112 replies to this topic

[wolf74]

What system are you going to use for Weapon Convergence ? I personally know of 3 basic style right now.
1. Pin Point auto Convergence whatever is under the Target Recital is auto-magic now at Prefect Convergence for all your weapon (Current MW4 Game)
2. Cone of Fire, The Cone of fire for a Weapon in centered on the Target Recital, The Size of the Cone is set to one size for the "Long Range" Point (Assault Tech 1 is currently on this path)
3. Manual Convergence: The Player Set the Range for the weapons too Converge at or is With Targeting Computer Converged at the range of the current Target(but Much Slower than Manual)

If you cannot answer this because your all are not ready or don't wish to share this info yet. Just Say Comstar Blackout the Com-center. Otherwise I would like to know how you're going to overcome the Weapon VS Armor Convergence problem that have Pledged pass game forcing a Lowering in weapon damage or raising of Armor level to 3x CBT values. We thank you for your time in Reading this

Wolf74
A 3025 pilot in a 3067 world
Assault Tech 1; Mechwarrior / Director - Book Guy

[TheForce]

BUMP!!!

IMO this is such an important topic and I'm surprised no one has replied to this. I always referred to weapon convergence as "grouped fire and concentrated damage."

In MW2, 3, and 4, option 1, pinpoint accuracy, was the standard. This has always been bad because it makes 4 medium lasers just as powerful as an AC20. This is not true to btech roots.

Maybe it won't be an issue in MWO if they did something like not allow full customization, but even then what about the mechs like the Grasshopper with 4 med and 1 larger lasers? If those are grouped together its more powerful than an AC20...

If the devs want to make this game more true to its btech roots, should this be addressed? How?

[ArgentumLupus]

I think a cone system would work well. Instead of having weapons all converge, let them randomly discharge anywhere within that cone. This has 3 ways of working to represent CBT
1. The persistent character element will help reduce the size on the on screen circle reticule. This makes players who specialize in gunnery skills dangerous even at range.
2.Movement would expand the size of the reticule, making those "circle strafing parties" less frequent. moving top speed makes your aim suck.
3. Even with a smaller reticule due to skill and staying still, if your target doesn't fill up that reticule then your shot may still fly by.

Edited by ArgentumLupus, 01 November 2011 - 12:52 PM.

[Erhardt]

A good question. I always wanted to see MULTIPLE crosshairs for the weapons... to reflect that weapons are mounted all over the mech's body, track at different speeds, etc, so getting that big "Alpha-Strike" would take some real work and timing to pull off. I don't know how practical that would be for most players though, so I'd settle for a cone of fire as a good compromise between playability and the lack of pinpoint targeting from the tabletop game.

Maybe getting a targeting computer installed would tighten the cone, or if we level skills then a higher gunnery would do the same. That would be cool without suddenly making any one player too over powered.

[justin xiang]

Pinpoint weapon convergence needs to end.

[TheRulesLawyer]

I hope its with weapon dispersion ala most FPS games. Pinpoint accuracy will ruin this game IMHO. Battletech is largely about targeting center of mass and letting random hits happen. You need to keep that randomness in there.

[topgun505]

Getting rid of magic pinpoint convergence would help in reducing legging (that's another multi-page thread already).

But honestly it never made much sense to begin with. On most mechs you have some weapons that are fixed and some that aren't. Take the Wolfhound, for example. 3 Mediums in the chest which must be set to a certain convergence (or just dead ahead, a convergence of 0) ... meanwhile the arm mounted laser is free to move about. Under certain circumstances they will converge, and others not. And that's the best case scenario (all weapons are energy based and thus suffer no environmental effects like gravity drop).

Then there is different weapon types to take into consideration. Gravity drop of ballistic weapons ... not to mention it is fully possible to have multiple ballistic weapons of various sizes and thus different tragectories.

Perhaps you should only have a set of crosshairs appear only when you have a single category/size or weapon selected to fire (all AC5s, or all lasers, for example). If you have multiple weapon types then you get a circular aiming point where most weapons will impact somewhere within that circle.

Shrugs. In ages past they kept it with one crosshair due to pc processing power and simplicity. It will be interesting if they stick to that.

[steelwraith]

Cone of fire is pretty much mandatory in this case, modified by movement, character skill level, electronics (locking on), etc. Also keep in mind weapon velocities will be different: lasers are instant, ACs have a slight delay, and missles have a longer delay. This should make it very difficult to hit a moving target in the same spot with multiple types of weapons.

[kemper]

I'll bump this, along with hope for *at least* an expanding reticle with each weapon landing in a different spot inside that reticle.

Alternatively, in the original announcement video we see weapons discharging in a variety of ways aimed at different points by a single reticle. So maybe there's hope for that.

Maybe they'll even let us hook up multiple joysticks and have multiple crosshairs for various weapon groups (arm-mounted, torso-mounted, shoulder-mounted)! But let's not get ahead of ourselves. A long way to go until Summer 2012.

[UncleKulikov]

Cone of fire should be the way to go, since Lasers can miss as regularly as slug weapons. They mention in the miniature books that it's hard to shoot with your "hand" and even more difficult to shoot from a weapon mounted in the chest, so that makes sense to me.
I really hope they make ballistic weapons more useful in relation to energy this time around, energy weapons just have too many advantages in tabletop.

[TheForce]

topgun505, on 01 November 2011 - 02:14 PM, said:

Perhaps you should only have a set of crosshairs appear only when you have a single category/size or weapon selected to fire (all AC5s, or all lasers, for example). If you have multiple weapon types then you get a circular aiming point where most weapons will impact somewhere within that circle.

Category = group, so my 4 m lasers are still just as powerful as an AC20, unless there was a forced chain fired when you press the "fire group" button and you had to hold the cross hair on target.

Some other ideas:

1. Group fire = cone of fire where all weapons in the group fire at once and damage is distributed randomly like in btech.
2. Pinpoint fire = chain firing a group of weapons where you have to click the fire button multiple times and hold the cross hair on target.

Edited by theforce, 01 November 2011 - 03:14 PM.

[Cybrid]

One thing I'm not quite getting here is how to handle convergance with lasers. I might be way off, but cone fire for lasers does not make any sense to me, as opposed to ballistic weapons where it is completely natural. Not to drag realism into it, but seriously, you point a laser somewhere, that's where it will go.

Maybe some kind of mechanic where the player targets an enemy 'mech, and then the targeting computer takes over, aligning the lasers towards the 'mech that is being targeted? The longer the player holds off firing, the more likely the laser is to hit inside any eventual reticule?
Althought, being a mostly pc-gamer, that sounds way too close to having aim assist than I'm comfortable with.. tricky, this.
theforce's idea seems interesting, though.

[Asmudius Heng]

I think a cone of fire would be reasonable - but if you could see the targetting location of each weapon at each given time and they fluctuate around the hud within that cone of fire based on your movement etc you would get the best of both worlds.

The more still you are the quicker they will align together.

Perhaps the longer you hold the targeting reticle over an enemy the quicker they will converge via your computer - but the enemy would get a warning beep they are about to get alpha striked or something.

This would allow additional skills and upgrades to come into it to reduce lock on time or the overall cone of fire etc.

[John Clavell]

wolf74, on 31 October 2011 - 07:47 PM, said:

What system are you going to use for Weapon Convergence ? I personally know of 3 basic style right now.
1. Pin Point auto Convergence whatever is under the Target Recital is auto-magic now at Prefect Convergence for all your weapon (Current MW4 Game)
2. Cone of Fire, The Cone of fire for a Weapon in centered on the Target Recital, The Size of the Cone is set to one size for the "Long Range" Point (Assault Tech 1 is currently on this path)
3. Manual Convergence: The Player Set the Range for the weapons too Converge at or is With Targeting Computer Converged at the range of the current Target(but Much Slower than Manual)

If you cannot answer this because your all are not ready or don't wish to share this info yet. Just Say Comstar Blackout the Com-center. Otherwise I would like to know how you're going to overcome the Weapon VS Armor Convergence problem that have Pledged pass game forcing a Lowering in weapon damage or raising of Armor level to 3x CBT values. We thank you for your time in Reading this

Wolf74
A 3025 pilot in a 3067 world
Assault Tech 1; Mechwarrior / Director - Book Guy

Now there is a name I've not seen in a long while. Glad to see you on the forums Wolf74 :-)

[Yeach]

Is there a difference in convergence with 4 medium lasers vs AC20 if the lasers are mounted together in the same section?
I don't think there should be a difference and essential that makes 4 MLasers as powerful as an AC20 with less weight.

Does BT have a rule where you can group weapons and use one aiming modifier for the sum rather than each individual?

[Amarus Cameron]

Erhardt, on 01 November 2011 - 12:52 PM, said:

A good question. I always wanted to see MULTIPLE crosshairs for the weapons... to reflect that weapons are mounted all over the mech's body, track at different speeds, etc, so getting that big "Alpha-Strike" would take some real work and timing to pull off. I don't know how practical that would be for most players though, so I'd settle for a cone of fire as a good compromise between playability and the lack of pinpoint targeting from the tabletop game.

Maybe getting a targeting computer installed would tighten the cone, or if we level skills then a higher gunnery would do the same. That would be cool without suddenly making any one player too over powered.

Never thought of multiple targeting reticules but I really really like this idea, no pinpoint accuracy, cone of fire is ok firing all weapons straight at the point from their mount, but multiple reticules showing where each weapon would go in genius, although that would take quite a bit of development work.

[OnLashoc]

I never did understand why the weapons in MW4 all hit at the reticle when the weapons are clearly mount (my impression of a top down view) ||_|| but shoot like this //_\\ I mean sure if they are mounted to move independently sure I can see the reason, but realistically if they aren't well hopefully you get my point.

I think this is an excellent idea.

Asmudius Heng, on 02 November 2011 - 04:16 AM, said:

I think a cone of fire would be reasonable - but if you could see the targetting location of each weapon at each given time and they fluctuate around the hud within that cone of fire based on your movement etc you would get the best of both worlds. The more still you are the quicker they will align together. Perhaps the longer you hold the targeting reticle over an enemy the quicker they will converge via your computer - but the enemy would get a warning beep they are about to get alpha striked or something. This would allow additional skills and upgrades to come into it to reduce lock on time or the overall cone of fire etc.

[Woodstock]

The cone option seems the best.

Especially as all shots in the original board game were rolled separately. So one volley did not mean hit or miss for all weapons. But some would hit and some would miss and the ones that did hit could strike anywhere on the target mech.

So I for one would love for a cone option. Have the number of weapons in the alpha strike effect the size of the targeting circle. With one direct fire weapon having a traditional crosshairs but the more weapons that are added makes the target area grow and grow.

I like the idea of moving having an effect also. So the longer you are 'aiming' the tighter the circle becomes. Upto a certain point.


This would allow the head location to be kept closer to canon (9 armour and 3 internal structure) as it would be practically impossible to just snipe the head with this system.

In one of the announcements I heard that missiles would impact in an area to stay closer to canon effects which I hope suggests that this topic is on their radar!

Woodstock (Rik)

[Azmodan]

i think there are 2 topics here:
- weapon convergence is about 2+ weapons that hit the same spot at range.
- accuracy - introducing a level of randomness in targeting - the way most FPS do it nowadays.

i would say auto-convergence on the target reticule is a must. but have a circle of dispersion for each weapon, and so even if they fire together some would hit dead center, some would miss and some..in between. (so an alpha strike would be a lottery - maybe increase dispersion with more weapons fired at the same time).

for accuracy - see World of Tanks. that game handles it very well (but it;s only 1 gun)

[Knightcrawler]

There's a fourth option. No convergence. But I doubt you people want that. ;-)