348 replies to this topic

[3rdworld]

KraftySOT, on 06 October 2014 - 10:51 AM, said:

rofl, buy me some premium time and its your funeral. Why on earth would you take a brawling treb against a Wubshee?

Because I will show you that your convergence issues aren't relevant to people that are actually good at the game.

I figured I would need to spot you quite a bit of tonnage or you wouldn't have the backbone.

[Alek Ituin]

3rdworld, on 06 October 2014 - 10:52 AM, said:

Because I will show you that your convergence issues aren't relevant to people that are actually good at the game.

I figured I would need to spot you quite a bit of tonnage or you wouldn't have the backbone.

There's so much ego so densely packed in these two sentences, I'm surprised the servers didn't collapse in on themselves from the gravity well.

[3rdworld]

Alek Ituin, on 06 October 2014 - 10:55 AM, said:

There's so much ego so densely packed in these two sentences, I'm surprised the servers didn't collapse in on themselves from the gravity well.

Mostly to aggravate him to agree to the duel.

Edited by 3rdworld, 06 October 2014 - 10:56 AM.

[Mcgral18]

3rdworld, on 06 October 2014 - 10:56 AM, said:

Mostly to aggravate him to agree to the duel.

I think you could have at least taken a Griffin or SHD.

At 50 tons, at least it won't one shot your leg, I don't think. 72 IS+A. Unless he rolls 3 crits on a AC20. Those extra 9 points of damage might be able to.

All depends on his build. Those S WubShees run HOT. 8 E hardpoints, sub 350 engine cap, large Dakka. 340ish is reasonable mobility, though.

[Livewyr]

Roadbeer, on 06 October 2014 - 07:57 AM, said:

So, while enjoying my coffee during my morning constitutional, I whipped up a simple convergence system, that I don't believe would require a lot of work to code.

1. Remove the convergence bonus from the skill tree. This makes no sense, as convergence is mechanical and no amount of skill can make a computer adjusting gimbals move faster.

2. These are example maths so you can see where I'm going with it, obviously these numbers are open to debate (and more than likely will be debated rather than the premise of the post /lesigh)
CT/Head weapons: 0 (It's where you mech is pointing, no convergence modifier)
RT/LT .01 seconds * .01 seconds/100 meters (time it takes adjustments to align with CT weapons)
RA/LA .02 seconds * .01 seconds/100 meters (Fixed arm or "locked arms" adjustments to align with CT weapons)
RA/LA "Unlocked" (Arm movement speed) * .01 seconds/100 meters.

3. Add in speed modifier, say .02 seconds/100 meters over 30 KPH

Just putting it out there.

Oh, and look, you can add in a new Mech Adjustment like ARTEMIS called "Improved Gimbals" that add a modifier to convergence speed and increase the cost/weight/slot of "Improved Gimbals" weapons.

I think this is very close to what they had back in CBT (at least the concept) the problem was all the calculations.

[Weapons] * [components] * [locations] * [APM] * 24 mechs = Server Authorizations x [HSR+ping] * [Simultaneous matches] = Server Load Lag.

Edited by Livewyr, 06 October 2014 - 11:03 AM.

[Roadbeer]

Oh good, an intelligent conversation is devolving into Epeen.

Leave it to the tryhards to say "Convergence doesn't matter when you have skillz, and there is no pinpoint problem, I'm just that good" when:
1. There is no way to test if convergence does make a difference because it's not present.
2. Convergence fundamentally proves one has skills, not the opposite.

Livewyr, on 06 October 2014 - 11:03 AM, said:

I think this is very close to what they had back in CBT (at least the concept) the problem was all the calculations.

[Weapons] * [components] * [locations] * [APM] * 24 mechs = Server Authorizations x [HSR+ping] * [Simultaneous matches] = Server Load Lag.

Not too far off, but IIRC a lot of those hitreg issues have allegedly been slain.
Just because it didn't work in CB when the netcode was crap doesn't mean it wouldn't work now.

Besides, don't they have shiny new servers since they've moved from IGP?

[3rdworld]

Mcgral18, on 06 October 2014 - 11:01 AM, said:

I think you could have at least taken a Griffin or SHD.

At 50 tons, at least it won't one shot your leg, I don't think. 72 IS+A. Unless he rolls 3 crits on a AC20. Those extra 9 points of damage might be able to.

All depends on his build. Those S WubShees run HOT. 8 E hardpoints, sub 350 engine cap, large Dakka. 340ish is reasonable mobility, though.

Eh, I like the treb, always have for some strange reason.

[Roadbeer]

3rdworld, on 06 October 2014 - 11:08 AM, said:

Eh, I like the treb, always have for some strange reason.

non sequitur
Furthermore
Nobody cares

[KraftySOT]

I bailed on the epeen contest. No one cares. Either you accept its a problem or you dont.

[Sam Slade]

In Topic: Stock Mechs/sized Hard-Points - A New Approach
Yesterday, 04:28 AM
UnsafePilot, on 03 October 2014 - 04:13 AM, said:

I prefer pinpoint aiming to dice roles, feels more skillful to me to hit or miss based on my own aim than randomness.

In Topic: Stock Mechs/sized Hard-Points - A New Approach
Yesterday, 04:28 AM
Sam Slade, on 03 October 2014 - 04:30 AM, said:

This is the real issue, if people are going to be honest about it. Sadly, that stopped being fun after headshotting catapults one after the other in closed beta.

So, the best option I've seen out of this is to give IS mechs a burst fire feature(rounding up for number of slugs) if they mount an above size AC in a smaller mount(AC20 in an AC2 slot is a ten round burst, AC10 in an AC5 is a two round burst, AC5 in AC2 is 3 rounds - heat divided over the duration of the burst so you effectively stretch the heat curve instead of spiking it - and bringing back the dakka with real damage). This would, for example, make a 4x AC5 Jäger a dakka machine AND expand its heat curve while scaling back the FLD a little, also making the Shadowhawk NOT a bouncy Hunchie. It just seems more fun.

If your aim skills are all that and a bag of potato chips then a little extra time on target will not hurt you at all right?

Edited by Sam Slade, 06 October 2014 - 11:16 AM.

[3rdworld]

Roadbeer, on 06 October 2014 - 11:11 AM, said:

non sequitur
Furthermore
Nobody cares

He posted that I should have challenged with a SHD or griffin, I told him I like trebs and show a K/D that explains my effectiveness in the chassis. That isn't a non sequitor

You would need to be incredibly dense. Or you have mcgral blocked. Don't really care, both explanations have their merits.

Edited by 3rdworld, 06 October 2014 - 11:24 AM.

[KraftySOT]

So youre saying that it takes no skill to snipe someone in battlefield 4...

Because its more skillful to aim without bullet drop, randomness, or velocity, than it is to do it WITH those things?
=

[3rdworld]

KraftySOT, on 06 October 2014 - 11:13 AM, said:

I bailed on the epeen contest. No one cares. Either you accept its a problem or you dont.

45 tons

Not enough of an advantage.

Is convergence an issue? No. Because you aren't even focused on the actual problem. Instead of fixing mech toughness by changing their toughness, you want to fix mech toughness by lowering accuracy of the enemy.

[Mcgral18]

3rdworld, on 06 October 2014 - 11:08 AM, said:

Eh, I like the treb, always have for some strange reason.

Hm, give it another 300 rounds and it might rival the WubShee.
BANSHEE BNC-3M 440 267 169 1.58 844 203 4.16


That deathstar hurts things. One shotting a Raven's leg is so satisfying, and cruel.

Arg, editing broke!

Edited by Mcgral18, 06 October 2014 - 11:21 AM.

[KraftySOT]

There is of course a really old quote that describes perfectly, how you determine what level of skill goes with what. "That which provides the most challenge, requires the most skill"

[Alek Ituin]

3rdworld, on 06 October 2014 - 11:19 AM, said:

45 tons

Not enough of an advantage.

Is convergence an issue? No. Because you aren't even focused on the actual problem. Instead of fixing mech toughness by changing their toughness, you want to fix mech toughness by lowering accuracy of the enemy.

Because BattleTech was balanced with the inaccuracy of the enemy in mind.

In TT, Mechs couldn't hit the broadside of a barn without a good pilot. In an FPS environment, everybody can hit their enemy with accuracy, and yet we still use a system balanced around inaccuracy!

So obviously, something has to change. As it happens, the easiest thing to do is make Mechs less accurate. Not only would that hold with lore, but be orders of magnitude easier than rebalancing an entire game because you don't want to lose PPFLD alphas.


Just saying.

[Roadbeer]

3rdworld, on 06 October 2014 - 11:15 AM, said:

He posted that I should have challenged with a SHD or griffin, I told him I like trebs and show a K/D that explains my effectiveness in the chassis. That isn't a non sequitor

Yeah, because you started waiving your "Mah skillz prove no pin-point problem... DUEL".
Shaddup.

3rdworld, on 06 October 2014 - 11:19 AM, said:

No. Because you aren't even focused on the actual problem. Instead of fixing mech toughness by changing their toughness, you want to fix mech toughness by lowering accuracy of the enemy.

Herp. No convergence/pin-point problem
Derp. Make mechs tougher

Armor was already doubled from TT values, while weapon damage remains about the same and yet people still say that TTK is too low.

You're right, no PPA problem at all

[3rdworld]

Mcgral18, on 06 October 2014 - 11:20 AM, said:

Hm, give it another 300 rounds and it might rival the WubShee.
BANSHEE BNC-3M 440 267 169 1.58 844 203 4.16


That deathstar hurts things. One shotting a Raven's leg is so satisfying, and cruel.

Arg, editing broke!

I've tried it, over 15 games I am 21 and 5 puts me at 4.20.

But I love the 3E wayyyyy to much to switch.

[KraftySOT]

And thats why I favor just eliminating convergence in torso weapons. Its less severe and arm biased mechs could use a nice defacto quirk for the risk of having all the weapons in the arms, or large weapons in the arms.

Getting those weapons on target will be more difficult, theres no randomness, and the pattern of weapons on your mech matters more than just being high mounted. It gives mechs that dont already have an advantage, an advantage, and doesnt detract from the overall effectiveness of all the affected mechs. It just makes it so you dont get as many instapops. It provides more challenge to line up your arms and your best weapon, or wait for the best time to alpha, or to chain groups as you move your reticle to put all the weapons in the same torso location. It buys the target a little time.

[Livewyr]

Roadbeer, on 06 October 2014 - 11:07 AM, said:

Not too far off, but IIRC a lot of those hitreg issues have allegedly been slain.
Just because it didn't work in CB when the netcode was crap doesn't mean it wouldn't work now.

Besides, don't they have shiny new servers since they've moved from IGP?

Hit reg was a problem, but I do not think they were that related. (Hit reg was still the same kind of problem even after they went to instant/perfect.)

The problem was lag between the player's reticle on where the weapons were pointing, and where the server had last authorized them to point. (Lots of calculations to authorize.) That is why the K2 had such problems with its arms.. Reticule would be pointing right at the target, but the PPCs would cross themselves at an earlier convergence point, even if you waited a second or two. (Higher latency people had it the worst.)

(I honestly think their new data center may be worse than the old one, but as I can only base that off of persistent desync issues beginning with the switch, I cannot say that is fact.)


Do not misunderstand me, I WANT to have realistic convergence back... I just do not think it is possible with tech they are allowing players to use (my current laptop included) and the internet speeds/latencies they must contend with.