59 replies to this topic

[Prezimonto]

MustrumRidcully, on 17 July 2013 - 08:53 AM, said:

The other question is: What if I don't boat?
I know, it's dumb not to, but man, imagine using 2 medium lasers, 2 SRMs and a Gauss Rifle. That are 3 weapon groups you have to fire within 4 seconds and you need different leads for all, and you need to hold one group on target for a full second.

How much time is really left for defensive torso-twisting? 2 maybe 3 seconds?

That's one of these neat boating advantages few, if any, ever talk about.

This is something I hadn't considered. It really puts boats into perspective. When you see that awesome or catapult torso twisting 90°+ out of side between shots it looks really cool. But a Dragon has an extremely hard time bringing energy, missile, and ballistic weapons all on point at the same time.

[Ralgas]

Master Q, on 17 July 2013 - 12:33 PM, said:

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.

But thats it, noone (and i mean noone) has come up with a system that covers equally affects a light tha same as an assualt, cant be broken by throwing 3ppc and a gauss in a hgn732 or will just have everyone dump direct fires for a new lrmaggon. I also think we'd just see a rise in high alpha rush tactics, get into near humping distance and unload where convergence wont make a lick of difference. Add that to "it cant be too complex atm or we'll break hsr" and tell me again how it would work?

Edited by Ralgas, 17 July 2013 - 12:53 PM.

[Skinflowers]

I get the notion that when people say 'convergence' not everyone is thinking the same thing. I believe this is why terms like random, CoF, L2P etc etc have crept in and poisoned the debate.

In my view the problem, not necessarily saying convergence here, is simply this: multiple weapons hitting simultaneously as 1 weapon = bad for MWO.

I'm of the opinion the convergence issue is something PGI cannot or will not address (for whatever reason) so an alternative fix for "multiple weapons hitting....etc" is needed.

Pinpoint accuracy does not exist anywhere but in a computer game. So, is this truly an attempt at a simulation or is it a FPS with a Battletech sticker slapped on it? When I gave PGI my $60 I was hoping for the simulation but here, roughly 12 months later I'm playing a glorified FPS. Do not want.

[VanillaG]

Master Q, on 17 July 2013 - 12:33 PM, said:

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.

The "canonicity" of a PPC is that of a beam. Changing PPC to a beam solves a lot of the problems because boating large amounts of autocannon/gauss comes at a steep price. Ballistics should be the only type of weapon that does pinpoint damage because it is easier to balance with shots per ton.

[Taemien]

In MechWarrior 5 (or 6 if you consider MWO to be 5), is when convergence can be adjusted. This isn't possible in MWO as others have said, is explained in QnA 42.

As I've said in other threads, its time to bury the issue. Its not changing here. If thats a game breaker for you, time to wait another 5-10 years for the next installment of MechWarrior. If not then time to simply accept the situation.

To give an analogy, it'd be easier to change the faction color of the NC in PS2 to green and orange, then it would be to change convergence in MWO.

[soarra]

DocBach, on 17 July 2013 - 08:22 AM, said:

can you teach me to be a better mechwarrior like you? I don't understand concepts like cover and concealment so I stand still trying to put my reticle over the target but my trackpad makes it hard to aim.

i wish i was that good that torso twisting doesn't take my whole shoulder off in 1 or 2 hits in an assault.

[Farpenoodle]

Maybe I'm missing something but CoD and BF "convergence" systems both start exactly where you're pointing and only expand when you start shooting. Am I completely daft to think that if anything that'll simply buff the same boats you guys are trying to fix?

I honestly can't think of a decent way to implement a convergence system which still allows one to be reasonably accurate that doesn't still leave boaters being able to mostly do what they do now. Unless we go full on random none of the proposed convergence systems are really going to work. And I'm not sure I'll really like the resulting game. As a fighting game player I like things as not-random as possible. Honestly speaking, I think that the seperate arm and torso reticules was probably one of the more reasonable solutions. Which was why I was a bit miffed when arm-lock was introduced. Though I guess it didn't solve problems with mechs being able to boat weapons in either the arms or torso. It was definitely one of the things I liked about the game going in. MW has always had problems like this and it looked like a way to curb it.

The next best thing I can think of is to simply slow down the convergence speed but really, when you're sniping at a moving target you're already aiming behind the enemy mech. It's really not going to change much. Maybe it'll help people who just stand there and take it but are we really for rewarding players who do that?

Hardpoint restrictions aren't necessarily going to fix it either. Because then mechs like the Warhawk are going to give you a fun time when introduced.

The more I think about it the more I think something along the lines of what PGI is doing is really the best way to go about it. Which is a scary thought.

[Warge]

DocBach, on 17 July 2013 - 08:24 AM, said:

PPC's and gauss are suppose to be fearsome weapons - the kings of their weapon types, in fact. Even in cannon most heavy and assault 'Mechs use multiples of them as their main weapon systems.

Now we have another ballistic king: AC/20. Because devs still sure that ACs should fire single shots, not bursts.

[Funckadelic Mayhem]

The old guys think so. The reality is no. Up armor and that's it that's all.
But then again the old guys who destroyed this planet for the next generations, allowed the government to use the Constitution at t-paper.... their ideas should always be considered.

[ExAstris]

Farpenoodle, on 17 July 2013 - 01:55 PM, said:

The more I think about it the more I think something along the lines of what PGI is doing is really the best way to go about it. Which is a scary thought.

It really is one of the better options. I would modify their solution in three ways to make it robustly effective though.


First and foremost, add a way to throttle the penalties to individual mechs, not just blanket penalties to all weapons no matter what mounts them. This will give each mech more flavor as well as allow better balancing across the board. Baby steps would include letting the Awesome firing 3 PPCs without penalty, but a more comprehensive solution can be found here.

Second, I would like to see some Rate of Fire penalties added to the heat penalties. Heat penalties work great when high-heat weapons are the main problem, but they won't mean much to the first assault that can mount two or three gauss rifles. Nor are the heat penalties to some weapons significant unless they have radical multipliers (AC20s, large numbers of SRM6s). Rate of fire penalties would make more sense (the mech can only move so much ammo at once, and gauss rifles have to recharge their capacitors), and would add the choice of immediate alpha vs short term dps to the heat solutions' choice between immediate alpha and long term heat management.

Third, I would put more weapons in the same penalty boxes. Putting PPCs with ERPPCs is obvious, but close in effectiveness and problem making are the 2xPPC+Gauss that is 95% as effective and suffering no penalty. Putting PPCs, ERPPCs, Gauss (and all their clan counterparts) into the same penalty box will be a huge step forward in making sure that synergistic combinations do not become overly dominant in the wake of 'pure' boats finally being addressed.

Edited by ExAstris, 17 July 2013 - 02:21 PM.

[Farpenoodle]

Thing is I don't like it because it's an obtuse solution. Lol. And the more rules you add on top of it the worse it's going to get. Lol.

[Dino Might]

Idea:
Just like the proposed solution of making ballistics fire multiple projectiles, do the same with PPCs. No need for convergence changes, just have enough of a gap between projectiles, or enough of them, that you only get all pinpoint dmg if the enemy is stationary.

Has there been any mention by devs that they are thinking about more streaming fire for these weapons?

[Warge]

ExAstris, on 17 July 2013 - 02:18 PM, said:

Putting PPCs, ERPPCs, Gauss (and all their clan counterparts) into the same penalty box will be a huge step forward in making sure that synergistic combinations do not become overly dominant in the wake of 'pure' boats finally being addressed.

Maybe this could help?

[Joseph Mallan]

Warge, on 17 July 2013 - 02:00 PM, said:

Now we have another ballistic king: AC/20. Because devs still sure that ACs should fire single shots, not bursts.

AC20 is the Close range king of pain. And should remain that way. Only now we need to wield 2 cause Lights and Mediums can survive one!

Also, an AC20 has done 20 points to one location for 30 years. nothing new.

Edited by Joseph Mallan, 17 July 2013 - 02:46 PM.

[KuruptU4Fun]

One computerized weapon system to fire them all,
One computerized weapon system to guide them,
One computerized weapon system to bind them all.....











And shoot your *** into to oblivion...

Edited by KuruptU4Fun, 17 July 2013 - 02:48 PM.

[Warge]

Joseph Mallan, on 17 July 2013 - 02:44 PM, said:

Only now we need to wield 2 cause Lights and Mediums can survive one!

Bursts only. Hate to see ACs fire single shots: half of the fun lost with it.

[Master Q]

Taemien, on 17 July 2013 - 01:42 PM, said:

In MechWarrior 5 (or 6 if you consider MWO to be 5), is when convergence can be adjusted. This isn't possible in MWO as others have said, is explained in QnA 42.

As I've said in other threads, its time to bury the issue. Its not changing here. If thats a game breaker for you, time to wait another 5-10 years for the next installment of MechWarrior. If not then time to simply accept the situation.

To give an analogy, it'd be easier to change the faction color of the NC in PS2 to green and orange, then it would be to change convergence in MWO.

And yet we've already seen differential convergence occur on the Hunchback before they declared it a "bug" and "fixed" it.

It's been DONE. In the engine. It can be repeated.

[Ralgas]

Master Q, on 17 July 2013 - 02:56 PM, said:

And yet we've already seen differential convergence occur on the Hunchback before they declared it a "bug" and "fixed" it.

It's been DONE. In the engine. It can be repeated.

That was pre hsr and 12v12 netcode Information flow. They tell us the issue is the system not breaking hit registration ( more than it is already)

[Taemien]

Ralgas, on 17 July 2013 - 04:21 PM, said:

That was pre hsr and 12v12 netcode Information flow. They tell us the issue is the system not breaking hit registration ( more than it is already)

This...

Now they could fix convergence, its actually pretty easy, almost as easy as making a variable change... however... it means we have client side hit detection. Which means hacks go rampant. Then PGI has to spend their time fixing hacks and not fixing their game.

So do you want the current convergence, or people hitting you through walls and demolishing your head at the start of the match (I mean before you move, not first contact)?

[Joseph Mallan]

Warge, on 17 July 2013 - 02:49 PM, said:

Bursts only. Hate to see ACs fire single shots: half of the fun lost with it.

Damage for ACs has always been one hit for the damage. No that I didn't like the demo I saw in another thread.