198 replies to this topic

[Nicholas Carlyle]

Donnie Silveray, on 14 August 2013 - 04:07 PM, said:

So basically you don't want me to press the big button on one of my mechs to fire 4MLs, AC20, LRM20, SRM6 at once? That's kind of silly .

See that's the problem. If everyone used varied load outs like the one you just listed, instant pinpoint convergence would be a non-issue for the time being (until the clans).

You aren't really part of this conversation if you are using a loadout like that. No offense, you play for fun and would get rolled by competitive players.

[Pht]

Joseph Mallan, on 14 August 2013 - 03:41 PM, said:

Actually you are wrong. Some of us are saying CoF. Its not a random numbers generator. It is an area on the target that you can reasonably hit. I fired enough ordinance to know the bullets(ACs) does not always go where the cross hairs are pointing.

Considering that virtually NOBODY will define what they mean when they say "random" ... THE central term in this discussion... it's no wonder that people don't even understand each other.

Besides the whole ignorant idea...

- that hit-percentages based upon the effect current conditions have on your 'mechs ability to carry out it's part of the aiming equation -

... would remove player skill as THE deciding factor.

Most of this "discussion" on this topic is useless, because we don't understand what anyone else means... and we don't think to ask.

[Donnie Silveray]

Foxfire, on 14 August 2013 - 04:08 PM, said:

The fallacy of your argument is that you are counting ability to point and click with ability to aim.

If you truly know how to aim the convergence won't matter to you. If all you do is point and click, then the game has eliminated a false measure of 'ability'.

And I count the long term health of the game as a pretty good reason. It will be hard to make medium mechs viable as long as it remains insanely easy to core them with point and click 60+ point damage pin point alphas. It also does little to promote gameplay style outside of sniping, hill humping, and long range engagement. If the current meta continues in this game, it won't last long at all. It is boring and it puts little premium on actual skill.

Then how do you address mech builds that don't rely on 60 point precise alpha strikes or PPCs? Should they be punished for the actions of the few? How do you address players who are reasonable in builds without relying on exploiting the game?

Edited by Donnie Silveray, 14 August 2013 - 04:11 PM.

[Nicholas Carlyle]

Donnie Silveray, on 14 August 2013 - 04:10 PM, said:

Then how do you address mech builds that don't rely on 60 point precise alpha strikes or PPCs? Should they be punished for the actions of the few?

Dude...really?

Tell you what, instead of worrying about convergence, would you be ok with hardpoint limitations?

So basically the only way to get a mech with 3 PPC's would be to play an Awesome (once again barring clans).

And by the way, varied load outs are already punished by the current system. Lasers have burn time, SRM's have spread, and all weapons have travel times.

Alpha'ing with a varied load out BLOWS compared to Alpha'ing with 2 PPC's and a Gauss, what getting rid of instant pinpoint convergence does, is actually makes varied load outs better.

Edited by Nicholas Carlyle, 14 August 2013 - 04:14 PM.

[Foxfire]

Donnie Silveray, on 14 August 2013 - 04:10 PM, said:

Then how do you address mech builds that don't rely on 60 point precise alpha strikes or PPCs? Should they be punished for the actions of the few?

First of all, it is far from 'a few' who rely on high damage pin point alphas.

Secondly, it should be applied across the board.

[Joseph Mallan]

Pht, on 14 August 2013 - 04:10 PM, said:

Considering that virtually NOBODY will define what they mean when they say "random" ... THE central term in this discussion... it's no wonder that people don't even understand each other.

Besides the whole ignorant idea...

- that hit-percentages based upon the effect current conditions have on your 'mechs ability to carry out it's part of the aiming equation -

... would remove player skill as THE deciding factor.

Most of this "discussion" on this topic is useless, because we don't understand what anyone else means... and we don't think to ask.

I would challenge any player to try to hit a target while running, walking and sitting. Then compare that "Skill" to sitting in a comfy chair clicking a mouse over an image. We haven't even begun to test player's actual skill.

[Nicholas Carlyle]

Joseph Mallan, on 14 August 2013 - 04:19 PM, said:

I would challenge any player to try to hit a target while running, walking and sitting. Then compare that "Skill" to sitting in a comfy chair clicking a mouse over an image. We haven't even begun to test player's actual skill.

I still think this comes back to "player game experience", stop worrying about skill, realism, physics, etc.

Just stop and sit for a second and think about what you see when you picture 24 mechs battling.

If it's shooting weapons and hitting the center torso's repeatedly and killing mechs in 10-15 seconds. Then we are never going to agree on anything.

[Donnie Silveray]

Nicholas Carlyle, on 14 August 2013 - 04:12 PM, said:

Tell you what, instead of worrying about convergence, would you be ok with hardpoint limitations?

So basically the only way to get a mech with 3 PPC's would be to play an Awesome (once again barring clans).

And by the way, varied load outs are already punished by the current system. Lasers have burn time, SRM's have spread, and all weapons have travel times.

Alpha'ing with a varied load out BLOWS compared to Alpha'ing with 2 PPC's and a Gauss, what getting rid of instant pinpoint convergence does, is actually makes varied load outs better.

I wouldn't mind limitations if they were implemented well. I found it a fairly decent system in MW4 for.... somewhat suppressing rediculous builds. I sense there were lots of exceptions.... I always play with a mixed build as it is the experience I wish to play in. Even if alpha striking is more efficient, I refuse to play that style as it is just not what I want to get out of the game. Which is why I'm frustrated at attempts at curbing convergence as most of the options affect me when most of the ire is driven by alpha strike builds.

Foxfire, on 14 August 2013 - 04:17 PM, said:

First of all, it is far from 'a few' who rely on high damage pin point alphas.

Secondly, it should be applied across the board.

Well the 'few' thing was partly a play on words and a joke . If there is a system that affected both equally and in a balanced manner without completely screwing over a non-alpha build, then maybe.

[Mystere]

Nicholas Carlyle, on 14 August 2013 - 03:03 PM, said:

Except PGI has basically stated they can't do this due to some behind the scenes issues with their servers or something.

The problem with debating convergence is, PGI has already said they can't fix it.

So the question is, aside from all of these mythical penalties (Heat, Firing Delays), what could you do to fix it?

Sadly, that is what I remember them saying.

How about having 3 separate reticules, one for each arm and another for the torso (with torso weapons all firing straight). The problem is, who had the dexterity to control them? A Razer Hydra can help. But, how about keyboard and mouse users?

[Nicholas Carlyle]

Mystere, on 14 August 2013 - 04:22 PM, said:

Sadly, that is what I remember them saying.

How about having 3 separate reticules, one for each arm and another for the torso (with torso weapons all firing straight). The problem is, who had the dexterity to control them? A Razer Hydra can help. But, how about keyboard and mouse users?

I really don't have a great answer for fixing this due to PGI's admitted limitations. It's very frustrating.

[Dimento Graven]

Pht, on 14 August 2013 - 04:02 PM, said:

The conversion to first-person real time battlemech combat simulator doesn't require any pilot gunnery skill rolls or anything that simulates them in the software.

We can do everything with our PC peripherals that the Mech's pilot can do that controls gunnery. Thus the GSR's are and SHOULD be dropped. This is a non-issue.

----

This doesn't mean it can't simulate the battlemech's part of the aiming equation.

I agree, people should stop complaining about how a third person TT was a 'random to hit' verses an first person RTS. In TT, you couldn't actually see out the cockpit, or easily use any mechanism to simulate aiming in first person that wouldn't make the game drag out painfully.

That was my point.

Quote

Um ... extreme range has been a part of the TT combat system since maxtech (1700). They're also in the new advanced combat rule book too - and extreme range rules in the TT carry their own major downsides. For one, they should also be used with the altered energy weapons damage.

Well when I've played we haven't used those rule sets, but even looking at THAT rule set the extended ranges ARE STILL SKEWED unreasonably.

In that rule set, the longest ranged IS weapon fires 36 hexes, or 1080 meters and that was the LB 2-X AC. Certainly NOT the 3xLong Range formula we see with ballistics in MWO now, or would have been 81 hexes on TT...

If MT rules were in place the farthest the ERPPC/gauss snipers could hope to hit you from was 840 meters.

So yeah, range is STILL skewed in MWO.

[Donnie Silveray]

Mystere, on 14 August 2013 - 04:22 PM, said:

Sadly, that is what I remember them saying.

How about having 3 separate reticules, one for each arm and another for the torso (with torso weapons all firing straight). The problem is, who had the dexterity to control them? A Razer Hydra can help. But, how about keyboard and mouse users?

Or just have torso weapons not on a turret just fire straight and arms keep the same reticle? . It's not unreasonable for torso weapons to only fire straight unless they are just that off center. Looking at you Dragon.

[Bishop Steiner]

Khobai, on 14 August 2013 - 01:56 AM, said:

MWO uses TT armor values, but TT armor values are balanced around not having convergence. Therefore, MWO should either not use TT armor values, or it should not have convergence. Simple logic really.

PGI either needs to remove convergence or use armor values that are balanced with convergence in mind.

eh, actually, MWO uses DOUBLE TT armor already.

[Tezcatli]

The "Widening cone" idea has been described to be more intended for the more powerful weapons. So something like mediums lasers would be less affected.

[Mystere]

Donnie Silveray, on 14 August 2013 - 04:25 PM, said:

Or just have torso weapons not on a turret just fire straight and arms keep the same reticle? . It's not unreasonable for torso weapons to only fire straight unless they are just that off center. Looking at you Dragon.

Ah, but my scheme allows me to shoot at 3 different targets at the same time. I bet you did not think of that.

[Joseph Mallan]

Nicholas Carlyle, on 14 August 2013 - 04:21 PM, said:

I still think this comes back to "player game experience", stop worrying about skill, realism, physics, etc.

Just stop and sit for a second and think about what you see when you picture 24 mechs battling.

If it's shooting weapons and hitting the center torso's repeatedly and killing mechs in 10-15 seconds. Then we are never going to agree on anything.

Well considering that is where I am aiming 80% of the time I would hope my marksman training from 27 years ago can still put a round near my cross hairs. 10-15 Seconds would be a good amount of time to kill a 35 ton Mech or less. A Raven has roughly 38 armor on its CT . Two Alphas of 35 points is about 10 seconds right? Oh that is the equivalent of a single AC20 round Hit that Raven's 16 points of armor.

How are some of you going to handle getting hit with Heavy PPCs, Snub nose PPCs, Light PPCs, Oh and my favorite as a Lyran. Heavy Gauss, 25 points of damage in close range Baby!

Edited by Joseph Mallan, 14 August 2013 - 04:37 PM.

[Donnie Silveray]

Mystere, on 14 August 2013 - 04:28 PM, said:

Ah, but my scheme allows me to shoot at 3 different targets at the same time. I bet you did not think of that.

I'd need 3 arms for that *insert silly Pacific Rim reference here*

[Pht]

Joseph Mallan, on 14 August 2013 - 04:19 PM, said:

I would challenge any player to try to hit a target while running, walking and sitting. Then compare that "Skill" to sitting in a comfy chair clicking a mouse over an image. We haven't even begun to test player's actual skill.

I'm certianly not going to say that there's no skill in manipulating a controller and triggering it without upsetting the aim. There is.

There's certainly human choice factors involved in timing shots to hit what you want, in conjunction with the skill I just mentioned.

What there ISN'T - is any skill in considering how any given factors affect how your 'mech can handle it's part of the aiming equation. Because this factor simply IS NOT in the game in any meaningful form, outside of JJ shake and dual-reticules; which are SO much less than a good MW game would do.

Actually having the 'Mech part of the aiming equation in the game would make it ... far more fun, and rewarding.

Nicholas Carlyle, on 14 August 2013 - 04:24 PM, said:

I really don't have a great answer for fixing this due to PGI's admitted limitations. It's very frustrating.

again, all that's needed is simple addition, a choice of 2 to 12, and a conditional yes-no database in the server (the db is probably already there in some form).

It could even be done with 1 or 2 real-time raytraces/casts per mech, IMO.

[Nicholas Carlyle]

Joseph Mallan, on 14 August 2013 - 04:30 PM, said:

Well considering that is where I am aiming 80% of the time I would hope my marksman training from 27 years ago can still put a round near my cross hairs. 10-15 Seconds would be a good amount of time to kill a 35 ton Mech or less. A Raven has roughly 38 armor on its CT . Two Alphas of 35 points is about 10 seconds right? Oh that is the equivalent of a single AC20 round Hit that Raven's 16 points of armor.

Yeah but keep in mind you are talking about a small really fast moving target, while you are theoretically in a larger mech that should have a hard time tracking it.

You are also using one of the most frustrating examples, because you chose a light mech.

Let me tell you what I see in my head.

Lights and Mediums mechs are your advanced forces. They are scouting and reporting, they might get into head to head fights with other lights and mediums attempting to secure the high ground or another position of importance.

They are also the forces that help spot targets for your LRM's and if the game was actually good they would be the premier mechs for doing things like finding the escort you need to kill for a mission. Or figuring out where that drop ship is that you need to stop from lifting off.

They might occasionally engage heavies or assaults, but only for passing shots before retreating.

Your heavier Mediums and Heavies will be your main "fighting force" when they show up they open up with their long range weapons until they can get into range to bring the full force of their mech into the battle. SRM's flying, lasers scalding armor, auto cannons bursting through the exposed innards.

These mechs can take a beating and keep on going, while waiting for the big guys to lumber over.

Eventually the few assaults you manage to have in your company make it to the main part of the fight. These mechs are the literally goliath's of the battle field. Taking and doling out major punishment once they get there. Taking out an assault mech is considered a feat in an of itself.

We don't have any of this? Instant convergence is one of the reasons behind it. But it's also a lack of dynamic missions, static drop points, maps are too small, god I could go on and on.

Right now it's just move as a blob, everyone shows up at once, and we all shoot out eachothers center torsos.

Yay.

Great game.

[Wired]

Well here is a research topic to consider.

How did Mechwarrior 2 handle group firing weapons?
How did Mechwarrior 3 handle group firing weapons?
How did Mechwarrior 4 handle group firing weapons?
Did anyone else play EA's battletech game? How did it handle group firing weapons?