43 replies to this topic

[DaZur]

Alright... I think this community has honestly put forth some extremely viable solutions to regarding the issue of pinpoint convergence. That said, similar to PGIs recent penchant, a few too many of them (mine included) may have been a little overreaching and intricate, to a point where consideration of potential implementation would be a sizable undertaking, thus rendering them improbable... Taking a step back and reassessing... here is my K.I.S.S. solution that might actually be a more plausible solution with minimal upfront effort to implement:

Range-based Divergence

Alright... we already have the underpinnings of this as weapon convergence adjusts based on the focus of the target. This solution is just a qualifier to this mechanic.

- Every beam or ballistic weapon is give three medial deviation windows based on their max range:
​- minimum range = +3%
- optimum range = 0%
- max range = +1%

A percentage of deviation from point convergence is given to each weapon and is applied based on their individual profile relative to the target.

Example: Today's de facto alpha sniper boogeyman: 2x EPPC + Gauss:
- EPPC Profile: min: 0-540 / opt: 540 - 1080 / max: 1080-1620
- Gauss Profile: min: 0-660 / opt: 660-1320 / max: 1320-1980

Alpha weapon grouping profile lays out:
- From 0-540 both weapons will deviate +3% from point.
- From 540 to 660 EPPC will have zero deviation while the Gauss will still deviate +3%
- From 660 to 1080 both weapons will have zero deviation (sweet spot).
- From 1080 to 1320 Gauss will have zero deviation while EPPC will deviate +1%
- From 1320 to max range both weapons will deviate +1 %

End result? Weapons do not inflict massive point damage inside minimum range, mitigating the massive advantage of using apex weapons as brawling weapons. The high-alpha grouping is still viable, but only in a reasonably small window and pinpoint damage at extended range is mitigated.

Cool eh? ​Okay... let's use dissimilar ranged weapons and see how that rolls out!

Example: EPPC + 4x MLas
- EPPC Profile: min: 0-540 / opt: 540 - 1080 / max: 1080-1620
- MLas Profile: min: 0-180 / opt: 180-360 / max: 360-540

Alpha weapon grouping profile lays out:
- From 0 to 180 both weapons deviate +3%
- From 180 to 360 Mlas has zero deviate while EPPC has +3% deviation.
- From 360 to 540 Mlas has +1% deviation and EPPC has zero deviation.
- From 540 to 1080 Mlas is out of range and EPPC has zero deviation.
- From 1080 to 1620 Mlas is out of range and EPCC has +1% deviation.

** +3% in minimum range is to acknowledge the target is too close to accurately converge at a single point. +1% is to acknowledge that at that distance, a small deviation translates into a large divergence.

It's simple... sweet and can be applied to each weapon individually regardless of the makeup of the weapon grouping and does not disenfranchise the high-alpha sniper grouping only mitigating the ranges where it's OP yet still allowing it to function optimally (High-single point damage) in a given window where the weapon profiles overlap.

BOOM... mind blown! Okay... go ahead and pick it apart.

[3rdworld]

Worse hit at min range hurts brawlers worse than snipers. And lights the most who do most of their fighting at close ranges.

result: Reinforcing the meta.

[Gallowglas]

I'm still not convinced that convergence fixes are the magic bullet that everyone claims them to be. The complaints about this and a myriad of other topics strike me a bit much of group think. I personally greatly prefer simply buffing internal structural health to draw out combat a bit longer.

That said, this isn't a bad solution and I could probably get behind it if it meant that the community at large would quit obsessing over this topic. I don't like random mechanics, but this at least makes things predictable and based on the actual existing weapon values. It's also pretty simple and straightforward. I think there are a lot of folks who would find reason to complain about the capacity for jump snipers to still exist, but you're never going to make everyone happy.

[DaZur]

3rdworld, on 14 August 2013 - 07:41 AM, said:

Worse hit at min range hurts brawlers worse than snipers. And lights the most who do most of their fighting at close ranges.

result: Reinforcing the meta.

Incorrect assumption...

"Brawlers" using brawlers weapons (MLas AC/20s, AC/10s MPLas etc..) are not overtly affected... Their minimum range is small enough that their +3% deviation does not kick in until they are humping their targets face. Typically, they operate well within their optimal range thus the minimum deviation only truly affects brawlers trying to use ranged weapons as brawler weapons... and even then it's only marginally.

[FatBabyThompkins]

I like it, but it could probably use some refinement. That's also not mentioning if it is possible with HSR, which is where I believe the brunt of the convergence problem lies (in the code).

Gallowglas, convergence is a problem when a majority of the numbers come from a system (TT) where random hit locations were a major balancing mechanic. Stacking weapons to hit the same location becomes an arms race with little detriment. The supposed granddaddy of weapons, the AC/20, becomes moot when you can put out 2-3x as much into the same panel at significantly longer range, moderately more tonnage, and moderately more ammunition (or infinite in case of energy weapons like the PPC). The problem is exacerbated by doubling of armor and spread/hit scan of low damage weapons.

[TexAce]

My proposal (the same a lot of other have and I think its the best):

You have two options. The first option is to play with fixed convergence.
You set a fixed convergence for every weapon in your mechlab. For example if you set 600m for both AC20 on your jägermech they will do 40 pinpoint damage at exactly 600m to the point you are aiming on with your crosshair.
If your enemy is closer (say 100meters) they can't hit the same spot but probably hit both side torsos of the enemy.

However you can set your convergence to auto on all weapons in the mechlab, which is the second option.
It means your weapons will auto-converge to the point you are aiming at with your crosshair.
However they need time to converge (for example a laser can converge very fast, eg. 0.2 seconds since it only has to move some lenses while a gauss cannon needs up to 1 second to converge). When all weapons are pointing at the same spot, your crosshar turns green and you can do pinpoint damage.

This is all for side-torso weapons, arm-mounted weapons don't converge at all and are pointing straigt forward and you have to move your mouse like always and point them where you want to shoot, if they have all actuators.

With this method you don't need any ghost heatscale, still can maintain pinpoint alphas if you have skill and don't need any ghost desyncing either. You are also differentiating mechs more, making them more unique since some have arm actuators and some don't. You finally have a real reason for actuators to be in the game. Mechs like the dragon and awesome would gain from this, too since both have moveable arms.
it effing solves so much.

Edited by TexAss, 14 August 2013 - 07:59 AM.

[RG Notch]

It's like people don't pay attention to where we are at development cycle wise. They are going to launch in about 1 month. They have admitted in the AtD that they are consumed by the rush to launch. Nothing major is going to change in anyway before launch. They are preparing a tutorial. This tutorial will be based on the current mechanics. The current mechanics are incredibly unlikely to change after launch.
So if you want to talk about convergence for ***** and giggles, go ahead. If you think for one second there is any major rework of fundamental systems this close to launch.....

[3rdworld]

DaZur, on 14 August 2013 - 07:50 AM, said:

Incorrect assumption...

"Brawlers" using brawlers weapons (MLas AC/20s, AC/10s MPLas etc..) are not overtly affected... Their minimum range is small enough that their +3% deviation does not kick in until they are humping their targets face. Typically, they operate well within their optimal range thus the minimum deviation only truly affects brawlers trying to use ranged weapons as brawler weapons... and even then it's only marginally.

So you see lights engaging enemies at >180m often? no, no they don't. You may hurt sniping's brawling ability but you would certainly reinforce go big or go home. If it is hurt too much, I welcome the HGN-733C overlords.

Edited by 3rdworld, 14 August 2013 - 08:06 AM.

[DaZur]

Gallowglas, on 14 August 2013 - 07:42 AM, said:

I think there are a lot of folks who would find reason to complain about the capacity for jump snipers to still exist, but you're never going to make everyone happy.

Actually it specifically affects jump-snipers in that it layers a greater application of skill and grasp of ones optimum window.

Using the EPPC + Gauss example, a jump sniper only has a small windows between 660 to 1080 (420m respectively) to reap the full benefit of their 35 point pinpoint alpha snipe. Inside of the window they only benefit from a pinpoint 20 and a deviated 15... Outside of it, they only benefit from a pinpoint 15 and a deviated 20.

Additionally if this mech does not have fallback brawling weapons it's going struggle brawling as none of their weapons will be pinpoint accurate.

[Khobai]

Quote

I'm still not convinced that convergence fixes are the magic bullet that everyone claims them to be.

Its not. You have to realize the problem is actually twofold. Its a combination of both precise aiming AND convergence.

Precise aiming = being able to choose where your weapons hit
Convergence = all your weapons hitting the same location

Both of these need to be addressed. Not just convergence.

[Unbound Inferno]

3rdworld, on 14 August 2013 - 07:41 AM, said:

Worse hit at min range hurts brawlers worse than snipers. And lights the most who do most of their fighting at close ranges.

result: Reinforcing the meta.

I agree.

If you swap that +3% to a -3% then you'd get the result you are looking for.

[TexAce]

Khobai, on 14 August 2013 - 08:17 AM, said:

Its not. You have to realize the problem is actually twofold. Its a combination of both precise aiming AND convergence.

Precise aiming = being able to choose where your weapons hit
Convergence = all your weapons hitting the same location

Both of these need to be addressed. Not just convergence.

Precise aiming needs to stay precise aiming. But precise aiming should only be possible for arm mounted weapons with actuators, for the side torso weapons see my post in this thread.

Strap two MGs to your both shoulders and try to shoot both pinpoint at something no matter how far away it is and you'll see what I mean.

Edited by TexAss, 14 August 2013 - 08:23 AM.

[Khobai]

Quote

Precise aiming needs to stay precise aiming

I agree. But understand that battletech armor values are based on random hit locations and not precise aiming. Therefore if MWO is going to have precise aiming then it should not use battletech armor values.

[DaZur]

3rdworld, on 14 August 2013 - 08:05 AM, said:

So you see lights engaging enemies at >180m often? no, no they don't. You may hurt sniping's brawling ability but you would certainly reinforce go big or go home. If it is hurt too much, I welcome the HGN-733C overlords.

LOL! You're being obtuse for no logical reason...

Using my defacto brawler Phract: 5xMLas + AC/20:

- MLas Profile: min: 0-180 / opt: 180-360 / max: 360-540
-AC/20 Profile: min: 0-270 /opt: 270-540 / max: 540-810

- From 0 to 180 both deviate +3%
- From 180 to 270 mlas has no deviation and A/C20 has +3 deviation.
- From 270 to 360 neither weapon has deviation. (sweet spot)
- From 360 to 520 mlas has +1% deviation and AC/20 has no deviation.
- From 520 to max range mlas is out of range and AC/20 has +1$ deviation.

Okay... drop into the games testing ground:

-Stand 180m from a mech. Yeah, your pretty damn close... Imagine a +3% deviation... yeah, it's does not amount to a whole lot at this range does it?
- Stand at 360... Still pretty close and at this range you're in the sweet spot and will be able to deliver massive 45 point alpha within a 90m window.
- Stand at 520... Yup, your mlas will deviate +1% but your AC/20 is still capable of delivering a pinpoint 20 point hit.

Point being... if you are shooting a mech under 180 meters you're going to hit it regardless. You'll be devastating between 270-360 and smartly effective up to 520...

It does not disenfranchise lights and mediums... Instead it emboldens them by giving them premium firepower inside their typical engagement window and at the same time mitigating the strength an opposing mech loaded with apex ranged weapons both inside brawl range and beyond support range.

[Shae Starfyre]

Am I the only one that notices convergence on the 'Mechs already?

[DaZur]

Unbound Inferno, on 14 August 2013 - 08:20 AM, said:

If you swap that +3% to a -3% then you'd get the result you are looking for.

Really... You want to guarantee a pinpoint alpha by ranged apex weapons inside the minimum window.

We got that right now without any number putzing!

[Ronan]

Is the suggestion that weapons don't hit where I aim them? (My aim sucks, so "where I aim" and "where I want" aren't the same often enough.) So that this being a player-skill-is-important game should be changed to spray-and-pray?

No snark meant in the question, I just can't help but type that way. In MY opinion, which is just that and not based in facts, this real-time computer game should always have weapons hit where the reticule is "pointing." TT rules with TT randomness is a different animal.

In MY opinion, which is still just that, and I've not put any real thought into this, is that reticule shake could be added to ALL movement, not just jumping. If you walk, your reticule moves around. If you run, it moves more. You can still alpha-strike-pin-point-etc, but may have to stand still to do it. I haven't thought thru what are probably myriad "cons" with this, but its probably easier to implement and explain than other "fixes."

Or not, your opinion may be different. I'm still gonna play.

[TexAce]

Khobai, on 14 August 2013 - 08:25 AM, said:

I agree. But understand that battletech armor values are based on random hit locations and not precise aiming. Therefore if MWO is going to have precise aiming then it should not use battletech armor values.

MWO isnt using battetech armor values. They DOUBLED the armor long ago in closed beta and will probably do the same to internal structure.

Edited by TexAss, 14 August 2013 - 08:58 AM.

[Damocles]

DaZur, on 14 August 2013 - 08:32 AM, said:

- MLas Profile: min: 0-180 / opt: 180-360 / max: 360-540
-AC/20 Profile: min: 0-270 /opt: 270-540 / max: 540-810

Is this a typo? Because this would be a huge buff to the AC/20 as its current MAX DMG range is 270m, not 540m.

Edited by Damocles, 14 August 2013 - 08:59 AM.

[Syllogy]

No.

Because:

Apply what you know about weapon placement, range, and movement.

Get back to me.

Edited by Syllogy, 14 August 2013 - 09:02 AM.