I don't know that "lock on" is the right description for weapon convergence. Weapon's convergence is (from my knowledge in Combat Flight Simulators) is the point at which weapons aim converge on a single point. Since 'Mech weapons are designed to be able to converge at various ranges on the battlefield, so weapons convergence is the time it takes the computer to align all the weapons systems on a target. I wouldn't expect this to be as long as some posters seem to be suggesting. More weapons/speed/rate of closure/angle of deflection would likely all be factors in convergence rate, but I doubt they will get that complicated. Most likely it will be a static rate of convergence (i.e. 0.3 second per 100 meters of distance).
I personally think this makes a lot more sense than previous iterations of the franchise. It will undoubtedly take more skill as a player to prepare for contact.
In regards to weapons impact: Should PGI aim more for a Hollywood method of getting shot (being improportionality being knocked backed by a ballistic than physics allows), or more real physics based (I get rocked back as much as the guy that shot me did)?
With Clanners as much as I am an old school IS Btech guy I'd love to have the thrill of being outclassed by the Clanners, but I think for the broader playerbase there needs to be a gameplay balance to keep new players interested/a balanced playerbase between Clanners and IS.
What do you guys think is the most elegant solution to the "Clanner Problem": a) Make clan tech balanced to IS tech, B ) closer to the TT Battle Value system (whether that be IS has more players per battle, or actual BV system), C) keep things unbalanced between IS and Clan, d) Your own idea(s)?
I think the best way to learn beyond going against players that are better than you is to also have a "BattleROM" system for recording full field matches (similar to what is in Valve's FPSes).
Regarding the above: Would you all like to see the ability to record matches as a launch or near launch feature?
I read it as DevBlog 4 seemed to suggest that the Pilot Skill tree was only to unlock new modules, but DebBlog 3 was suggesting that modules were being unlocked at intervals within the Pilot Skill tree. Ultimately (as my post script suggested) I think I misinterpreted DevBlog 4 or it was just worded in a way that was ambiguous. I assume it was the former and not the latter.
Post post: Sorry I couldn't attend the live broadcast. Really loved the discussion prior to Podcast 13. Hope to attend Podcast 15's audience. Keep up the good work.
Edited by Halfinax, 10 February 2012 - 10:35 PM.
20
. 
