63 replies to this topic

[Zyllos]

krolmir, on 01 December 2013 - 09:08 AM, said:

I would have to ask that people please stop blaming convergence for all their problems in this game. Here is why.

Convergence is both your best friend and your worst enemy, everyone is affected by it, for better or for worse. The reason TT had no convergence initially, was because of how it was played. Chose weapon to fire, roll the dice for hit or miss, factor modifiers; then roll the dice again to figure out where it was hit at.
This is where many will say that TT had a faux Cone of Fire effect, which is kind of true until targeting computers came out with clans. That is where that theory gets blown out of the water. With a TC you called the weapon, then location, and rolled a hit or miss roll.

Are you willing to spend 1 ton and 1 critical slot per 5 tons of weapons, rounded up? You would basically have to drop a weapon for every weapon you add for aiming, unless your adding Small and Medium Lasers.

This is a pretty poor reason for debating against convergence not being an issue.

[aniviron]

Tahribator, on 01 December 2013 - 01:25 AM, said:

Ballistics surely weigh a lot and need ammo, but they don't need as many heatsinks. You can get away with 10 for most B heavy builds just fine. If you want lasers as your main weapon, you need at last 5-12 extra heatsinks to be somewhat efficient. So I wouldn't say laser builds have an advantage of lower tonnage.

Yeah, I know what the math is for trying to make PPCs and mlas heat-neutral vs ballistics, trust me; it's just that I feel it's a tad disingenuous to take all the HS needed for heat neutrality into consideration when nobody builds mechs like that, as this game favors hit-and-run tactics that give your hot energy weapons time to cool off. You still need a ton of heatsinks if you want to engage heavy targets effectively, but the reason even a Raven can run 2 PPCs is because of the fact that you don't have to be constantly firing to be effective, even if firing more often is (of course) advantageous.

About the weight thing, my primary comment is that the only thing stopping 4xAC5 or something like 2xAC10 + 2xAC5 from becoming the only config you see on the field is the fact that there are no assaults with that many ballistic hardpoints yet, I suspect for this very reason. So while all-ballistics configs are doable, they're not nearly as good as they could be since the cataphracts and jagers have to make sacrifices in armor, ammo, and carry XL engines to do it.

[krolmir]

Zyllos did you even read the entire post? If you did you would know that I argued against removing it completely and inserting a CoF. I did however argue for using parallax principles, something that all modern war machines deal with, that would effectively deny the snap shot super alpha technique common in game.

"However, a parallax effect, could be and should be a factor in this game. Parallax is the difference in angle between the targeting reticule location and the weapons muzzle location, this causes the weapon to suffer inaccuracy's at certain ranges. Parallax also affects weapons fire when firing weapons from several locations, causing the fire to be spread out at closer ranges converging at a certain point, and spreading out again beyond that point.
Now, according to lore even torso mounted weapons are mounted in pods that allow them to swivel about a bit in the chassis, my suggestion is base the amount and speed of movement on the size of the weapon. Smaller weapons will pivot faster and farther than heavy weapons. This makes timing, lead, and firing discipline very important; while still keeping convergence as a useful skill to be mastered, not exploited, in game."

Edited by krolmir, 01 December 2013 - 03:51 PM.

[Zyllos]

krolmir, on 01 December 2013 - 03:48 PM, said:

Zyllos did you even read the entire post? If you did you would know that I argued against removing it completely and inserting a CoF. I did however argue for using parallax principles, something that all modern war machines deal with, that would effectively deny the snap shot super alpha technique common in game.

"However, a parallax effect, could be and should be a factor in this game. Parallax is the difference in angle between the targeting reticule location and the weapons muzzle location, this causes the weapon to suffer inaccuracy's at certain ranges. Parallax also affects weapons fire when firing weapons from several locations, causing the fire to be spread out at closer ranges converging at a certain point, and spreading out again beyond that point.
Now, according to lore even torso mounted weapons are mounted in pods that allow them to swivel about a bit in the chassis, my suggestion is base the amount and speed of movement on the size of the weapon. Smaller weapons will pivot faster and farther than heavy weapons. This makes timing, lead, and firing discipline very important; while still keeping convergence as a useful skill to be mastered, not exploited, in game."

Yes, I did read the entire post.

The part I had an issue with is what I posted against.

You say you want to fix convergence with either CoF or static convergence (leading to the parallax issues). The parallax effect only comes into play if convergence is "slowly changing over time" instead of how the game works now, instantaneously.

But, you have a comment saying that to "...stop blaming convergence...", which is well over 75% of the issues in this game when dealing with balancing.

Maybe my intent didn't come across. I think convergence is the issue in this game.