86 replies to this topic

[pyrocomp]

XphR, on 02 November 2014 - 04:37 PM, said:

To the contrary, it is short range that would be the most effected (the minimum range needed to achieve convergence should be looked at for each mech{most are not far enough out currently).

Well, that's definetly not what was proposed initially. Initially was proposed that weapons converge not ideally. For short range a pixel to the left or pixel to the right makes no difference. What you are proposing is something completely different.
Seem I'll have to make screenshots to illustrate what I mean, and thus maybe understand what you mean. Right now it looks like again 'convergence or no convergence' which is not the point.

[mania3c]

Lockon StratosII, on 02 November 2014 - 01:40 PM, said:

Why?
Short answer: status quo

Long answer: a chunk of players don't want their most effective toys nerfed so some of them throw arguments like "CoF is bad" and "I want to hit where I aim" whenever they see a thread on convergence even before reading said proposals and other half that gives said proposes is usually welcomed wtih "L2aim" posts to which they reply with "crutch alpha" posts and such. In the middle of all that are devs that are not willing to admit their previous atempts to fix this have failed or have too much pride to look at some of suggested solutions which bypass their excuse of "too much server stress".

Meanwhile light and mediums get the short end of the stick which can be seen by their numbers in queue because they can't handle 30+ damage PPFLD alphas because modular armor system we have is not built for that kind of drilling effect so players gravitate to heavier mechs which are more forgiving.

It's a no win situation and nobody wants to poke the hornets nest so devs steer clear from it and nothing will change until someone grows some backbone and fixes it before the problem becomes obvious when new weapons down the timeline like heavy gauss or HAG or heavy ppc + ppc capacitors come into play

Problem is..that you are attacking players against these suggestions and devs.. what you are really saying that adding convergence system is no brainer but bad bad devs are against us and some players are supporting it.. so basically black and white situation

However...there are indeed good arguments on both sides.. first.. I have yet to see good convergence solution which would not kill server/HSR/hit-reg ...other solution, which are more client side seems to be just bad from gameplay perspective..or better said..from control perspective.. for example torso mounted weapons don't have perfect convergence..well..okey..but how you want to aim with torso? or it will only works during alpha? shooting from arms and torso at a same time? I really can't wrap head around this problem to actually make good suggestion for solution and I have yet to see one.

Of course..I have also many ideas how it could ideally work ..but in moment, when I will think about server tasks or control scheme..I am not really sure if this problem can be handled in some elegant way..yes..ghost heat may not be elegant but it's doing it job without additional server stress.

[XphR]

Ghost heat, is garbage..

[Haji1096]

Because space magic ?

[LordKnightFandragon]

Mechwarrior Buddah, on 02 November 2014 - 04:17 PM, said:

Reminds me of watching a fast driving tank actually

I always have the idea of "how the hell do they HIT anything O.o"

A WWII tank? They dont, a Modern day tank...laser guidance, and even that im sure doesnt ensure a hit 100% of the time...

World of Tanks? RNG.....

Edited by LordKnightFandragon, 02 November 2014 - 10:27 PM.

[STEF_]

I read a lot of posts trying to explain improbable instant convergence in reality too.

But the truth is, as previous said, PGI and the majority of players like this game to be "easy mode".
Delayed convergence, that would be more realistic and interesting and would make mwo closer to BT, would influence short range brawling.
It would make it more difficult.
So, since PGI and the large mass of players like the "always the same death-ball", with delayed convergence they would have difficulties in continuing their favorite brainless tactic in pug matches

PGI would never be against the "large mass of players who like the "always the same death-ball", and so they can avoid working on it.

The same with the kid/troll lamenting about "direwhales are overpowered":
http://mwomercs.com/...re-overpowered/

.... that kid/troll didn't understand that dires aren't overpowered... the problem is the istant convergence.

I can add a funny picture too.



Looking this picture.... do the defenders of instant convergence (because nowadays instant convergence is realistic: we have it in the ABRAMS... LOL) feel ridiculous? Don't they feel ridiculous looking this?

Edited by Stefka Kerensky, 02 November 2014 - 11:26 PM.

[Karl Marlow]

Viktor Drake, on 02 November 2014 - 10:56 AM, said:

Computer controlled alignment. Each mech has a powerful computer that takes into account the aimpoint and micro-adjusts the weapons to produce pinpoint accuracy.

Seriously, the main gun on an M1A2 Abrams tank can on the fly calculate and adjust on the fly based on terrain, heat, humidity, speed of gun platform and speed of target and easily hit targets moving 60-70 kph so why is it a stretch that 1000 years in the future, they can't have something even more sophisticated?

Oh are we going for lore now? You might have a point if the Inner Sphere hadn't been taken back to the Industrial Revolution via the Succession wars. Targeting systems like that are at the very best poorly maintained.

[Lockon StratosII]

mania3c, on 02 November 2014 - 05:02 PM, said:

Problem is..that you are attacking players against these suggestions and devs.. what you are really saying that adding convergence system is no brainer but bad bad devs are against us and some players are supporting it.. so basically black and white situation However...there are indeed good arguments on both sides.. first.. I have yet to see good convergence solution which would not kill server/HSR/hit-reg ...other solution, which are more client side seems to be just bad from gameplay perspective..or better said..from control perspective.. for example torso mounted weapons don't have perfect convergence..well..okey..but how you want to aim with torso? or it will only works during alpha? shooting from arms and torso at a same time? I really can't wrap head around this problem to actually make good suggestion for solution and I have yet to see one. Of course..I have also many ideas how it could ideally work ..but in moment, when I will think about server tasks or control scheme..I am not really sure if this problem can be handled in some elegant way..yes..ghost heat may not be elegant but it's doing it job without additional server stress.

Sorry if I came out rude or agressive or anything, that wasn't the point I tried to make. I wanted to say that there are bad seeds in both camps flinging inapropriate comments at each other and that 75% of the time posts about convergence devolve into rage fests so it is clear why devs don't want to touch it with a 6 foot poll, which I understand, you will aggrivate one section of your playerbase whatever you do.

Oh and my only jab at devs was about ghost heat which I still stand by my opinion that it didn't solve anything, just made things worse

Thing is I think it's a no brainer to implemement some sort of system for it because it is hurting the game (and that is coming from someone who doesn't have that much problem with one hit kill alphas even when piloting a cicada - not 3M - exclusively and is abusing said system all the time - ppc/erppc build). As I said before this will become obvious only when weapon systems that can blow off a section of a heavy mech in one alpha come into play

About solution, yea it is a though nut to crack but there were a few good ideas over the years. We can't include full on progressive convergence because servers would melt and dig a hole straight to China and even I think that full on CoF is a bad idea because why would you punish a guy shooting one weapon. Elephant in the room are not high alphas (nobody ever complained about SRMs after the million damage bug was fixed or LBXs or multiple Lasers), FLD (nobody raged about single gauss AC or PPC being overpowered) or chain fire. It was always about straping several FLD weapons into one mega weapon that can kill or destroy a section in one alpha and it was like that since the days of gaussapult in CB. We need a system that will prevent that, or at least discourage players from doing it but still not affect peoples aim when firing single weapons. This may look like a shameless self promotion but I made a post a while back with something that ilustrates one system like that so you can check it out to see a general direction of solution I am talking about. Also check Homeless Bills solution because I think he best described what the problem and possible solution is.

[Lily from animove]

DodgerH2O, on 02 November 2014 - 10:07 AM, said:

IIRC, the official stance says that the engine doesn't allow dynamic convergence, and as to everything else...

It's a contentious issue. If it were a weekday you'd already have people ranting at you. Be prepared.

+ in a game where latency matters, its a noin working design.

would be a great immersion for a single player game.

[wolf74]

Viktor Drake, on 02 November 2014 - 10:56 AM, said:

Computer controlled alignment. Each mech has a powerful computer that takes into account the aimpoint and micro-adjusts the weapons to produce pinpoint accuracy. Seriously, the main gun on an M1A2 Abrams tank can on the fly calculate and adjust on the fly based on terrain, heat, humidity, speed of gun platform and speed of target and easily hit targets moving 60-70 kph so why is it a stretch that 1000 years in the future, they can't have something even more sophisticated?

And the a range accuracy is within 10m, not the .001mm we have in MWO.

[pyrocomp]

Well, imperfect convergence doesn't make it RNG or require CoF, really. Each weapon converges to a point near center, you know to which, you can still aim perfectly each weapon (with skill and some conditions met, but I haven't yet seen snipping on the run in this game), you can't just pinpoint alpha over long range. Thus, all still have beloved instant convegence (but not to the point), nothing changed on the mid and short ranges, nothing really changes on the server side, cause it's still same aiming, but different for each shot (really, you already have torso and hands separately, that 'converge' with torso rotation over time, why not every veapon is done that way?).
Lockon StratosII, I'm agaist penalties for tonnage or any randomization of shot direction relative to the aim (that means I want to see whe the weapon is aimed, it just may be not the exact spot under recticle but a little to the lef or to the down-right etc.). So no RNG or CoF. The idea is closer to fixed convergence, it's just not fixed.

[kapusta11]

Funny how most ideas suggested here will favor sniping and punish brawling even more.

[Lockon StratosII]

pyrocomp, on 03 November 2014 - 02:34 AM, said:

Well, imperfect convergence doesn't make it RNG or require CoF, really. Each weapon converges to a point near center, you know to which, you can still aim perfectly each weapon (with skill and some conditions met, but I haven't yet seen snipping on the run in this game), you can't just pinpoint alpha over long range. Thus, all still have beloved instant convegence (but not to the point), nothing changed on the mid and short ranges, nothing really changes on the server side, cause it's still same aiming, but different for each shot (really, you already have torso and hands separately, that 'converge' with torso rotation over time, why not every veapon is done that way?).
Lockon StratosII, I'm agaist penalties for tonnage or any randomization of shot direction relative to the aim (that means I want to see whe the weapon is aimed, it just may be not the exact spot under recticle but a little to the lef or to the down-right etc.). So no RNG or CoF. The idea is closer to fixed convergence, it's just not fixed.

I am guessing you have read my thread. I don't know why people are so drawn to that tonnage reply I made. I used tonnage merely as one of possible (not definitive) example of what could be used as a condition for deciding will your weapons converge on the thing your reticule is pointing at or at a distance 2km behind it when you fire your weapons. Maybe I should have used something else like TCL idea:

Lets say you have a mech with 2xPPC and 2xAC5 and that TCL of PPC is 50 and of AC5 is 25 and your mechs max for TCL is 101 (again, all are just random numbers, nothing is set in stone)
So your mech can fire both of it's PPCs or both of ACs or PPC+AC or PPC+2xAC perfectly like it can now because their max combined TCL is less than 101, but when it tries to fire all of it's weapons at the same time it gets penalized (combined TCL is 150 which is over mechs max cap of 101) and all of it's weapons fire parallel to each other.

Also there is no RNG or CoF effect to any degree in that proposal: if you play by the rules (not over exceeding your mechs max TCL cap) you get to fire like what we have now ie perfect instant convergence, BUT if you want to squeeze out a more potent shot (exceed your mechs TCL cap) your weapons will fire "parallel" to each other (well almost parallel because they wont be shooting at 90 degree from your mech but ~89 degrees 99 minutes due to trigonometry and triangles) so the resulting hit locations will ALWAYS be in the shape of the weapon mounts on your mech, so if you learn your mechs silhouette and know where are your weapons mounted you will know exactly where your shot will go if you get penalized (for example, lets say you have a cent with 2 med las in your CT and AC20 in RA and you get penalized for shooting an alpha - not saying that should happen with that setup but just go with it for sake of explaining. So if you know where are your weapons mounted you will know that those 2 lasers will hit just below your reticule because they are in CT just below your cockpit and that your AC20 will hit a bit lower and to the right from reticule as well since it is in you low slung right arm)

pyrocomp, on 02 November 2014 - 04:53 PM, said:

Well, that's definetly not what was proposed initially. Initially was proposed that weapons converge not ideally. For short range a pixel to the left or pixel to the right makes no difference. What you are proposing is something completely different.
Seem I'll have to make screenshots to illustrate what I mean, and thus maybe understand what you mean. Right now it looks like again 'convergence or no convergence' which is not the point.

This idea keeps perfect convergence we have now but slaps you on your wrist if you want to fire a "mega weapon" and it is actually really close to what you wanted to say according to this post but it happens only when you go over your mechs limits

Edited by Lockon StratosII, 03 November 2014 - 03:34 AM.

[Tumbling Dice]

Viktor Drake, on 02 November 2014 - 10:56 AM, said:

Computer controlled alignment. Each mech has a powerful computer that takes into account the aimpoint and micro-adjusts the weapons to produce pinpoint accuracy.

Seriously, the main gun on an M1A2 Abrams tank can on the fly calculate and adjust on the fly based on terrain, heat, humidity, speed of gun platform and speed of target and easily hit targets moving 60-70 kph so why is it a stretch that 1000 years in the future, they can't have something even more sophisticated?

I absolutely agree with you. The technology of the mechs lags the time in which they battle. That is just fine as it is after all a game. Pilots need to be a little more defensive of their weaknesses as they advance on enemy positions. I would not like to see any kind of RNG done to targeting as I too feel it is detrimental to the game. But, sensors on a mech to announce that you have been spotted, before the LRM's or Gauss shells are on the way, would be nice. Maybe a module to address this. "Warning, enemy attempting to lock" or "Enemy is locking on you." That tech would certainly be available in the game time frame.

[pyrocomp]

Lockon StratosII, on 03 November 2014 - 03:29 AM, said:

I am guessing you have read my thread. I don't know why people are so drawn to that tonnage reply I made.

It's the first you see, searching through your posts.

And, I think I disagree that there is magic instant disconvergence. Why, the light to bump face to face with assault deserves what's comming. Do not make mistake, I prefer to run Light, so, no, I think you should be able to fire all you have at point blanc without any penalty. And yes, if you take average whale, then most fire in your system will go past the light standing just infront of it. Just because you have different sizes. Attractive, but I don't think I like that. All I propose a little and not totaly random offset. Controllable and only important on long range. That's I thin is main difference between our points.

[Mechwarrior Buddah]

LordKnightFandragon, on 02 November 2014 - 10:27 PM, said:

A WWII tank? They dont, a Modern day tank...laser guidance, and even that im sure doesnt ensure a hit 100% of the time...

World of Tanks? RNG.....

Yah; guess I am thinking of how the older tanks used to move





bah wrong thing but know what, screw it Ill keep it. Bathe in the awesome that is my pink Baneblade

Edited by Mechwarrior Buddah, 03 November 2014 - 06:28 AM.

[Lockon StratosII]

pyrocomp, on 03 November 2014 - 05:43 AM, said:

It's the first you see, searching through your posts.

And, I think I disagree that there is magic instant disconvergence. Why, the light to bump face to face with assault deserves what's comming. Do not make mistake, I prefer to run Light, so, no, I think you should be able to fire all you have at point blanc without any penalty. And yes, if you take average whale, then most fire in your system will go past the light standing just infront of it. Just because you have different sizes. Attractive, but I don't think I like that. All I propose a little and not totaly random offset. Controllable and only important on long range. That's I thin is main difference between our points.

Interesting point. I also agree with that notion, you either pilot carefully or suffer the consequences but in this hypothetical case if said light were to bump face to face with an assault, assault pilot could simply fire weapons on one side of his mech then other in lets say 0.5s interval , light is dead no matter what or if he has for example one side of his mech heavy with weapons (lets say his left side), he could target a bit to the right and overload his TC on purpose because all of his weapons are close to each other so light still gets blasted with full might of his weapons just not all of them in single spot (either way that light will be close to death or dead).
Bonus of this system is that mechs that group their weapons on one side will be less affected by it but also at higher risk of losing all its weapon if said section is lost (think hunchback) and that mechs will have unique feel to playing it - do you want Nova with all of it's weapons tightly packed on it's arm built on purpose to overload TC because they are so close to each other but at a higher risk of losing said arm, or a laser hunch brimming with weapons in his side torso, or you want a more spread out build like stalker because you don't want to risk getting neutered but which will make you pay more attention to your targeting comp....
Also you can play with TCL values and make some weapons better than others - pulse lasers are supposed to be most accurate weapons so why not give them low TCL like half of regular lasers to justify their increased weight, or you can make biggest offenders for PPFLD alphas not synergize well because they have high load values.

Ok, I have gone a bit broader here but yea the main difference is that your idea, if i got it right, penalizes long range shooting more while not affecting brawling ranges so much where mine is constant across the board. Honestly, I can's get behind the notion to punish one play style more than the other because then you are basically favoring brawling over sniping and that IMO is bad where my proposal punishes you simply for being trigger happy/lazy.
Point is if you want to implement some sort of convergence fix it has to be the same and predictable for everyone so that they are on the even playing field. This is the biggest reason people are so vocal about not wanting RNG or CoF because they can't predict what will happen and giving their fate into RNGsuss isn't a good enough answer

[Jetfire]

Dynamic convergeance in Closed Beta was buggy and caused a lot of problems with the netcode. Basically they got rid of it to have a hope of making HSR work within a year. Maybe someday like collisions it will come back, but will likely take a year of dev time.

[Tombstoner]

LordKnightFandragon, on 02 November 2014 - 10:27 PM, said:

A WWII tank? They dont, a Modern day tank...laser guidance, and even that im sure doesnt ensure a hit 100% of the time...

World of Tanks? RNG.....

Actually WOT is a very accurate representation of the actual CEP for all WWII weapons. The CEP stands for the circle error probable used to describe the size of the circle that covers the area where 100% of a weapons shots hit for a given range. Its is not a pure RNG and if people understood that things would be much easer.

Now how much the CEP changes if your moving is subjective also its rate of improvement, but that is tuned for good game play.

The Gun for the M1A1 has a CEP i beleave of 35m at 8000m. cant find the exact file to quot so i'm going from memory.
so shots from an M1A1 can hit any place with in that 35 meter circle at 8000m.... of course typical engagement ranges are much less and have a corresponding smaller circle thus improved accuracy. The bottom line is all ballistic weapons have a CEP. Even lasers have a CEP but its given as a power loss over x distance.

People who favor a COF are looking for added realism not a RNG.

[kapusta11]

Why shouldn't it be perfect? Any reason?