrior title (Mechwarrior 2/3/4 especially). So they made lasers a beam weapon; convergence FOR LASERS wasn't an issue since holding the aim steady on a single panel became drastically more difficult unless targeting a shutdown mech.

Want to know why poptarts and high-rider mechs have become almost the only thing we see? Because their weapons ride higher than the cockpit. The Jagermechs, the Blackjacks, the Stalkers, all have one thing in common - their weapons fire from ABOVE the cockpit. That lets them walk up to a terrain feature and fire over the top, while other mechs - Awesome, Cataphract to name just two - could walk to the SAME SPOT and have their weapons hit dirt instead. It's the opposite end of convergence. You either use a high-rider mech or a poptart jump-jet mech now or you are nerfed by PGI's bad decisions in game design.

We don't need "cone of fire", what laughably silly brain-donors call it. We need stable, imperfect convergence Weapons that fire in an alpha strike should not all hit the precise same pinpoint spot. Weapons in the left arm should hit a bit left. Weapons in the LT, a little less left. Weapons in the CT, dead on or a little low. Weapon in the head (if there's a mount), a tad high. Similar thing for the RT and RA.

Fire an alpha, hit 4-5 panels, just like firing LRMS and hitting 4-5 panels, firing SRMs and hitting 4-5 panels, firing a laser and hitting 3-5 panels. Imperfect convergence is needed in this game to save it from itself.

The developers admitted, up-front, that perfect convergence was the reason every previous game's lasers have been overpowered. Why they refuse to admit that it's what is making the AC40s and Gauss/PPC boats overpowered now, and why brain donors can't see the same, is beyond me. It's simple game design, simple game mechanics analysis, and it's analysis they already did on the laser side.

Edited by Master Q, 17 July 2013 - 11:32 AM.

[Lugh]

Crimson Fenris, on 17 July 2013 - 08:07 AM, said:

I wonder if this "issue" of instant-convergence weapons is simply a matter of flexibility in the Cry Engine 3 itself :

Remember that engine was initially developped for FPS gaming, where are pin-point weapons, and accuracy penalties as well.
But the fact is, in all those FPS games, there was no system of "multiple aim" : only one aim, for one bullet at a time, modified only by accuracy (usually for jumping or running) wich will spread the bullets off target.

I strongly presume, as hinted by the convergence upgrade in the pilot skills tree that had never been working from day one, there is a problem wich require such serious coding upgrades in the core engine to be functional.

Actually, in MWO, we can only see all our shots going into the same point, with the exception of arm-mounted weapons that can fire with another aimpoint.

Basically, to set the intended working convergence, it will require one aimpoint by weapon, varying by the distance aimed, in realtime.
Two aimpoints, one mobile and other fixed, were IMO already a big deal to code properly...

So, if PGI dont want to "fix" convergence, maybe its because the required amount of work currently overwhelm their programming abilities ?
Maybe their knowledge about the CryEngine is not high enough, or even the engine itself doesnt allow those modifications ?

You thoughts ?

Yes they should have done the Unreal Engine to start for this and many other reasons.

[ExAstris]

Master Q, on 17 July 2013 - 11:31 AM, said:

You are joking, or else you really haven't spent any time at all thinking, have you?

Your argumentum ad hominem is not welcome. Nor is your target remotely well suited for it.

Master Q, on 17 July 2013 - 11:31 AM, said:

Convergence is, and has been, a problem for this game.

Emphatic assertions of your opinion do not alter any of the facts. Geometry validates my point, and your misconception of my argument in conjunction with your overriding belief that convergence must be the problem prevents you from seeing that you already agree with me.

Master Q, on 17 July 2013 - 11:31 AM, said:

Want to know why poptarts and high-rider mechs have become almost the only thing we see? Because their weapons ride higher than the cockpit.

Sporadic and diverged starting points is the root problem, and not one that can be solved entirely with any level of modification to convergence, nor is it something that can simply be removed from MechWarrior due to the canonicity of the designs and their firing points.

[Alienfreak]

Vassago Rain, on 17 July 2013 - 09:25 AM, said:

Yes, it's totally not possible to tell your game engine that the character is wielding multiple weapons, with different mechanics behind them.

All problems with MWO can be directly traced to cryengine.

All the problems of MWO can be directly traced to being a clone of a cryengine mod and thus also using the cryengine

[VanillaG]

If you look at the current meta, front loaded pinpoint damage is king. Most of the builds that use this consist of some number of PPC and sometimes additional ballistics. By design, most ballistics are harder to boat because of size, weight, ammo, and a the potential for a crit to cause an explosion. The PPC is smaller, lighter, has no ammo limit, and a crit cannot cause an explosion. I can see two ways bring the PPC back into line:

• Turn it into beam weapon like all other energy weapons. The beam duration seems to have kept most energy weapons in line. This also gives each type of weapon a specific role as ballistics would be pinpoint damage, energy are damage over time, and missiles are damage over area. A beam duration also makes poptarting impossible to do.
  
• If you keep it as a ballistic damage type, add in the chance for crit explosion like the gauss. This would put it more inline with other ballistics in that there is always a chance of explosion when mounting one.

The root cause of all of the convergence issue is the PPC which takes the all of positives of energy and ballistic weapons but has none of the downsides of either class. Until you fix this, there is no reason to try to fix convergence.

[Donnie Silveray]

Or just make it impossible for someone to fire off several of them at once . Least without nuking the fleshbag inside that metal coffin.

Edited by Donnie Silveray, 17 July 2013 - 12:22 PM.

[Crimson Fenris]

Master Q, on 17 July 2013 - 11:31 AM, said:

We don't need "cone of fire", what laughably silly brain-donors call it. We need stable, imperfect convergence Weapons that fire in an alpha strike should not all hit the precise same pinpoint spot. Weapons in the left arm should hit a bit left. Weapons in the LT, a little less left. Weapons in the CT, dead on or a little low. Weapon in the head (if there's a mount), a tad high. Similar thing for the RT and RA.

Fire an alpha, hit 4-5 panels, just like firing LRMS and hitting 4-5 panels, firing SRMs and hitting 4-5 panels, firing a laser and hitting 3-5 panels. Imperfect convergence is needed in this game to save it from itself.

That's exactly how I see the thing to be implemented. Straight-firing weapons in torsoes, and converging ones in arms with some delay calculated following the aimed distance.

ExAstris, on 17 July 2013 - 11:05 AM, said:

Mechs fire from different locations, mechs with a large number of weapon hardpoints in one location (not just the section, but actually have the weapon mounts physically next to each other) will become the only competitively viable option.

Cones of fire and lack of convergence works great in other shooters where all the weapons fire from the same point (hip or dead center when ADS), but start adding in the fact that each 'avatar' in MWO has its own set of firing points that can then diverge from there, and you quickly have a huge balance problem on your hands because the mech that can fire 3 ppcs from the same hand will be able to put all three of those ppcs into the same statistical cone, while the awesome will have three entirely separate cones of possible landing points that may not even overlap at all.

Can't see the problem here. It's a matter of designing hardpoint layout, and maybe adding restrictions for weapon classes.
But at the end it seems to not be a bad idea, since that will eventually make Mechs very differents and specific, with strenght and weaknesses, instead of the omni-mechs we got now (basically take the best hardpoint loadout on the heaviest mech).

You could then have a Highlander with 3 PPC on one arm, but comes with the flaw to be 1.easily disarmed and 2.suffer from current heat penalties. Then get an Awesome with 3 PPC dispatched on the entire chassis, with the ability to make 2 of them converge (the arm + one torso).


In either way, the topic was about the ability to implement numerous aims instead of giving weapons an accuracy penalty, doable or not in the Cry Engine 3...

Edited by Crimson Fenris, 17 July 2013 - 12:31 PM.

[Stoicblitzer]

Syllogy, on 17 July 2013 - 08:20 AM, said:

If it was never changed, then it was never a problem.

[Master Q]

ExAstris, on 17 July 2013 - 12:05 PM, said:

Blither blither blather blather

You cut all the comments that mattered to the analysis. Try responding to the points instead. They found that convergence was causing lasers to be OP. Their solution was to make lasers Beam weapons, thus making lasers apt to spread damage over multiple panels.

They said the spread on LRMs and SRMs was too tight, so they widened it, making LRMs and SRMs spread damage over multiple panels.

Machine guns were fine. They already spread damage over multiple panels over time.

That leaves the direct-fire blapp weapons. PPC, Gauss, and Autocannons. And the reason these weapons are being boated is that they drop a set of damage on a single place with pinpoint convergence.

Can the "canonicity" of the weapons be changed? I wouldn't like to see PPCs as beam, nor Gauss, nor Autocannons. That's not their place. But on the other hand, if I fire six PPCs I should not expect all six to hit the same exact point any more than I should suddenly expect four LRM-20 launchers or three SRM-6 launchers to magically drop every missile in the CT of the target.

Convergence is the issue. Answer that point logically rather than blither-blather like you've done.