24 replies to this topic

[Sybreed]

If I recall correctly, the reason they don't want to fix convergence is because it would be too demanding on servers to calculate different hit locations and they wouldn't hold.

But, what's so demanding with the proposed suggestion of having a fixed convergence distance for torso weapons? It's not like their hits would be decided by random rolls everytime, no big mathematics for the servers to handle. Not only would this be relatively easy to implement, but this would partly fix the potentially incoming heavy boaters like the incoming Warhawk and such.

Such convergence could also be used for arm mounted weapons with no appropriate actuators. Hell, this would help fix most of the current boaters like the Stalker and the Jagerbomb. They could still use their weapons, but they wouldn't hit all the same spot unless on the correct convergence range.

Get on it soon PGI.

[GingerBang]

They have a reason, it's called they don't care and gave up.

Edited by GingerBang, 15 August 2013 - 06:40 PM.

[Monky]

Currently the most practical solution I've seen in terms of convergence and server stress is the 15 meters behind what you're aiming at theory.

You set the starting convergence 15 meters behind your current crosshair instead of at it (which is what it is now), this spreads shots if you alpha but you can learn to fire them one at a time and hit your target. The actual # of meters is debatable and can change on range, but it shouldn't be any/much more complicated than current convergence as far as server load, while still breaking up pinpoint alphas.

[Sybreed]

Monky, on 15 August 2013 - 06:42 PM, said:

Currently the most practical solution I've seen in terms of convergence and server stress is the 15 meters behind what you're aiming at theory.

You set the starting convergence 15 meters behind your current crosshair instead of at it (which is what it is now), this spreads shots if you alpha but you can learn to fire them one at a time and hit your target. The actual # of meters is debatable and can change on range, but it shouldn't be any/much more complicated than current convergence as far as server load, while still breaking up pinpoint alphas.

that's how the Hunchback 4G used to be played. I'd be down with it

[Fabe]

Here's a reason, they don;t what to deal with the {Shazbot} storm that will result from all the whiners complaining they 'nerfed' their 'skill' since that all their shots don't all go to the exact same spot with the same easy as double clicking the MWO desktop shortcut.

[Angel of Annihilation]

Fabe, on 15 August 2013 - 06:46 PM, said:

Here's a reason, they don;t what to deal with the {Shazbot} storm that will result from all the whiners complaining they 'nerfed' their 'skill' since that all their shots don't all go to the exact same spot with the same easy as double clicking the MWO desktop shortcut.

I think this is a valid complaint to be honest. I expect that if I am good enough that my shots will go where aim them, not off into random space.

Convergence was never the issue. Heat and the implementation of heat is the issues. Most TT value mechs can't manage more than 2 PPCs without massive heat isssues so why should the current heat system allow it.

Edited by Viktor Drake, 15 August 2013 - 06:53 PM.

[Ralgas]

We would then welcome our new highlander and soon to be battlemaster overlords.

[Sybreed]

Viktor Drake, on 15 August 2013 - 06:53 PM, said:

I think this is a valid complaint to be honest. I expect that if I am good enough that my shots will go where aim them, not off into random space.

Convergence was never the issue. Heat and the implementation of heat is the issues. Most TT value mechs can't manage more than 2 PPCs without massive heat isssues so why should the current heat system allow it.

gee, good job missing the entire point and the entire proposed solution. It's quite the opposite my friend, a skilled player would know where to aim exactly so his shot would go where he wants to. The difference is that if he alphas weapons from both the left and right torsos, they wouldn't hit the same spot.

Get off your high horse and cut the skill crap. Everyone crying about how they can't alpha all the time anymore just shows how bad the people are at this game.

People like you is the reason why this game got so bad.

Also, I dare you to point where we said shots would be random.

[Fabe]

Viktor Drake, on 15 August 2013 - 06:53 PM, said:

I think this is a valid complaint to be honest. I expect that if I am good enough that my shots will go where aim them, not off into random space.

Convergence was never the issue. Heat and the implementation of heat is the issues. Most TT value mechs can't manage more than 2 PPCs without massive heat isssues so why should the current heat system allow it.

I can at least agree with the heat part but look at pass heat adjustments made to cut down on 6+ PPC boats, people whined because they were no longer able to one shot the entire enemy team one mech at a time on their own. No matter what PGI does ,no matter how balanced or how much sense it makes people will cry about it.

Edited by Fabe, 15 August 2013 - 07:02 PM.

[Monky]

Fabe, on 15 August 2013 - 07:01 PM, said:

I can at least agree with the heat part but look at pass heat adjustments made to cut down on 6+ PPC boats, people whined because they were no longer able to one shot the entire enemy team one mech at a time on their own. No matter what PGI does ,no matter how balanced or how much sense it makes people will cry about it.

No, people complained because it just plain didn't make sense, while still allowing you to alpha just as hard if you where near cover or not being focused at that second. It only made it harder for low-skill players to alpha, primarily because they have no idea what the hell is going on with their heat meter.

[MrZakalwe]

Your solution would nerf brawlers and buff snipers as 15m convergence means f*ck all at 600M but sh*t loads at 50m.

Is that the intention?

[Monky]

MrZakalwe, on 16 August 2013 - 12:07 AM, said:

Your solution would nerf brawlers and buff snipers as 15m convergence means f*ck all at 600M but sh*t loads at 50m.

Is that the intention?

Monky, on 15 August 2013 - 06:42 PM, said:

The actual # of meters is debatable and can change on range,

[MrZakalwe]

For it to be large enough to break single location convergence at very long ranges it would need to be massive: 100m+ at 500m.

Out of interest with the assumption that the incoming fix to make 2ERPPC+Gauss not work very well as an alpha meaning that the largest common alpha will be 20 damage is there really a problem with my shots going where I aim?

[Ralgas]

MrZakalwe, on 16 August 2013 - 12:42 AM, said:

For it to be large enough to break single location convergence at very long ranges it would need to be massive: 100m+ at 500m.

Out of interest with the assumption that the incoming fix to make 2ERPPC+Gauss not work very well as an alpha meaning that the largest common alpha will be 20 damage is there really a problem with my shots going where I aim?

Depends on what your shooting at, which then causes all sorts of new problems with several very small and very large chassis.

[Kitane]

The pinpoint convergence ceases to exist the moment you have to lead the target and the reticle leaves the target's body.

So the proposed solution would only affect targets with low or zero transverse velocity, arguably those who are doing it "wrong".

[TexAce]

Viktor Drake, on 15 August 2013 - 06:53 PM, said:

I think this is a valid complaint to be honest. I expect that if I am good enough that my shots will go where aim them, not off into random space.

Convergence was never the issue. Heat and the implementation of heat is the issues. Most TT value mechs can't manage more than 2 PPCs without massive heat isssues so why should the current heat system allow it.

this makes no sense. it makes no sense that I should be able to shoot my ACs in my both side torsos (or ppcs whatever) to where I aim not depending on how far the enemy is away from me. Torso weapons are not on joints that can be moved around freely. They should have a fixed convergence like OP proposed.
Thats why the distance from you is displayed next to your crosshair, so a skilled player knows how his torso weapons will react to the distance to the enemy.

Sybreed, on 15 August 2013 - 06:38 PM, said:

If I recall correctly, the reason they don't want to fix convergence is because it would be too demanding on servers to calculate different hit locations and they wouldn't hold.

But, what's so demanding with the proposed suggestion of having a fixed convergence distance for torso weapons? It's not like their hits would be decided by random rolls everytime, no big mathematics for the servers to handle. Not only would this be relatively easy to implement, but this would partly fix the potentially incoming heavy boaters like the incoming Warhawk and such.

Such convergence could also be used for arm mounted weapons with no appropriate actuators. Hell, this would help fix most of the current boaters like the Stalker and the Jagerbomb. They could still use their weapons, but they wouldn't hit all the same spot unless on the correct convergence range.

Get on it soon PGI.

The reason is no changes will be made to the old UI, so they are waiting for UI2.0 to be finished, but UI 2.0 won't come until CW is finished and vice versa. But CW won't come until factions are there and factions won't come until UI 2.0 is there.
So actually nothing will come ever. Ever. PGI-Style.

[MrZakalwe]

TexAss, on 16 August 2013 - 02:23 AM, said:

this makes no sense. it makes no sense that I should be able to shoot my ACs in my both side torsos (or ppcs whatever) to where I aim not depending on how far the enemy is away from me. Torso weapons are not on joints that can be moved around freely. They should have a fixed convergence like OP proposed.
Thats why the distance from you is displayed next to your crosshair, so a skilled player knows how his torso weapons will react to the distance to the enemy.

Why should Torso weapons be inferior to Arm weapons? they already have lower traverse on most chassis and nobody ever targets arms so they wont often go until the side torso dies.

Randomly nerfs a bunch of chassis and buffs others with no real reason to it.

TexAss, on 16 August 2013 - 02:23 AM, said:

The reason is no changes will be made to the old UI, so they are waiting for UI2.0 to be finished, but UI 2.0 won't come until CW is finished and vice versa. But CW won't come until factions are there and factions won't come until UI 2.0 is there.
So actually nothing will come ever. Ever. PGI-Style.

Err quite a few changes have been made while we've been waiting for UI 2.0; this game plays very differently to how it did 6 months ago.

As I said before people hate convergence because of big pinpoint alphas and once they figure out a way to make group firing 2xERPPC+Gauss suboptimal they will more or less be a thing of the past.

[TexAce]

MrZakalwe, on 16 August 2013 - 03:05 AM, said:

Why should Torso weapons be inferior to Arm weapons?

you know, because they are not on freely moving, actuated arms??
It's like asking why a tank has to rotate its whole upper half to shoot where it wants to.

besides side torsos have a big advantage compared to arms, they are located much higher than arm weapons, so you can peak-a-boo shoot much easier with them.

Edited by TexAss, 16 August 2013 - 03:17 AM.

[MrZakalwe]

TexAss, on 16 August 2013 - 03:11 AM, said:

you know, because they are not on freely moving, actuated arms??
It's like asking why a tank has to rotate its whole upper half to shoot where it wants to.

besides side torsos have a big advantage compared to arms, they are located much higher than arm weapons, so you can peak-a-boo shoot much easier with them.

Most tank weapons can be elevated without moving the turret, I believe.

The folks who make battlemechs are a little more advanced than us so I doubt adding a bit of horizontal motion would be a great challenge.

The only chassis that really play peak-a-boo either have jump jets thus negating that advantage or have very high arm firepoints (Stalker/Jager)

P.S. I wasn't asking for fluff reasons (those are irrelevant) I was asking for gameplay reasons.

What would nerfing torso guns add to the game aside from screwing with chassis balance in a random way?

Edited by MrZakalwe, 16 August 2013 - 03:24 AM.

[Kitane]

Considering all torso mounted weapons are perfectly stabilized on the move (ha ha), I'd say it's fair to assume that even hull mounted weapons are on flexible mounts and have some freedom for adjustments.