198 replies to this topic

[Prezimonto]

Convergence isn't the issue. It's instant convergence at all ranges for all weapons that is the problem.

There's lots of ways to deal with this, the simplest being a simple few second hold time for instant convergence after you put your cross hair on a mech(not target the mech but simple hold the cross hair on a point). I am NOT suggesting a cone of fire or random spread. Simply have the weapons dial in from a neutral, straight forward, default position given their distances apart on a mech to a perfect convergence over a few seconds.

Let single fire weapons always hit the cross hair. Allow actuators in arms to negate the need for dial in time for arms will full range of motion... so if you've got a mech will full arm actuators on both arms the arm weapons will hit center without the dial in. (this gives the low slung slot poor arms on full actuator mechs a tangible benefit over high mounted arm pods with no swing)

There are lots of more complicated schemes floating around, this is far and away the simplest I've read.

Edited by Prezimonto, 15 August 2013 - 08:20 AM.

[3rdworld]

Prezimonto, on 15 August 2013 - 08:18 AM, said:

It's instant convergence at all ranges for all weapons that is the problem.

Why?

[Dimento Graven]

Prezimonto, on 15 August 2013 - 08:18 AM, said:

It's instant convergence at all ranges for all weapons that is the problem.

3rdworld, on 15 August 2013 - 08:23 AM, said:

Why?

First off there is no 'instant' convergence at all ranges. It IS very quick, but not instant. Target something 1000+ meters away, fire, then quickly switch to something relatively close, say only a few 100 meters away and fire, you'll note the convergence point is actually behind the close object and the shots will probably go wide.

This is known and demonstrable.

As far as why even THIS, non-instant but very fast, convergence is an issue is because it's actually fairly unnatural. An 'aimed shot' should require some time, not near 'snap to'. As mentioned before, for a 'mech there's a lot of mechanics involved in shifting the weapons, tubes, etc. to 'focus' on the new target point, not to mention refocusing of optics for beam weapons and the like.

The speed of that convergence provides good players with gaming mice a great advantage against average players with gaming mice, verses poor players with gaming mice, verses anyone without a gaming mouse (gaming mouse is stressed because the performance difference with a good gaming mouse vs. a standard mouse is an order of magnitude different), is significant in that you cross over to a realm of 'abandon all hope ye who enter'...

[Prezimonto]

What he said.

[3rdworld]

Dimento Graven, on 15 August 2013 - 08:41 AM, said:

First off there is no 'instant' convergence at all ranges. It IS very quick, but not instant. Target something 1000+ meters away, fire, then quickly switch to something relatively close, say only a few 100 meters away and fire, you'll note the convergence point is actually behind the close object and the shots will probably go wide.

This is known and demonstrable.

As far as why even THIS, non-instant but very fast, convergence is an issue is because it's actually fairly unnatural. An 'aimed shot' should require some time, not near 'snap to'. As mentioned before, for a 'mech there's a lot of mechanics involved in shifting the weapons, tubes, etc. to 'focus' on the new target point, not to mention refocusing of optics for beam weapons and the like.

The speed of that convergence provides good players with gaming mice a great advantage against average players with gaming mice, verses poor players with gaming mice, verses anyone without a gaming mouse (gaming mouse is stressed because the performance difference with a good gaming mouse vs. a standard mouse is an order of magnitude different), is significant in that you cross over to a realm of 'abandon all hope ye who enter'...

So it provides an advantage for good players over mediocre players? Generally speaking I prefer my games to allow better players to perform better than average players.

Also it is not unrealistic/unbelieveable at all. Most changes in weapons would be less than a single degree of movement, and the ranges are incredibly short.

INB4 hurr technological decline.

Edit: You also never gave me a reason as to why it is a problem with the game. In a competitive game, good players will have an advantage over average or poor players. That is the nature of competition. The better man wins. This isn't pop warner were you get a trophy for playing.

Edited by 3rdworld, 15 August 2013 - 08:54 AM.

[Roland]

Dimento Graven, on 15 August 2013 - 08:41 AM, said:

The speed of that convergence provides good players with gaming mice a great advantage against average players with gaming mice, verses poor players with gaming mice, verses anyone without a gaming mouse (gaming mouse is stressed because the performance difference with a good gaming mouse vs. a standard mouse is an order of magnitude different), is significant in that you cross over to a realm of 'abandon all hope ye who enter'...

I think perhaps you are overestimating the effect of the mouse.

A gaming mouse will give you an advantage in any precision game, but that advantage isn't enough to make a bad player beat a good player in this game.

[Dimento Graven]

3rdworld, on 15 August 2013 - 08:50 AM, said:

Edit: You also never gave me a reason as to why it is a problem with the game. In a competitive game, good players will have an advantage over average or poor players. That is the nature of competition. The better man wins. This isn't pop warner were you get a trophy for playing.

Convergence is an issue, not necessarily at closer ranges, but for sniping reasons.

Having pin point accuracy while firing multiple weapons simultaneously at sniping distances, let's say anything over 1000 meters, doesn't feel natural to a game that started as a third person TT experience, that had no 'skill' factor built in (other than those who are professional Craps players who make a career of 'throwing' dice).

Basically, except for some small gunnery skill modifier, everyone pretty much had the same skill, the same equipment (dice), and the same level of ability to hit a target.

Players who have issues with PC's, ISP's, and other desktop equipment (small/low res monitor, non-gaming mouse, etc.) suffer a significant 'unnatural' disadvantage.

With all that in mind it's no wonder that there's a significant number of 'under skilled' or 'under equipped' or 'under serviced' players who feel the need to mitigate 'unnatural' advantages.

I am kind of ambivalent about it all myself, but, I think a 'conical tube' of fire give a more 'realistic feel' to the game as a whole rather than 100% continuous pin point convergence.

I don't 'feel' it makes sense that multiple weapons placed several tens of meters apart could ALWAYS hit the exact same spot under ALL circumstances, but that's what the current engine in MWO is doing...

So that plus the HUGE learning curve with this game and you end up with something that could discourage NEW players well before they finish their 25 matches of bonus bucks...

THAT is what is bad for this game.

Edited by Dimento Graven, 15 August 2013 - 09:13 AM.

[Dimento Graven]

Roland, on 15 August 2013 - 08:52 AM, said:

I think perhaps you are overestimating the effect of the mouse.

A gaming mouse will give you an advantage in any precision game, but that advantage isn't enough to make a bad player beat a good player in this game.

I used to think that way myself, until I bought my first gaming mouse at the insistence of my brother.

My accuracy and KD ratio saw immediate measurable improvement, and I gained the ability to snipe at maximum range, something I could not do with my ****** desktop mouse.

So either I'm a bad player beating good ones, or I was good player being beaten by bad ones.

You can take your pick.

[Taemien]

One Medic Army, on 14 August 2013 - 09:41 PM, said:

Functional differences:

• Momentum
  
• Turn rate
  
• Torso-twist
  
• A and D turn rather than strafe
  
• More hit locations
  
• More weapons fired at one time
  
• Weapons fired from multiple locations (not that it makes any difference currently)

That's about it. Functionally this is closer to a FPS than it is to a sim.

That's quite a bit of a difference. Even vehicles in FPS's don't function like they do in MechWarrior. The closest is Crysis which is why we saw MWLL arise out of it. But functionally and in playstyle, the two types of games are very different. In a FPS I worry about tactical movement. In MWO its strategic movement. The main difference being, in a FPS, I can take cover, pop out, shoot and pop back in cover. In MWO you can 'sorta' mimic that, but its a bit slower and you typically want to think about where your mech is going to be in the next couple of seconds, whereas in a shooter, you can just react. There's no reaction in MWO, just consequences.

FPS is like playing tag, MWO is like playing chess.

Also I never claimed MWO to be a sim. However it is closer to a sim. Lets look back to MW2 when alot of flight and combat sims were hitting the market. Some of you might remember the Microsoft Sidewinder joystick. It integrated nearly perfectly with MW2 and all the sims out there. In fact MW2 played like the sims back then. Well.. MWO isn't too much different than MW2. You have heat to manage, you have damaged locations to deal with, and your movements have consequences.

Saying MWO isn't a sim is like saying Final Fantasy IV the After Years isn't a FF game. Just because MWO (or FFIVTA) mimics its parent game from the 1990s doesn't make it not of its parent genre. Call it crude if you wish, but it is what it is. Though personally because there is no RL comparison for mechs, I believe MechWarrior to be its own genre. Therfore it doesn't need to be held to the standards of modern day shooters.

If I want to play a modern day shooter. I would play one. But I want to play MechWarrior instead.

[3rdworld]

Dimento Graven, on 15 August 2013 - 09:13 AM, said:

Convergence is an issue, not necessarily at closer ranges, but for sniping reasons.

Having pin point accuracy while firing multiple weapons simultaneously at sniping distances, let's say anything over 1000 meters, doesn't feel natural to a game that started as a third person TT experience, that had no 'skill' factor built in (other than those who are professional Craps players who make a career of 'throwing' dice).

Basically, except for some small gunnery skill modifier, everyone pretty much had the same skill, the same equipment (dice), and the same level of ability to hit a target.

Players who have issues with PC's, ISP's, and other desktop equipment (small/low res monitor, non-gaming mouse, etc.) suffer a significant 'unnatural' disadvantage.

With all that in mind it's no wonder that there's a significant number of 'under skilled' or 'under equipped' or 'under serviced' players who feel the need to mitigate 'unnatural' advantages.

I am kind of ambivalent about it all myself, but, I think a 'conical tube' of fire give a more 'realistic feel' to the game as a whole rather than 100% continuous pin point convergence.

I don't 'feel' it makes sense that multiple weapons placed several tens of meters apart could ALWAYS hit the exact same spot under ALL circumstances, but that's what the current engine in MWO is doing...

So that plus the HUGE learning curve with this game and you end up with something that could discourage NEW players well before they finish their 25 matches of bonus bucks...

THAT is what is bad for this game.

You understand you basically admitted removing convergence lowers the effects of skill? Which is pretty well the complete opposite of what a competitive game is trying to accomplish.

And bad PCs? Really? That is why it is bad for the game? The freaking game was built on the cryengine. One of the most computer intense engines ever developed. Convergence has absolutely nothing to do with people having poor pcs or connections. Besides that HSR was designed to alleviate these issues.

But you think it would be easier to explain to a new player, that this futuristic war machines weapons don't shoot at the crosshairs? You are grasping at straws man.

Dimento Graven, on 15 August 2013 - 09:17 AM, said:

I used to think that way myself, until I bought my first gaming mouse at the insistence of my brother.

My accuracy and KD ratio saw immediate measurable improvement, and I gained the ability to snipe at maximum range, something I could not do with my ****** desktop mouse.

So either I'm a bad player beating good ones, or I was good player being beaten by bad ones.

You can take your pick.

Placebo.

[Pht]

3rdworld, on 15 August 2013 - 09:22 AM, said:

You understand you basically admitted removing convergence lowers the effects of skill? Which is pretty well the complete opposite of what a competitive game is trying to accomplish.

... actually having the 'mechs ability to calculate and than actuate each weapon in the game would not lower the "skill effect."

Quote

But you think it would be easier to explain to a new player, that this futuristic war machines weapons don't shoot at the crosshairs? You are grasping at straws man.

They do attempt to get perfect convergence with all weapons.

They aren't capable of doing so... and they AREN'T "future war machines" - and were never intended as such. They're war-machines from their own particular fictional setting.

There is nothing non-intutitive about "when my mech is running hot and moving fast, it has a harder time getting the weapons aligned." All of the factors that would affect a 'Mechs ability to carry out it's part of the aiming chores are easily grasped and intuitive.

[Dimento Graven]

3rdworld, on 15 August 2013 - 09:20 AM, said:

You understand you basically admitted removing convergence lowers the effects of skill? Which is pretty well the complete opposite of what a competitive game is trying to accomplish.

And bad PCs? Really? That is why it is bad for the game? The freaking game was built on the cryengine. One of the most computer intense engines ever developed. Convergence has absolutely nothing to do with people having poor pcs or connections. Besides that HSR was designed to alleviate these issues.

But you think it would be easier to explain to a new player, that this futuristic war machines weapons don't shoot at the crosshairs? You are grasping at straws man.

Right, but here's the thing, I'd rather be fighting YOU, not your better ping rate and not your uber PC with your 32inch monitor cranked up to max res.

How do you balance the equipment differences that will give one player advantage over another?

How do you add more of that 'TT' feel to the game that so many fans and potential players grew up with?

I'm not saying a full blown add LOTS and LOTS of missing to the aiming mechanism. Again, the system I envisioned was more of a 'conical tube of fire' than a 'cone of fire', and it mainly added some mitigation to the long range sniping that has become a mainstay of this game.

It by no means would eliminate it, but it would make it so that firing at a target at over a mile away would not ALWAYS result in EVERY weapon hitting the EXACT SAME SPOT.

It's not unreasonable to assume there's a bit of 'fudge' in play, atmospheric conditions, wind variances, et al, would naturally add a randomness. Why not try and incorporate it?

But again, I'm ambivalent, add it or don't, for me personally it makes no difference.

I'm just thinking what might be helpful, LONG TERM, for the entire community...

[Belorion]

One Medic Army, on 14 August 2013 - 12:39 AM, said:

Explain why every modern FPS and 3PS game in existence has cones of fire then...

Because they are bad? I don't play any other modern FPS or 3PS game that has cone of fire.

[Xanquil]

In addition; As stated before the weapon/armor system rules MWO is using(ie battletech) never intended for all weapons to hit the same location at the same time. That level of pinpoint fire required a large(and heavy) piece of equipment to be installed,( http://www.sarna.net...geting_Computer ) and even then it made it harder to hit the target as a tradeoff for pinpoint damage. If MWO wasn't a MechWarrior game convergence may not be an issue but it is so it is.

Belorion, on 15 August 2013 - 09:41 AM, said:

Because they are bad? I don't play any other modern FPS or 3PS game that has cone of fire.

Which one is that? Because every one I know of does, I'de like to check it out.

[Dimento Graven]

Belorion, on 15 August 2013 - 09:41 AM, said:

Because they are bad? I don't play any other modern FPS or 3PS game that has cone of fire.

Actually the RIGHT answer is because those games are typically simulating a human holding a fire arm, a fire arm with may have recoil affects which would naturally affect aim, as well as a human's complete inability to hold a 'bead' on anything while moving strenuously, or even at a moderate pace.

THAT is why most games have a CoF, because by our very nature, WE have CoF.

[Pht]

Xanquil, on 15 August 2013 - 09:46 AM, said:

In addition; As stated before the weapon/armor system rules MWO is using(ie battletech) never intended for all weapons to hit the same location at the same time. That level of pinpoint fire required a large(and heavy) piece of equipment to be installed,( http://www.sarna.net...geting_Computer ) and even then it made it harder to hit the target as a tradeoff for pinpoint damage. If MWO wasn't a MechWarrior game convergence may not be an issue but it is so it is.


Which one is that? Because every one I know of does, I'de like to check it out.

Even with the advanced targeting computer, you STILL have to be under very specific conditions to have most of your weapons hit a single armor panel...

Which is fine, because the armor numbers are balanced for this factor.

Even the most "obscene" gunnery skills from the a time of war RPG end of the universe only allow a player to use ONE weapon to hit a specific single location - and the skill requires a LOT of investment to get.

[3rdworld]

Xanquil, on 15 August 2013 - 09:46 AM, said:

In addition; As stated before the weapon/armor system rules MWO is using(ie battletech) never intended for all weapons to hit the same location at the same time. That level of pinpoint fire required a large(and heavy) piece of equipment to be installed,( http://www.sarna.net...geting_Computer ) and even then it made it harder to hit the target as a tradeoff for pinpoint damage. If MWO wasn't a MechWarrior game convergence may not be an issue but it is so it is.


Which one is that? Because every one I know of does, I'de like to check it out.

In aggregate they don't all hit the same spot. Unless you are trying to say you are dying and the only damage you have taken is to your CT.

Usually when I die, it looks something like this:



Which I doubt is that disimilar to what a TT mech looked like when they died. (assuming they weren't insta killed off course).

[Mister Blastman]

You are a dirty man for running a 732.

Edited by Mister Blastman, 15 August 2013 - 10:23 AM.

[Almond Brown]

Roland, on 15 August 2013 - 08:52 AM, said:

I think perhaps you are overestimating the effect of the mouse.

A gaming mouse will give you an advantage in any precision game, but that advantage isn't enough to make a bad player beat a good player in this game.

The advantage was such that the Dev added "arm Lock".

[Belorion]

Dimento Graven, on 15 August 2013 - 09:46 AM, said:

Actually the RIGHT answer is because those games are typically simulating a human holding a fire arm, a fire arm with may have recoil affects which would naturally affect aim, as well as a human's complete inability to hold a 'bead' on anything while moving strenuously, or even at a moderate pace.

THAT is why most games have a CoF, because by our very nature, WE have CoF.

CoF is simply a equalizing mechanism... if they want to simulate recoil then they can simulate recoil, then after the recoil period of time the shots are accurate. You don't have recoil with lasers, and its is presumed that ACs have the recoil (if any) in their cool down period.

Just say no to aiming nerfs...