79 replies to this topic

[Roland]

Rageius, on 26 June 2014 - 07:05 PM, said:

I enjoy the game as it is now, and would hate to see any changes of this kind. The current setup rewards pilots who are able to accurately place shots, as it should be.

Actually, removing convergence would reward pilots with good gunnery skills even more.

[MechWarrior5152251]

Which weapon would the crosshairs be good for? Just the head mounted ones?

Edited by 911 Inside Job, 26 June 2014 - 07:43 PM.

[Roland]

911 Inside Job, on 26 June 2014 - 07:34 PM, said:

Which weapon would the crosshairs be good for?

Probably the center of the mech's torso, so all the weapons would actually be hitting locations relative to the center of the reticle.

[Drasari]

No thanks.

[Mercules]

Roland, on 26 June 2014 - 07:27 PM, said:

Actually, removing convergence would reward pilots with good gunnery skills even more.

Yes, yes it would.

One of the things I like about a game like ARMA II/III is bullet drop. It would be nice if wind and other environmental effects had more of an impact but at least with bullet drop you have to figure out where the bullet will be hitting. Some of the scopes in that game can have their zeroing altered and others have fixed zeroing ranges built into the scope. The SVD, for example has a scope where the top of one Chevron is 700 meters, the bottom of it 750 meters, and the top of the next one 900 meters. So we engage a few people at 820-830 meters. My friend has a scope that zeros, but only out to 800 meters. So he has to aim a bit high and the bullet drops nicely to hit them. Me... there is a gulf between the chevrons and I have to estimate by experience where about to aim so it will hit them center mass at that range. With a bit of practice you can quickly determine this sort of thing.

This would add a ton of skill to the game. Alpha strikes would likely hit the mech, but not all CT. If someone wanted the CT they could chain fire the weapons with minor shifts in aiming. With a bit of practice you will know that this high ballistic hardpoint in the RT hits right there under the cursor.

[JigglyMoobs]

Mercules, on 26 June 2014 - 09:25 PM, said:

Yes, yes it would.

One of the things I like about a game like ARMA II/III is bullet drop. It would be nice if wind and other environmental effects had more of an impact but at least with bullet drop you have to figure out where the bullet will be hitting. Some of the scopes in that game can have their zeroing altered and others have fixed zeroing ranges built into the scope. The SVD, for example has a scope where the top of one Chevron is 700 meters, the bottom of it 750 meters, and the top of the next one 900 meters. So we engage a few people at 820-830 meters. My friend has a scope that zeros, but only out to 800 meters. So he has to aim a bit high and the bullet drops nicely to hit them. Me... there is a gulf between the chevrons and I have to estimate by experience where about to aim so it will hit them center mass at that range. With a bit of practice you can quickly determine this sort of thing.

This would add a ton of skill to the game. Alpha strikes would likely hit the mech, but not all CT. If someone wanted the CT they could chain fire the weapons with minor shifts in aiming. With a bit of practice you will know that this high ballistic hardpoint in the RT hits right there under the cursor.

That's already how it works in this game.

If you pair PPC with gauss, you have a disparity in projectile flight times, giving essentially two different aim points on moving mechs.

If you pair PPC with AC5, you have to account for projectile drop on the AC5 vs no drop on the PPC.

If you aim at a distant mech, your reticule will be leading the mech. Then depending on whether you have a sky background or ground, convergence values are different.

Against light mechs running close to you, you can have very bad convergence errors, etc.

So all those people dealing the "easy" pin point damage are either accounting for these errors with great skill, or their target should try to actually MOVE.

[Pjwned]

Starbound, on 26 June 2014 - 12:40 PM, said:

I'd like to see the mouse roller used as a range convergence adjuster. You'd have to roll it up/down to increase/lower convergence based on your enemy's range otherwise all weapons would fire straight (torso would hit torse, center to center, arm to arm if two mechs stood facing one another. I think it would be a good but easy dynamic that would help minimize first of all, jump sniping, and second excessive PPFLD from gauss/ppc.

I'm surprised at how much I like that idea actually, though it does seem a little complex, and if I'm not mistaken would put even more strain on the servers which is why (I think) convergence was changed.

Edited by Pjwned, 26 June 2014 - 10:19 PM.

[Khobai]

Quote

it doesn't really make sense for torso guns to be even able to convergence

who cares if it doesnt make sense. nobody wants to play a game where weapons dont go where theyre aimed. that would completely ruin this game. All it would accomplish is forcing players to use mechs that have a lot of hardpoints in their arms and the same problems with pinpoint damage would still exist.

convergence is necessary. however frontloaded pinpoint damage is not necessary. weapons can be redesigned in such a way that they distribute damage across multiple locations. Thats all we need.

Edited by Khobai, 26 June 2014 - 10:48 PM.

[GreyGriffin]

ProtoformX, on 26 June 2014 - 06:25 PM, said:

If I'm remembering correctly, instant convergence was a prerequisite for network state rewind to work. Therefor, this may be a technically limited feature that cannot be changed.

I think the combination of convergence and HSR created some kind of server load meltdown, as the server had to figure out where you thought you were aiming in order to tell your 'mech where all your weapons were converging.

That's afaik, so don't quote me on that.

[Blacksoul1987]

GreyGriffin, on 26 June 2014 - 02:12 PM, said:

Not really sure what could be done about over and under mounts like the Protector's or Shadow Hawk's ballistics.

this is very important over under hardpoints absolutely must be addressed if you add a convergence system. Banshee has 4 ballistic in 1 torso many other mechs can mount 3 ppc's in a torso as well. Direwhale can mount 1 gauss 2ppc in a single arm as well.

JigglyMoobs, on 26 June 2014 - 04:24 PM, said:

You mean, the one where they try to aim precisely at moving opponents while simultaneously managing 2 different weapons groups, the JJ shake, the gauss charge, their weapons lock, while also looking at the enemy paper doll and the tactical map?

Also, currently, as it stands, if you are moving laterally against an open background, there is ZERO convergence when the meta poptarts shoot at you. ZERO. This is because:

A: Their ballistics and PPCs move at different speeds
B: They have to LEAD you to hit. Thus, weapons converge at the terrain behind their reticule, not your mech. If you are moving against the sky as the background, their weapons are at infinite convergence.
C: Even if you are standing still, many times the convergence does not work correctly. You can see this directly if you try to snipe at someone through advanced zoom and then study the enemy's paper doll as your weapons hit. Even for someone standing sill, your shots often hit in non-adjacent components.

The only time when you get nailed by converged shots from a poptart is if you are standing perfectly still at medium to close range. In that case, I'd argue that maybe you deserve to get nailed. Further more, if they are that close, you should be torso twisting and advance on them to exploit your better DPS (if you've optimized your mech at all).

The only people who really benefit from instantaneous convergence right now are the laser users. Since those guys already suffer so much in the current meta, I'd argue that they deserve this reprieve.

Now, again, I'd love manual convergence. Give us that and start seeing components fly off maneuvering mechs at 800 m.

also this guy gets how convergence really works in this game It definitely is not perfect.

[AlexEss]

JigglyMoobs, on 26 June 2014 - 05:22 PM, said:

Manual convergence will make it better for you too. Part of the reason why HSR is an issue for you is that the automatic convergence is incorrect.

Sure... and i am sure that live trackers for up to 4 different weapon systems would not in any way shape or form be problematic (beyond turning my hud in to a mess.. after all i´d need one for my left arm.. my right arm... my torso mounted ones and one for the head mounted ones... Either that or we might as well all just put on X´s and SRM´s)

But i am sure it is a brilliant idea to make the game even more difficult to access. not even Warthunder was that stupid and they are a Sim developer to begin with. But you know what... I have the perfect solution for you. Once the CW and the rest is in why don´t you people come together and put forth a few mil and i am sure PGI would be more then happy to code you a "Sim-mode" for you.

[Mercules]

JigglyMoobs, on 26 June 2014 - 09:49 PM, said:

That's already how it works in this game.

If you pair PPC with gauss, you have a disparity in projectile flight times, giving essentially two different aim points on moving mechs.

If you pair PPC with AC5, you have to account for projectile drop on the AC5 vs no drop on the PPC.

If you aim at a distant mech, your reticule will be leading the mech. Then depending on whether you have a sky background or ground, convergence values are different.

Against light mechs running close to you, you can have very bad convergence errors, etc.

So all those people dealing the "easy" pin point damage are either accounting for these errors with great skill, or their target should try to actually MOVE.

IF you use a weapon with different ballistics properties, yes there is some disparity. Ghost heat, however, is a system designed to break up "boating" weapons. It came about specifically in response to multiple PPC mechs sporting 3 to 4 PPCs. There were other weapons being boated but the PPCs were the straw that broke the camel's back so to speak. People dislike Ghost Heat.

People were loading up on high front end pinpoint weapons like 2 AC20s, 4 PPCs, and such. Ghost heat made them fire less of them or gain far to much heat, BUT removing convergence would have let them fire all four and not hit all the same spot OR fire them in groups or singly and adjust aim slightly to hit the same spot. Removing convergence removes much of the need for Ghost Heat.

In addition using 2 PPCs and 2 ACs, not sure why I might pick that grouping... just random I assure you , up close doesn't require you to "adjust for projectile speed and drop". Up close the difference is so minor they all hit the same thing. So many pilots I see using combinations like that are firing PPCs then ACs at range and then alpha-ing when close, like when there is a tiny ridge between the two of you.

People will, and do fire two AC20s together because the Ghost Heat is worth 40 points to one dinner plate spot of the mech. If you happen to hit head you just killed the mech. If not you stripped most if not all the armor off the CT. Against a Light and some mediums you just blew a torso/arm off. Removing convergence still makes the AC20 dangerous but means you need to stagger fire or accept the fact you will heavily damage two spots on the mech.

[JigglyMoobs]

Mercules, on 27 June 2014 - 04:04 AM, said:

IF you use a weapon with different ballistics properties, yes there is some disparity. Ghost heat, however, is a system designed to break up "boating" weapons. It came about specifically in response to multiple PPC mechs sporting 3 to 4 PPCs. There were other weapons being boated but the PPCs were the straw that broke the camel's back so to speak. People dislike Ghost Heat.

People were loading up on high front end pinpoint weapons like 2 AC20s, 4 PPCs, and such. Ghost heat made them fire less of them or gain far to much heat, BUT removing convergence would have let them fire all four and not hit all the same spot OR fire them in groups or singly and adjust aim slightly to hit the same spot. Removing convergence removes much of the need for Ghost Heat.

In addition using 2 PPCs and 2 ACs, not sure why I might pick that grouping... just random I assure you <_<, up close doesn't require you to "adjust for projectile speed and drop". Up close the difference is so minor they all hit the same thing. So many pilots I see using combinations like that are firing PPCs then ACs at range and then alpha-ing when close, like when there is a tiny ridge between the two of you.

People will, and do fire two AC20s together because the Ghost Heat is worth 40 points to one dinner plate spot of the mech. If you happen to hit head you just killed the mech. If not you stripped most if not all the armor off the CT. Against a Light and some mediums you just blew a torso/arm off. Removing convergence still makes the AC20 dangerous but means you need to stagger fire or accept the fact you will heavily damage two spots on the mech.

If you've allowed a dual ac20 mech with all of its short comings to get that close and head shot you at the present low projectile speed then IMO you deserve the horrible death.

It happened to me once in the last couple of months and I gave the pilot his well deserved kudos.

[Blacksoul1987]

JigglyMoobs, on 27 June 2014 - 04:12 AM, said:

If you've allowed a dual ac20 mech with all of its short comings to get that close and head shot you at the present low projectile speed then IMO you deserve the horrible death.

It happened to me once in the last couple of months and I gave the pilot his well deserved kudos.

what if you are using a brawler yourself? if your weapons have the same range you can't kill him before he gets to you

[Mercules]

JigglyMoobs, on 27 June 2014 - 04:12 AM, said:

If you've allowed a dual ac20 mech with all of its short comings to get that close and head shot you at the present low projectile speed then IMO you deserve the horrible death.

It happened to me once in the last couple of months and I gave the pilot his well deserved kudos.

The head shot isn't likely in any situation, but accidents happen and in most cases they will go for it and take the CT hit should they not get that magical point. Headshots like that are flukes, but it still makes a point.

[Prezimonto]

Heffay, on 26 June 2014 - 01:57 PM, said:

Cone of fire is cone of suck. Just say no.

OPs implementation idea is good. I'd like to see that too, although convergence for torso mounted weapons should be fixed (although adjustable by the player) so there is a convergence point.

I disagree on the CoF, it can be implemented well. Games like Counter Strike have done a decent job of balance between spread and pin point shots. You have to learn fire control, and halt movement to get the tightest spread possible, but there are weapons that it's better to move and shoot as well because their rate of fire and high ammo capacity(or here no ammo) make risking a miss not a huge deal because you're firing 4 or 5 at once. Everything should affect the CoF, and the possible spread should be indicated by the size of the HUD circle(shots are assumed to be aimed to the center point and the widest possible spread at that moment is represented by the circle). You would get a HUD circle based on the currently selected weapons group, or a multitude of circles as you cycle through the numbers with the arrow keys. Different weapons would have different spreads, so weapons like the pulse lasers could really be pinpoint within max range, and while not moving. Movement might cause the circle to spread apart, but sitting still for a few seconds returns it to a narrow or no spread.

Weapons like the AC2, AC5, and Gauss could get a much wider CoF when being fired under a certain range, but narrow down to a point at max range. Conversely, pulse lasers might narrow down to a point at half range. Movement might affect the spread of the AC2/AC5/Gauss quite a bit, so to get those snipe shots you have to sit still, but perhaps for the pulse lasers it barely touches the spread at half range, making them deadly in tight fights. Lasers could fill a middle ground Tighten to a point when still, but on the move spread moderately. AC 10/20/LBX10 should also only converge to a point at specific, probably short/medium ranges. Every weapon system could be tuned to provide a serious strength and weakness at various ranges. Gauss becomes a long range monster, but only okay at medium range, and bad up close. AC10's might be great at medium ranges, and pulse lasers the king of tight fights. Weapons that have serious advantages like FLD could be tuned with a slightly larger CoF, or a narrower range band where they tighten to a pinpoint.

Time to convergence could be affected by weapon size and placement. Arm mounted small and medium weapons might converge instantly, while arm mounted large and huge weapons might take 0.5 to 1.0 seconds. Torso mounted small weapons might take 0.5, medium 1.0, large 1.5, and huge weapons 2.0 seconds of sitting still.... UNLESS your mech is designed to hold the weapon... so the AC20 would be a huge weapon... the Hunchback 4G might get a quirk that treats it like a medium or even small weapon for convergence time... the whole mech is built around the weapon after all.

In short if the CoF is predictable, visually represented, and can be overcome in most situations through risk/reward in game play and how you build your mech (encourage mixed loadouts to cover a variety of ranges) it's not a bad thing. If you can physically see that you have a chance to miss (enemy is smaller than CoF) you can choose not to fire or to stand still to get a better shot. Convergence shouldn't be impossible, but should be difficult in most situations.

It would also give targeting computers a REAL job(narrowing the affect of movement spread and generally tightening the CoF of weapons outside their normal range bands), one that players would actually spend tonnage and slots to receive.

All that being said the ideas you suggest are also great, and stuff I and many others have been saying since closed beta... as you know.

This topic is so old, worn, and tired, because it's been needed for two years.

Edited by Prezimonto, 27 June 2014 - 04:43 AM.

[CDLord HHGD]

I could get used to three different target reticles. One for each arm and one for CT. Most mice have three buttons....

[Bobzilla]

Just make the reticles we have now, into two spaced slightly apart with each for the corresponding side. Depending on the distance between, weapons in that dual reticle would still converge but couldn't be pinpoint beyond x range. You could take it further by making the spacing different for the arms vs the torsos so only one arm and one torso could ever be pinpoint at range, and it would take a high skill to do it.

[Roland]

The other possibility here is to implement the same basic system as Star Citizen's reticle, where you can actually see where the different weapons are aiming and can see them converge. And since they're also using the Cryengine, it's obviously possible. They're basically dealing with the same problem that MWO is trying to deal with.

This would help provide some feedback to users so they wouldn't think the weapons were bugged or something when they haven't completed their convergence yet.

[AlexEss]

if we disregard the fact that SC is still in deep development and have this feature planned while MWO is not... So yes it can be done... Just like i can become world class violin player... Question is if the work needed matches the end result.

Also i am not sure that the SC team would be very forthcoming with how they build their code, and even less sure it would help much in the end.