111 replies to this topic

[Noesis]

VanillaG, on 09 December 2013 - 04:23 PM, said:

(i.e. 3 medium lasers into a 15pt laser).

Or by equivalence as detailed above in the thread, 3 MLs as a 7.8 pt laser.

[Abivard]

Why isn't this thread jettisoned?

[verybad]

Abivard, on 09 December 2013 - 04:38 PM, said:

Why isn't this thread jettisoned?

People that can't get past the fact that the TT system is a method for using dice and not actually driving a mech in a FPS, not a turned game where you control multiple mechs would get their panties in a bundle. They're not capable of accepting change, even if it makes sense. It was like this in previous MW games as well, and it will be like this in future ones.

Edited by verybad, 09 December 2013 - 04:51 PM.

[Zyllos]

verybad, on 09 December 2013 - 04:46 PM, said:

People that can't get past the fact that the TT system is a method for using dice and not actually driving a mech in a FPS, not a turned game where you control multiple mechs would get their panties in a bundle. They're not capable of accepting change, even if it makes sense. It was like this in previous MW games as well, and it will be like this in future ones.

And the previous MW games and future ones will continue having the same issues, only CT will be taken out and players will constantly alpha strike to limit spread of damage...

[Mister Blastman]

OneEyed Jack, on 09 December 2013 - 10:58 AM, said:

It's an advanced targeting computer, rather than the simple one the IS uses. I'm at a loss here trying to think of a simpler way to explain a pretty basic effing concept.


No, that would point the gun vaguely in a direction. Aiming, by definition, requires a somewhat better idea of where the shot is going to go. Since the mechwarrior can't sight down the barrel of his guns, he needs a targeting system.

How is the concept of IS mechs not hitting a single component with every single weapon every time they roll a hit roll hard for you to understand? Are you okay? Do you need help?

They DO NOT HIT ALL IN THE SAME PLACE EVERY TIME THEY FIRE and roll a hit. PERIOD. Each weapon typically will hit a different mech section when a hit is rolled. THEY DO NOT CONVERGE.

This is a basic Battletech concept. For someone to say they understand Battletech--you sure fail to get this one simple rule of thumb that everyone else knows.

You Sir, are WRONG. Go home please.

Now, obviously the mechs will have a crosshair. Even World War 2 fighterplanes had targeting reticles! The reticle would be no different than what we have now. Mechwarriors are supposed to be skilled. Part of being skilled would be knowing how to place their shots.

Want to aim better? Pony up for a Targeting Computer.

[OneEyed Jack]

Mister Blastman, on 09 December 2013 - 07:45 PM, said:

How is the concept of IS mechs not hitting a single component with every single weapon every time they roll a hit roll hard for you to understand? Are you okay? Do you need help?

They DO NOT HIT ALL IN THE SAME PLACE EVERY TIME THEY FIRE and roll a hit. PERIOD. Each weapon typically will hit a different mech section when a hit is rolled. THEY DO NOT CONVERGE.

This is a basic Battletech concept. For someone to say they understand Battletech--you sure fail to get this one simple rule of thumb that everyone else knows.

You Sir, are WRONG. Go home please.

Now, obviously the mechs will have a crosshair. Even World War 2 fighterplanes had targeting reticles! The reticle would be no different than what we have now. Mechwarriors are supposed to be skilled. Part of being skilled would be knowing how to place their shots.

Want to aim better? Pony up for a Targeting Computer.

Dude, sit for a minute and try to let this sink through your thick skull. You may still disagree, but you should at least give yourself time to have a clue what you're disagreeing with.

There are whole worlds of potential convergence that are not pinpoint.

If you had read what I actually wrote, instead of flying off half-cocked and clueless, you would know that I specifically said "Many people, myself included, actually want changes to convergence." I've never once suggested that perfect, instant, pinpoint convergence was a good idea, and have advocated against it may times.

There are numerous ways the convergence could be changed for the better, but tossing it out completely is simply stupid.

BTW, there's a huge difference between hitting a random location after it's already been determined that you hit, and spraying all over the place. Random locations don't mean they converge, but they don't automatically scatter either. They can roll randomly and still hit the same place.

Crosshairs? Yeah. One more time you're not sighting down the barrel. When the gun is mounted as much as several meters away, you could sight in on a specific range, but the angle is going to mean a tiny variation in range is a huge difference in aim. Put that gun on a robotic arm, so the muzzle is swinging around by a couple metes and wildly varying angles, and there's no chance.

[Mister Blastman]

OneEyed Jack, on 09 December 2013 - 08:57 PM, said:

Crosshairs? Yeah. One more time you're not sighting down the barrel. When the gun is mounted as much as several meters away, you could sight in on a specific range, but the angle is going to mean a tiny variation in range is a huge difference in aim. Put that gun on a robotic arm, so the muzzle is swinging around by a couple metes and wildly varying angles, and there's no chance.

Fighter aircraft--even MODERN aircraft, don't sight down the barrel. They have targeting computers that utilize telemetry to figure out lead solutions. WW2 aircraft didn't, for the most part, up until the most advanced P-51 Mustang variant which had a rudimentary system based on a gyroscope and your own aircraft's motion.

And guess what? They dealt with it.

Look at it from the perspective of Battletech and not real-life. Battletech was designed after 1980's technology. This is the frame of reference we are working with. Not some fancy "I want" future. No, we're dealing with the 1980's here. They did have fixed weapon targeting computers in fighter aircraft in this decade... but it wasn't perfect and it definitely didn't move the weaponry on a gimbal system to compensate for motion.

This came later. In fact, it still hasn't been perfected. The M1 Abrams has nice terrain compensation--but even that has limits and it deals with a SINGLE weapon, not multiple ones.

Once you think that way, and realize we're stuck in the 80's... and the Targeting Computer was Battletechs fantasy system, well, then you can see where I'm coming from--and the game does.

[OneEyed Jack]

Mister Blastman, on 09 December 2013 - 09:10 PM, said:

Fighter aircraft--even MODERN aircraft, don't sight down the barrel. They have targeting computers that utilize telemetry to figure out lead solutions.

And base that targeting solution off the placement of the weapon, not the placement of the pilot's head. My point exactly. Basic targeting computers. That has been part of the lore of BT the entire time.... even in the Stone Age of the 80's.

[verybad]

Zyllos, on 09 December 2013 - 06:57 PM, said:

And the previous MW games and future ones will continue having the same issues, only CT will be taken out and players will constantly alpha strike to limit spread of damage...

You can't have a FPS without the ability to aim.Well you can, but it will fail.

People will always attempt to aim in any FPS where aiming can result in better play. So if you get rid of convergent, then you're get more stuff like putting as many weapons in one area as possible in order to hit fewer areas with more damage.

Additionally, what people crying against convergent seem to be ignoring is that practically half of where a target is hit depends in the targets defensive moves (eg turning the hip in order to defend a damaged torso.)

The same thing would be true in TT battletech. In addition, TT battletech doesn't say there is no convergence in torso weapons, they simply have less range of fire...which is already true in MWO.

I simply don't see the point people asking for no convergence are trying to make. They DON'T make any sense. They're arguing over a problem that really isn't there.

[OneEyed Jack]

verybad, on 09 December 2013 - 09:58 PM, said:

You can't have a FPS without the ability to aim.Well you can, but it will fail.

People will always attempt to aim in any FPS where aiming can result in better play. So if you get rid of convergent, then you're get more stuff like putting as many weapons in one area as possible in order to hit fewer areas with more damage.

Well.... there's aiming, and then there's aiming.

There are definitely systems that would have worked better, both for appeasing fans of the IP and making weapons balance easier. The problem is the time for those ideas is long past, as far as this game is concerned. They probably would not have resulted in a game that would have drawn the twitch kiddies, but I'm not convinced that was a good idea in the long run, anyway.

Whether or not the game would be better is a matter of opinion, but it different systems could have made it smoother, for certain.

Edited by OneEyed Jack, 09 December 2013 - 10:16 PM.

[Prezimonto]

All we really need is a delay to pinpoint convergence, and if it's tied to target lock and target information, then we have instant synergies for other roles in the game.

The issue isn't pinpoint convergence, it's instant and automatic pinpoint convergence for all mechs and all loadouts.

[MustrumRidcully]

Master Q, on 09 December 2013 - 01:18 PM, said:

Scuse my shouting but: THAT IS THE POINT.

You want to hit him with each weapon? Congrats. You need to aim a little left, fire one laser, aim a little right, then fire the other laser. Fire a blank alpha pointed at "center mass" and a decent number of your weapons miss because they're not converged, as they should be.

Brawlers, close in, alphaing? Just fine. They are close in. Their splash can splash, or they can take their time and single-fire and aim accordingly. Up to them.

This doesn't "nerf aiming skill" as the little aimbot-abusing trolls always insist. It REQUIRES aiming skill, far more than the nonsense we have now. And it actually makes spread weapons meaningful, since they can be alpha'ed and allow for some "convergence" via the spread overlaps without digging 40 damage right into one section in a single hit.

[EDIT] Oh and I forgot one other wonderful thing it does - it fixes the entire poptarting problem we have now, too. Poptart builds are the worst for some of the alpha-abuse nonsense currently in the game, and it makes them choose either one weapon or waste fire.

Unfortunately, you missed my point. I am not arguing to defend pinpoint precison, I am talking about the technical problems of creating a User Interface (aka "crosshair") that can communicate the different lead points for each weapon in a useful manner.

Let's say you got 3 weapons, one left arm, one ct, one right arm. each weapon has its own crosshair. if you want to hit the enemies CT with all 3 guns, you have to fire them seperately. This is what we want, right?

So, this is how the crosshair might look like at 1,000m. The target is far away, so a tiny change of my crosshair position will translate to a lage change on the target. The crosshairs might look something like this:
X--X--X
But at 100m, I need to move the possition of the crosshair further to get from my left arm to my CT weapon. So a useful crosshair would something like this:
X----------X----------X

If you don't have this - you could just as well give players just a single crosshair like now. But a dynamic crosshair needs also more HSR considerations. You have to figure out what the crosshair of each weapon was pointing at.
Also, getting the right state of the crosshairs can also be difficult - do you project each crosshair individually to the spot under the crosshair, or does the center crosshair (if there even is one)? And of course, the situation for ballistics that need a lead depending on target speed gets even more complicated (it's already not correctly working right now, since when you lead, the convergence point is not calculated based on distance to the intended target, but on distance to whatever is under the crosshair.)

As much as I am interested ina solution like this, I don't think it will happen.

Forced chain-fire, changing all weapons to burst/DOT weapons might have more chance of happening, since the technical aspects are not so difficult.

[Karl Streiger]

Prezimonto, on 09 December 2013 - 10:18 PM, said:

All we really need is a delay to pinpoint convergence, and if it's tied to target lock and target information, then we have instant synergies for other roles in the game.

The issue isn't pinpoint convergence, it's instant and automatic pinpoint convergence for all mechs and all loadouts.

Could work - although target sharing really need a kind of C3 (or at least to lock on any target your company did see)
On the other hand who would place 5tons of a MasterComputer into his BattleMech? Or 1t for the slave if there is a good chance that you do it for nothing?
In MWLL C3 spotting was credited with C-Bills - maybe that could work here eighter (and last not least the C3M have an integrated ZES - making it a perfect choice for LRM Mechs)

However it also means that the ECM -cloud has to be removed... it may block IFF and it should increase lock on time - but it shouldn't be a cloak

[Blacksoul1987]

stjobe, on 09 December 2013 - 12:16 PM, said:

Interesting, thank you. Thinking about it, it's kind of obvious ballistics are better served with increasing accuracy; The equation for effective damage is just

(Probability of hit) times (weapon damage)

whereas the equation for energy weapon effective damage is

(Probability of hit) times (portion of beam on-target) times (weapon damage).

I.e. you need to be accurate for a longer stretch of time to get full damage with a beam weapon.

I do need to make a clarification that is very important though that really should have been mentioned in the first place. I fire my lasers at EVERYTHING I will fire medium lasers at 500 meters all the time and ERLGL even worse I will fire past 1000 meters while waiting for my team to do something and may do this repeatedly. that behavior is not something that carries over to my ballistic management because PPC's generate too much heat to spam and AC's and gauss have limited ammo so I am not as wasteful as I am with my lasers.

[Joseph Mallan]

VanillaG, on 09 December 2013 - 04:23 PM, said:

Convergence is only an issue because you can fire more than 1 weapon at the same time. The simplest solution to convergence is only allowing 1 weapon to fire at a time. That way if you fire multiple weapons you have to hold your crosshair on the target for a longer period of time. You could adjust chain fire interval based on damage so the more damage a weapon does the longer the chain interval between shots is. For example a medium laser has a .5 second chain interval but a Gauss would have 1.5 second chain interval and an AC20 has a 2 second chain interval.

This would mimic what TT does in that each weapon has a chance to hit a different location. It also has the affect of forcing players to choose the largest weapon available for slots/tonnage rather than trying to bundle more smaller weapons into a one larger weapon(i.e. 3 medium lasers into a 15pt laser).

The simplest solution is to CoF Groups. The problem, is the pin point hit issue not the massed fire.

[Tesunie]

I kinda agree about range, as LRMs are more like a mid range weapon now in this game. But as far as Convergence goes, each weapon should/would have a small amount of "wiggle" room in their housings, with motors to help bring them into line. If you read the novels on how they describe the convergence/locking system, all weapons would be similar to how the LRMs kinda work in game now. They have multicolored reticules according to the books. The longer you keep a reticule on target, the better your convergence. When your reticule turns gold, you have achieved "perfect convergence" and all your weapons should hit your target, if not where you want them to hit. Shooting any time before the gold lock on would provide less than desirable convergence, meaning some shots will miss, some might splash all sorts of different spots, and even fewer are going to hit where you where aiming exactly.

Right now we are working with "instant convergence" instead of the slightly delayed convergence mentioned in the books and lore. But no game/system is perfect...

Range, I agree mostly. But, as from a game point of view, I can see some reasons why you want to lengthen the ranges a bit, to make contact and fighting happen sooner, making the game more exciting. It's also the reason why our weapons all shoot faster than they do in lore and TT (10 second reloads, ACs shooting most shots as a very short burst of shells, etc). Faster shooting makes fighting more intense. More intense fighting is normally seen as more fun and exciting...

[Zyllos]

Joseph Mallan, on 10 December 2013 - 05:00 AM, said:

The simplest solution is to CoF Groups. The problem, is the pin point hit issue not the massed fire.

That is the simplest solution. But you can have a more complex solution, that isn't too far from the above.

Like Homeless Bill's suggestion, each weapon has a TCL (Targeting Computer Load) and all mechs have a TCS (Targeting Computer Stress). TCS is decreased at a certain rate while firing weapons, doing actions, ect, add to TCS by it's TCL value.

When a threshold would be achieved by firing a weapon, all weapons that did fire and future weapons while this threshold is met, will have deconvergence, CoF, ect.

This allows players to slowly fire single or few weapons with accuracy as they do now. But firing many weapons will spread on the target.

This sets the maximum pin point damage allowance in any given timeframe.

Edited by Zyllos, 10 December 2013 - 10:49 AM.

[Joseph Mallan]

Zyllos, on 10 December 2013 - 10:48 AM, said:

That is the simplest solution. But you can have a more complex solution, that isn't too far from the above.

Like Homeless Bill's suggestion, each weapon has a TCL (Targeting Computer Load) and all mechs have a TCS (Targeting Computer Stress). TCS is decreased at a certain rate while firing weapons, doing actions, ect, add to TCS by it's TCL value.

When a threshold would be achieved by firing a weapon, all weapons that did fire and future weapons while this threshold is met, will have deconvergence, CoF, ect.

This allows players to slowly fire single or few weapons with accuracy as they do now. But firing many weapons will spread on the target.

This sets the maximum pin point damage allowance in any given timeframe.

That sounds wonderful!

[Nik Van Rhijn]

Prezimonto, on 09 December 2013 - 10:18 PM, said:

All we really need is a delay to pinpoint convergence, and if it's tied to target lock and target information, then we have instant synergies for other roles in the game.

The issue isn't pinpoint convergence, it's instant and automatic pinpoint convergence for all mechs and all loadouts.

But PGI have said that they can't do this as it screws up HSR (even more).

[Prezimonto]

Welcome to one reason I'm not planning on spending more money on this game anytime soon.