111 replies to this topic

[Charons Little Helper]

Karl Streiger, on 09 December 2013 - 02:27 AM, said:

So the MLAS is always better as the LLAS (but that shouldn't be the case)

Only if you ignore hardpoints, range, and heat. (ML is the least heat efficient basic laser)

[Mister Blastman]

OneEyed Jack, on 09 December 2013 - 10:04 AM, said:

No.

Every mech has a targeting computer (lower case). It's the basic system that translates moving the crosshairs on the HUD to pointing divergent weapon systems where you want them to go. Clan Targeting Computers (capitalized) are a much improved version. Tell me where it's ever been suggested in canon that IS mechs had no system for actually aiming their guns.

It's like saying mechs don't have sensors unless you equip a BAP.

"Convergence can and should happen." =/= Convergence should be perfect. So don't be gettin yer little panties in a bundle.

So then, tell me, why /is/ there a Targeting Computer in Battletech? Why does it take up tonnage per weapon? Why is it optional? Why does it take up critical slots?

It does because of the equipment it attaches to each weapon to help them aim.

IS 'mechs have a system for aiming their guns--it is called...

a. Arm movement
b. Torso-twist for torso weapons

That's how it is done.

The REASON people here do not like the idea of a Targeting Computer to give convergence is because they don't want to give up precious tonnage and critical space needed to build their stompy death-boats.

Convergence should have a cost. Otherwise, the weapons are stationary in their mounting brackets within the torso and, more importantly, within arms that have no actuators.

... Just because weapons are in a torso, it doesn't immediately mean there is adequate space for them to move.

[PropagandaWar]

Reitrix, on 08 December 2013 - 03:52 PM, said:

I'd like to get some discussion on these two issues. Lately I've been reading Sarna.net entries on all the 'Mechs to pass time while waiting for matches to start, and I've noticed some things that i find interesting.

I'll start with Range.
In MWO we have a very strange weapon range value. While the listed ranges of our weapons, such as the Medium laser and Gauss Rifle are canonically correct, their actual range is often double the listed range.
This link |> http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Jinggau <| describes a 65 Ton Heavy 'Mech. It caught my attention specifically due to the mention of the Gauss Rifle.


The listed in-game range is indeed 660 meters. Yet in actuality, you can strike a target for reasonable damage up to 1200 and beyond.
The Medium Laser does this also, with a listed range of 270 Meters, yet is capable of dealing damage out to 500 Meters.
Thats Large Laser territory, a weapon that weighs 4 tons more, takes up more crit slots, and generates more heat!
The ER PPC, Autocannons (2, 5) and ER Large Laser all have ranges that exceed that of the Long Range Missile system, a weapon that reaches 1000 meters and stops dead. SRMs also explode almost as soon as they reach their listed Ranges.

As an example, lets compare two 'Boat' 'Mechs. The Catapult A-1 "Splatcat" and the Hunchback with 9 Medium Lasers.

Both of these weapon systems have a range of 270 Meters. Yet the Splatcat cannot exceed 300 Meters or his weapons do nothing, but the Hunchback can strike targets out to 500 Meters. This is almost double the range of the SRMs, yet canonically have the same Range.

TL;DR for range.
Weapons should not be exceeding their Canon Ranges so much.

Secondly, Convergence.

Convergence is, in my honest opinion, wrong. It should not happen, except in specific circumstances.

Convergence lets all weapons on your 'Mech, regardless of location, strike a single point under the reticle.
Now, this is wrong for a few reasons. The first is Range. my Jaegermech with twin Gauss Rifles can strike the CT of a Spider at point blank range, and also at a distance twice its specified range.
This is because the game is converging both guns on a single point, always. That 'Mech doesn't have any lower arm actuators, it can only adjust its aim up and down, so how are those cannons being tweaked horizontally to achieve such perfect convergence?

The exact same thing happens in my Catapult K2. The problem here is that those ballistic slots are located in my Side Torso sections, how can they possible adjust themselves horizontally to achieve any kind of convergence beyond how they were set when they were installed?

In the Battlemaster, i have 3 Medium Lasers in my Left and RIght torso's respectively. Those hardpoints are built directly in the chassis, and should not be able to adjust where they converge at, but i can run into a Centurion, and point blank alpha all 6 of those Torso Mounted Lasers into the CT of that poor Centurion exactly where my Reticle happens to be.

In actuality, those lasers should converge at a point 270 Meters in front of the 'Mech, and not change, meaning that in that point black situation the Centurion would of suffered damage to the Left and Right torso's to the tune of 15 each. Instead, it took 30 to the chest.

Conclusion:
Ranges must be set to their canon ranges and only exceed that by perhaps 10%, Energy weapons especially. Ballistics should see massive bullet drop as soon as the projectile reaches its range (Example: A Gauss slug would hit on target at 660, but be hitting the deck at 750). PPCs should simply dissipate upon reaching 540/810.

Convergence must be set to the weapons listed max range so that beyond that range, multiples of that weapon would cross and throw off your accuracy significantly (Much like PPCs would in the K2 during Closed Beta when convergence wasn't instant).

The sole exception would be 'Mechs with lower arm actuators. With a target lock in close range, arm mounted weapons should able to converge inside a set distance from the target.

Mildly off-topic but i'd still like to see what people think about it, is the question of visual range. Currently i can see 'Mechs walking off the base, from the opposite side of the map, i feel visual range should be reduced significantly in order to encourage Lights to Scout the enemy. Perhaps also a reduction in Sensor ranges by default?

Your preaching to the Choir lol. I've been saying the exact same thing for over a year now. HSR is PGI's rebuttle once that's fixed they may look at convergence.

[Master Q]

MustrumRidcully, on 09 December 2013 - 09:42 AM, said:

Unless you have a way to show these offsets in the UI,

Reticle now: o

Reticle of the future:

-o-o-o--
-o----o--
-o-o-o--

Or something of that sort. Boom problem solved.

[PropagandaWar]

Charons Little Helper, on 09 December 2013 - 10:17 AM, said:

Only if you ignore hardpoints, range, and heat. (ML is the least heat efficient basic laser)

As it should be of course because its 5 damage at 1 ton with no ammo requirements.

[Hexenhammer]

Main Entry: con·ver·gence
Pronunciation: \kən-ˈvər-jən(t)s\
Function: noun
Date: 1713
1 : the act of converging and especially moving toward union or uniformity ; especially : coordinated movement of the two eyes so that the image of a single point is formed on corresponding retinal areas; ecspecially : The ability that allows mechs with no lateral arm movement the ability to target mechs standing zero meters away. Example : The Jagermech's ability to target a locust which arm mounted weapons while standing between said Jager's arm span

[Noesis]

PropagandaWar, on 09 December 2013 - 10:28 AM, said:

As it should be of course because its 5 damage at 1 ton with no ammo requirements.

It is 5 damage only if you ignore the thread contents and discussion.

[OneEyed Jack]

Mister Blastman, on 09 December 2013 - 10:22 AM, said:

So then, tell me, why /is/ there a Targeting Computer in Battletech? Why does it take up tonnage per weapon? Why is it optional? Why does it take up critical slots?

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.

Mister Blastman, on 09 December 2013 - 10:22 AM, said:

IS 'mechs have a system for aiming their guns--it is called...

a. Arm movement
b. Torso-twist for torso weapons

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.

Mister Blastman, on 09 December 2013 - 10:22 AM, said:

The REASON people here do not like the idea of a Targeting Computer to give convergence is because they don't want to give up precious tonnage and critical space needed to build their stompy death-boats.

Or maybe that the Targeting Computers you're referring to are Clan tech, and IS mechs (or Clan mechs without them) wouldn't be able to hit the broad side of a barn from the inside? Canonically, there are basic targeting computers in all battlemechs. They don't provide the kind of pinpoint precision Clan Targeting Computers are capable of, but they are there.

Many people, myself included, actually want changes to convergence, but throwing it out entirely in favor of aiming by dead reckoning is ludicrous.

Mister Blastman, on 09 December 2013 - 10:22 AM, said:

Convergence should have a cost. Otherwise, the weapons are stationary in their mounting brackets within the torso and, more importantly, within arms that have no actuators.

... Just because weapons are in a torso, it doesn't immediately mean there is adequate space for them to move.

Doesn't mean there's not, either.

[Blacksoul1987]

stjobe, on 09 December 2013 - 07:51 AM, said:

I've been looking into this a bit recently (trying to work out the effective damage of weapons), and while it is a work in progress, here's what my spreadsheet looks like so far:



It seems I'm a crack shot with an AC/20 by my own standards, but pretty much suck in my gunnery overall

Either way, the point is that the effective damage of energy weapons is mandated by two things; your aim and the portion of the beam hitting the target (so those impressive 80%+ accuracy stats don't look so hot when you realize that you're only doing about 55% damage), whereas the effective damage of ballistics is more of an either-or proposition; either you hit and do full damage, or you miss and do no damage.

As you can see by the last column there, I do about 50% effective damage with ballistics, whereas I do about 45% effective damage with energy weapons.

I find these numbers interesting, if only because I thought the difference would be larger - it probably would be if my aim wasn't so atrociously bad

The disparity does seem to grow with higher accuracy for all my lasers my accuracy is around 89% and effective damage is around 60% and my ballistics are around 70-75% accuracy with an effective damage of ~70%. removing convergence would make this situation far worse as my lasers are fired in groups and tend to be scattered around the mech and my ballistics are only used individually or in pairs and always on the same location ( don't have ballistic heavy mechs). so removing convergence would hurt my laser performance while not affecting my ballistic performance.

[verybad]

Reitrix, on 09 December 2013 - 12:17 AM, said:

Precision aiming is what is killing many 'Mechs and leading many to become generally obsolete. Like the Awesome and Dragon.
It has also lead to the general meta of cramming in as many large weapons as possible and just enough Heat Sinks to switch the 'Mech on.

When we get ER Medium lasers, if the current Ranges are continued, the ER Medium laser will make the Large Laser totally obsolete, since if the Medium laser can strike a target almost twice its normal range, then the ER ML would outrange the standard LL while generating less heat at 4 tons lighter.
Do you not see a problem with that?

I agree that ranges should extend beyond the canon range, just not to the degree that they do. It's impossible for me to disengage a target with Medium Lasers as its primary weapon in my Commando because i need to get 500+ meters out in order to avoid damage from it. And it runs at 171 kmph!! I only need to be grazed by a pack of MLs to lose my legs.
By reducing the range the ML can deal damage to 270 - 300, i can effectively disengage and not then take 6 MLs in my back at 450 meters.

Currently the only disadvantage to torso/head mounted weapons is the lack of horizontal aiming. They should not change convergence to whats under the reticle since they are not mounted on turrets.
If convergence for all weapons was permanently set to the weapons max distance, we would see much more varied loadouts, since you would need a good weapon for the ranges you may be forced to fight in.
Meaning that Victor with 2x PPC +AC20 is going to have a hard time with a Centurion that gets close, since all he reliably has to aim with is the AC20 in that range.
Poptarts would be a joke due to wildly inaccurate shots with weapons firing from several angles. You could still poptart, but you wouldn't be very effective.



This is a very strange statement. In all my games so far, they happen in one of 2 ways. a 1500+ meter peekaboo/poptart standoff, or a 200 - 600 meter brawl with 'sniper' types hanging back and picking off weakened targets and Lighter 'Mechs running all over the place harassing and drawing fire.

Personally, i find games that feature super long range plinking with Ac2s and ER PPCs to be incredibly dull.

Some 'Mechs, such as the Hunchback, were designed to be urban brawlers. But the current state of MWO doesn't let the Hunchback do what its designed to do.
The same can be said of many 'Mechs. The Catapult is generally a fire support 'Mech, but if it comes out, it starts taking fire from well outside its LRM range. Hell, from outside Sensor range at that.

With range balanced loadouts, and locked (except for arm mounted weapons) convergence, we might start seeing some more interesting tactics come out, as opposed to what we have now, with both teams heading for their favorite piece of cover to plink away at the enemy from super extreme ranges.

No it's not. Both the Dragon and the Awesome do poorly because they have easy to kill hitboxes, not because of convergence or because of longer maximum ranges with less damage. If you're getting killed by a 1500+ meter poptart/"peekaboo then you're incapable of using cover on your own and deserve to lose.

This isn't TT. Get over it. Pop tarting ISN 'T as easy as shooting from a standstill on ground, people that do it well are pretty good players from what I've seen. (and no, I don't do it much, because I'm NOT a good player)

[stjobe]

Blacksoul1987, on 09 December 2013 - 10:59 AM, said:

The disparity does seem to grow with higher accuracy for all my lasers my accuracy is around 89% and effective damage is around 60% and my ballistics are around 70-75% accuracy with an effective damage of ~70%.

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.

Edited by stjobe, 09 December 2013 - 12:18 PM.

[MustrumRidcully]

OneEyed Jack, on 09 December 2013 - 10:04 AM, said:

No.

Every mech has a targeting computer (lower case). It's the basic system that translates moving the crosshairs on the HUD to pointing divergent weapon systems where you want them to go. Clan Targeting Computers (capitalized) are a much improved version. Tell me where it's ever been suggested in canon that IS mechs had no system for actually aiming their guns.

It's like saying mechs don't have sensors unless you equip a BAP.

"Convergence can and should happen." =/= Convergence should be perfect. So don't be gettin yer little panties in a bundle.

What we definitely know from the table top game is that no matter how advanced your targeting computer, you can't actually ensure that all your shots go to the same spot, or hit at all. Every weapon you fire has its own to-hit and hit location roll.

Whatever sucktastic technology they developed for aiming, convergence + group fire isn't part of its feature set.

Edited by MustrumRidcully, 09 December 2013 - 01:09 PM.

[MustrumRidcully]

Master Q, on 09 December 2013 - 10:25 AM, said:

Reticle now: o

Reticle of the future:

-o-o-o--
-o----o--
-o-o-o--

Or something of that sort. Boom problem solved.

Unfortunately, it's not that simply. Unless you say we just fake non-existing convergence. Because if those reticules are really supposed to show the actual spot of hitting, the distance to each other will shift with the distance to the target.

Imagine two Atlai standing in front of each other. If you fire your left arm laser, you should it his right arm, right? But if the reticule at 100m for your left arm laser is pointing to his right arm, then it's pointing into thin air when he's 800m away from you.

I suspect that will just cause all kinds of HSR / lag problems. So it might be simpler to do something else.

[Master Q]

MustrumRidcully, on 09 December 2013 - 01:12 PM, said:

Imagine two Atlai standing in front of each other. If you fire your left arm laser, you should it his right arm, right? But if the reticule at 100m for your left arm laser is pointing to his right arm, then it's pointing into thin air when he's 800m away from you.

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.

Edited by Master Q, 09 December 2013 - 01:39 PM.

[Reitrix]

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.

This is the kind of situation I'd like for us to be in. Applying your weapons steadily and accurately takes a bit more skill once you break away form {Place CT under reticle and alpha}

[OneEyed Jack]

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

Reitrix, on 09 December 2013 - 01:39 PM, said:

This is the kind of situation I'd like for us to be in. Applying your weapons steadily and accurately takes a bit more skill once you break away form {Place CT under reticle and alpha}

Wow.

The level of shortsightedness and number of factors overlooked/ignored is truly astounding.

[Master Q]

OneEyed Jack, on 09 December 2013 - 01:52 PM, said:

Wow.

The level of shortsightedness and number of factors overlooked/ignored is truly astounding.

Dare I even ask? The number of factors that "place crosshair over CT, fire alpha, fall behind hill" aimbot poptarting removes from gameplay is silly. And yet you accuse those who say more skill required for aiming would be better of shortsightedness?

Go ahead. Say what factors you think are missing unless you're just full of hot air.

[OneEyed Jack]

Shall we start with the number of trigger buttons it would require? Not everyone that plays is a keyboard wiz. The typical player can handle 3, maybe 4 weapon groups. Shall we just exclude the majority of the playerbase?

How about trying to hit a Light? Say a Spider? Doing contortions, trying to keep a weapon that's off cooldown on him, while trying to keep track of which buttons those different weapons are on. Hope you have a big gun and can manage to hit him with it, because it's gonna take you all freaking day taking one small shot at a time and having to readjust aim with a different crosshairs each time. Oh wait... hope you can hit him a lot with it, since a Spider can take at least one shot from any weapon to any location without losing it, so you need to hit it at least twice in the same location.... with a big gun.... while doing all of the above.

I could go on but... it's kinda like trying to build an advanced society from the ground up. First you gotta learn to make the tools, to make the tools, to make the tools.....

[Master Q]

Oh please.

OneEyed Jack, on 09 December 2013 - 02:53 PM, said:

Shall we start with the number of trigger buttons it would require?

One per fire group, same as we have now. Your choice: set yourself to group or chain fire on a given group. Same as we have now. Just you know if you groupfire, you're getting the reticle spread.

Quote

Not everyone that plays is a keyboard wiz. The typical player can handle 3, maybe 4 weapon groups. Shall we just exclude the majority of the playerbase?

Doesn't change a thing for them so your comment is meaningless.

Quote

How about trying to hit a Light? Say a Spider? Doing contortions, trying to keep a weapon that's off cooldown on him, while trying to keep track of which buttons those different weapons are on. Hope you have a big gun and can manage to hit him with it, because it's gonna take you all freaking day taking one small shot at a time and having to readjust aim with a different crosshairs each time. Oh wait... hope you can hit him a lot with it, since a Spider can take at least one shot from any weapon to any location without losing it, so you need to hit it at least twice in the same location.... with a big gun.... while doing all of the above.

Yawwn. Consider: you would do BETTER firing groupfire at that Spider. Because he can run run all day, but he's going to take damage when you fire. Not from all weapons, but SOME weapons.

Come back when you can say something that makes sense.

[VanillaG]

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).