Jump to content

Convergence: The Real Solution To Ppfld


113 replies to this topic

#1 Gaius Cavadus

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Spear
  • The Spear
  • 404 posts
  • LocationNova Roma, Alphard

Posted 15 January 2015 - 01:06 PM

I posted this three years ago here. PGI ignored all of it and moved it to the archives. Figured it was time to repost since, like all other MW games that came before it, PPFLD does much to damage balance in a myriad of ways.

Enjoy!

---------------------------------------------------------------------------




This is one of the largest topics of debate on the forum but what's generally missing from the dicussions are visual **** which quickly and easily demonstrate logical weapon spread concepts.

I have created the (crappy) arts needed to demonstrate a few principles. Let's jump right in.

► 1. Parallel Barrels
This is an issue that is invariably overlooked. Parallel barrels are the barrels of multiple direct fire weapons which cannot converge with one another because they are either mounted in the torso, in which weapons cannot pivot or adjust their aim outside of orienting the entire torso, or are mounted next to one another in the same arm.

Here's a quick demonstration using the arms of a Nova Cat.

Posted Image

The Nova Cat's left arm is a triple grouping of medium pulse lasers. Since they are all located in the same section the lasers can never converge to hit the exact same point. The barrels are parallel to one another. Parallel things can never intersect which means the lasers can never occupy the same points while traveling.

Firing all medium pulse lasers in a group would leave a hit pattern as illustrated above.

Now, the right arm:

Posted Image

The right arm demonstrates the same concept. The two PPCs are mounted parallel to one another and can never intersect to hit the same point in space.

▼ 1.1 Convergence




Convergence is simply collapsing trajectories so that they overlap onto a target. The Nova Cat has it's weapons in the arms. Arms are very dexterous.

If you look at the two shot groupings above it's not hard to imagine what it would look like if the Nova Cat was targeting a mech for an alpha strike. The two shot groupings would be overlaid onto one another for a composite shot group. It would look like this:

Posted Image

The shot groupings for each individual arm can never change. The space between the points where the weapons strike is the same amount of space between the barrels the weapon's fire is leaving. For instance, if the two PPC barrels in the Nova Cat's right arm are separated by 1 meter then the two PPCs will always strike a target in two locations 1 meter apart from one another and in the same geometric pattern.

The above composite shot grouping demonstrates that arms, because they are independent from one another and dexterous, possess the ability to dynamically converge their weapons' fire trajectories for overlapping fire. This means more weapons can be brought to be bear to hit a smaller portion of a mech.

This leads to an interesting trade off in mech design. Arms can be lost easily but they also provide the most accurate weapon mounts. This is a great unintended balance.


► 2. Torso Weapons
The issue of torso weapons is very complex. Arms can move so they can converge their fire dynamically to match the range of their target.

But so too can torsos move. They can rotate in both directions and pitch themselves up and down. Think of it a bit like a tank's turret. Sure, in a modern turret the gun can be elevated and depressed inside of the turret but that's because the turret itself can't do that.

Torsos can do that.

For this demonstration I'm going to suppose that torso weapons are 100% fixed and not gymbalized. They possess no independent movement from the torso. Aiming a torso weapon means aiming your torso.

Using an AS7-D as my illustration firing the four MLs and AC-20 simultaneously would create a hit pattern something like this:

Posted Image

As you can see the two medium lasers in the center torso and the AC-20 located in the right torso are all parallel to one another and therefore cannot converge. The two arm mounted MLs can converge. But what would this shot grouping actually look like on the poor Zeus?

Something like this:

Posted Image

The two upper red dots indicate where the AS7-D's center torso mounted MLs struck the Zeus. The lower single red dot indicates where the two arm-mounted MLs struck the Zeus. Remember, arms can converge to produce overlapping fire patterns at dynamic ranges!

Here's the same image except with a Cone of Fire based meta-reticle:

Posted Image

As you can see grouping the MLs and the AC-20 into a single fire group produces a large cone of fire which is inaccurate. The AC-20's ballistic trajectory and origin of fire makes this grouping inaccurate. The two CT mounted MLs are close to one another and mounted centrally on the mech. The arms can converge. Those four MLs combined could provide a relatively accurate and tight cone of fire by themselves.

The AC-20's barrel, or "origin of fire", is located at forearm level but it's off-center on the right side. Since the AC-20 is mounted perpendicular to the torso it's trajectory skews the cone-of-fire reticle to be larger because it's aim cannot be adjusted inwards to better match the reticle's center pip.

But what would the cone-of-fire look like if you subtracted the AC-20?

Posted Image

As you can see the cone-of-fire is much smaller because the four ML grouping corresponds much better to a centrally located targeting reticle. You could even go one further with the accuracy and assume that the arms can dynamically converge based on the locations of other weapons in their grouping which means the targeting and tracking system of the AS7-D could tell the arms to move their aim up so that the two arm mounted MLs strike inbetween the two torso mounted MLs. This would create a very accurate and tight shot grouping.

Another factor to consider is that the arm mounted MLs could possibly compensate their shot grouping to account for the center torso mounted MLs and the AC-20. This means the arms could, in theory, orient their point of convergence BETWEEN the CT's MLs and the AC-20 so the arms would actually be aiming slightly offset and to the right to help tighten it up.

I reckon automatic adjustments like that could get pretty complex and I'm not sure how a firing solution could account for them.


► 3. Other Factors Which Influence the Size of the Cone-of-Fire
In addition to the physical locations the weapons are mounted in and the basics of parallel barrels there other factors which can influence where a weapon shot is placed.

▼ 3.1 Movement



Movement is huge. The faster a mech travels the more the arms oscillate to maintain balance during movement. This would create a predictable sway to the path the reticle would travel on for arm and torso mounted weapons.

Using the AS7-D's the four ML weapon group a sway pattern would look something like this:

Posted Image

The lines above indicate the paths of travel the weapons mounted on the corresponding location would take during movement. For a practical exercise stand up and lift your forearms so your elbows are bent 90 degrees much like an Atlas' arms.

Now start walking forward and take notice of how your torso twists correspond to which leg you have extended in front of you and the natural movement in your arms that is used to maintain balance.

Using the above sway patterns we can deduce that if the Atlas was running at top speed and you took a snap shot at where the weapons would be aimed on their sway paths when the Atlas' left leg was fully extended forward it would look like this (note that the large DoTs indicate where the weapons inside of the corresponding section would be pointed at inside of the cone-of-fire):

Posted Image

With the left foot fully extended forward at max run speed the torso would be twisted clockwise to some degree so that the right arm comes forward and the left arm is pulled back. This would also move the trajectories of the CT mounted MLs to the right as the torso is twisted that way.

Obviously if the right foot was fully extended the dots would be on the opposite side.

As the speed of the Atlas decreases the length of the sway travel paths would also decrease. If the Atlas was at a dead stop most of the points would be completely center or as near as centered as would be allowed taking parallel barrels into consideration.

▼ 3.2 Standard Deviation




Standard deviation would be the innate dispersal of a weapons' fire. Obviously some weapons would logically have larger "standard deviation" than some.

Basically, if you have a weapon 100% zeroed to the HUD's reticle standard deviation would allow for the weapon's fire to offset from that reticle's center pip by X amount of distance. Think of it like the radius of a circle.

This deviation can be measured in either units of distance or in degrees.

For instance, over 500 meters the "standard deviation" of a Large Laser might be something incredibly minute like 50 centimeters. This means that if the LL is perfectly zeroed to its HUD's reticle at 500 meters the laser could strike up to 50 centimeters off the reticle's center pip in any given direction.

Conversely, weapons such as the AC-20 would have a larger "standard deviation" due to the ballistic nature of the weapon.

The deviation I used for the LL above was completely arbitrary.

All that being said the fire spread caused by "standard deviation" would be measured in centimeters at best. In context of the scale of battlemechs the deviation would be minimal if not unnoticeable.

▼ 3.3 Heat & Damage




Other factor's which would obviously influence a non-RNG CoF would be heat and damage. Personally, I don't feel that heat should have influence over standard deviation though damage absolutely should.

Heat should influence the mech's "Targeting & Tracking System" to a small degree but greatly influence the speed and precision of the myomers and actuators used to control and stabilize arms, legs, and the pelvis.

I'd represent heat's influence on weapons' precision by allowing the reticle to "float" a bit due to reduced arm movement and torso stabilization.


► 4. Conclusion
For a semi-realistic and non-RNG based cone-of-fire the only things which really need to be factored into weapons' spread are parallel barrels, torso weapons which are mounted off-center, and the sway paths caused by movement. This creates a predictable weapons spread pattern without introducing any Random Number Generator tomfoolery into the game.

If Piranha included a sensible cone-of-fire system as demonstrated above into MWO along with more detailed and localized damage (imagine breaking each classic BT armor section into three smaller sections each with the full armor value of the original section) one to two shot kills would be a thing of the past.

This also puts the balance of power back towards larger weapons which do more damage as opposed to boating smaller weapons and hoping for the same effect.

Edited by Cavadus, 15 January 2015 - 01:17 PM.


#2 Andi Nagasia

    Volunteer Moderator

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 5,982 posts

Posted 15 January 2015 - 01:24 PM

actually this Type of convergence would be implemented into MWO,
with out much Scripting trouble, and with out a large patch,
@Cavadus- if i may be so bold as to add to the Topic?

ok for those who may not know,
most FPS style games work off of what is known as a ray cast,
here a Ray or beam is cast out from the camera, into the 3D Space,
when this ray hits something it in the 3D world, its sends its location,
usually to a weapon, which then points to the location of contact,
-
this is how no mater where your weapon is located,
you always can hit what in aim at, this is also true for MWO,

-Example-
Posted Image
(convergence1)
this is how MWO behaves right now when playing,

my solution is to make weapons target past the target location to simulate this Anti-convergence,
this would just be setting the distance to the location over again to the weapon for targeting,
so if an enemy is 200m away, your weapons instead target 400m past them(600m),
if an enemy is 100m away, your weapons instead target 200m past them(300m),
this gives the illusion of weapons Anti-convergence, but keeps it balanced,

-Example-
Posted Image
(convergence2)
this could also give the Skill for weapon convergence actually have meaning,
by cutting the distance down from x3 to x2, enemy at 200m weapons fire at +200m(400M),

Edit- simulated MWO implementation

Edited by Andi Nagasia, 15 January 2015 - 05:51 PM.


#3 LordKnightFandragon

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,239 posts

Posted 15 January 2015 - 01:39 PM

So your idea would do away with the little + and o reticule we have now and replace it with a WoT circle? Then the shots would land anywhere within it?

I could see that doing alot to kinda stem the PPFLD bursts, but if that is all we changed, it still wouldnt curb people firing the 10 weapons in the first place. It would be step 1 of about 3 to finally end the mass Lolphas. Next would have to be a revision of the heat system that imposes penalties for getting hot and staying hot. Also, we would need a much lower heat scale to begin with to slow our RoF.

I could see with just your CoF and Convergeance changes, the new meta would become Small lasers and AC5s so we could pack in as many guns as possible to maximize hits, RoF and heat efficiency. Other larger weapons would actually vanish. But yes, it is a good start.

As much as I hate Wargaming, their new "World of Battleships" actually uses a convergence system to aim the multiple turrets of the ships. I can imagine that being something we get in MWo. It would be hella confusing, no damn doubt, having to keep track of where both our arms are aiming and our CT reticule, but it would certainly keep people from being able to PPFLD everyone....unless you stayed stationary I guess...

But alas, all the dreaming in the world wont make this a reality.....can I like your post more then 1 time OP? I do have an alt acct.....

#4 mogs01gt

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Shredder
  • 4,292 posts
  • LocationOhio

Posted 15 January 2015 - 01:40 PM

I think removing convergence would make lights even more of a problem to hit.

#5 LordKnightFandragon

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,239 posts

Posted 15 January 2015 - 01:41 PM

View Postmogs01gt, on 15 January 2015 - 01:40 PM, said:

I think removing convergence would make lights even more of a problem to hit.


Good, then they could get upscaled to where they should be.....

#6 mogs01gt

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Shredder
  • 4,292 posts
  • LocationOhio

Posted 15 January 2015 - 01:43 PM

View PostLordKnightFandragon, on 15 January 2015 - 01:41 PM, said:


Good, then they could get upscaled to where they should be.....

LMAO!! You think PGI will fix scaling??

#7 LordKnightFandragon

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,239 posts

Posted 15 January 2015 - 01:45 PM

View Postmogs01gt, on 15 January 2015 - 01:43 PM, said:

LMAO!! You think PGI will fix scaling??



Lol, I personally dont think anything about the mechanics will ever change.....maybe more Ghost penalties, or longer burn times on lasers, maybe some nerfing of damage numbers.....increasing the armor.....you know, the stuff that wont really have any real effect on the game except the shifting of the meta and how to best obtain a 60pt alpha...

But I can dream..

#8 mogs01gt

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Shredder
  • 4,292 posts
  • LocationOhio

Posted 15 January 2015 - 01:48 PM

View PostLordKnightFandragon, on 15 January 2015 - 01:45 PM, said:



Lol, I personally dont think anything about the mechanics will ever change.....maybe more Ghost penalties, or longer burn times on lasers, maybe some nerfing of damage numbers.....increasing the armor.....you know, the stuff that wont really have any real effect on the game except the shifting of the meta and how to best obtain a 60pt alpha...

But I can dream..

I have the same dream!

#9 Cion

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Spear
  • The Spear
  • 750 posts

Posted 15 January 2015 - 01:51 PM

I've wanted this same thing for years now.

Very well explained OP, better than what I could do.

Russ is opposed to this because of what he thinks are game play issues. According to him a gamer shoots something and expects the shot to go where he pointed.

If we could somehow incorporate that reticle idea or something similar it would appease him and maybe, just maybe convince him that convergence, as explained in the OP, would not only be fun but solve soo many problems, including time-to-kill and also increase mech attrition (more arms taken off).

Russ read this thread man...

#10 Felio

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Philanthropist
  • Philanthropist
  • 1,721 posts

Posted 15 January 2015 - 02:04 PM

I wasn't in closed beta, but I suspect convergence time was removed because it made shots go where new players did not expect them to go. For that reason, I think convergence variation of any kind is unlikely to return.

#11 Alistair Winter

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Storm
  • Storm
  • 10,823 posts
  • LocationBergen, Norway, FRR

Posted 15 January 2015 - 02:09 PM

I only skimmed through this, but I can say with a fair degree of certainty that I support this idea and that it would make MWO a lot more enjoyable for me. It's a much more elegant solution to PPFLD than ghost heat.

#12 Nathan Foxbane

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Wolf
  • The Wolf
  • 2,984 posts

Posted 15 January 2015 - 02:23 PM

First OP I charge you with research failure. Nova Cat Prime has 3 ER Large Lasers in its left arm.

Second, no engineer is going to put a weapon in a fixed mount on something that big unless recoil demands it. The only weapons powerful to make that excuse in BT are heavy Gauss rifles and artillery pieces. Instead of using screws to adjust convergence to pilot taste on weapons like WWII fighters, they would be in housings able to automatically adjust for convergence within the weapon's effective range. The whole point of Artemis is to do the same with all the tubes on an LRM launcher. What good is a basic targeting computer (not the mountable equipment) in something so complex as a Battlemech if it cannot adjust for convergence?

Proper convergence in a game like this is a delay representing the time it takes for those weapons to align on target. We had just that. It was removed which is why we currently have an elite skill that does nothing. Not sure why it was removed, but it is a lot of calculations for so many weapons.

#13 AlexEss

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • FP Veteran - Beta 1
  • FP Veteran - Beta 1
  • 2,491 posts
  • Locationthe ol north

Posted 15 January 2015 - 02:25 PM

View PostCavadus, on 15 January 2015 - 01:06 PM, said:


► 1. Parallel Barrels
This is an issue that is invariably overlooked. Parallel barrels are the barrels of multiple direct fire weapons which cannot converge with one another because they are either mounted in the torso, in which weapons cannot pivot or adjust their aim outside of orienting the entire torso, or are mounted next to one another in the same arm.

Here's a quick demonstration using the arms of a Nova Cat.

Posted Image

The Nova Cat's left arm is a triple grouping of medium pulse lasers. Since they are all located in the same section the lasers can never converge to hit the exact same point. The barrels are parallel to one another. Parallel things can never intersect which means the lasers can never occupy the same points while traveling.

Firing all medium pulse lasers in a group would leave a hit pattern as illustrated above.


Poor choice on this one... Had you picked ballistic weapons you would have had more of a case... Not much but a little.

Lasers can actually be "aimed" to converge by adjusting the lenses and reflectors, noting say this cannot be done on the fly by a sufficiently good computer and motors.. In fact the same system could be done for barrels as long as the entire assembly moves.

So it is not only doable but it is even very likley.

Not saying your idea is bad per se... But the point you work from is not as solid as you think.

#14 kapusta11

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Little Helper
  • Little Helper
  • 3,854 posts

Posted 15 January 2015 - 02:29 PM

So it's basically an overcomplicated forced chainfire as there is no point to fire all weapons at the same time anymore?

#15 Lily from animove

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Devoted
  • The Devoted
  • 13,891 posts
  • LocationOn a dropship to Terra

Posted 15 January 2015 - 02:29 PM

Nice idea, and thought through quite good, also well structured.

my fear is how this is going to affect balance, because a hunch 4P's hunch is then rather much different by having quite tight sticking groups of weapons. And other mechs may probably totally suck because the location of their hardoints a lot more worse.

Edited by Lily from animove, 15 January 2015 - 02:31 PM.


#16 Khobai

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Elite Founder
  • Elite Founder
  • 23,969 posts

Posted 15 January 2015 - 02:30 PM

Quote

This is an issue that is invariably overlooked. Parallel barrels are the barrels of multiple direct fire weapons which cannot converge with one another because they are either mounted in the torso, in which weapons cannot pivot or adjust their aim outside of orienting the entire torso, or are mounted next to one another in the same arm.


If Darpa has lasers that can pivot on the nose of aircraft, and the US army has rifles that can fire around corners, I dont think its unreasonable for pivoting lasers/guns to exist 1000 years in the future.

Plus it would be ret arded to play the game and not have your weapons fire where your crosshair is centered. Especially on mechs where the weapons are widely spread apart, like the King Crab, which would end up missing with half its weapons. Convergence is a good thing for the game. Shooting where your crosshair is centered is intuitive and exactly like every other shooter game out there. Shooting all over the place is not intuitive at all. It would just turn the game into a complete abortion and make it that much more difficult to learn for new players.

I would rather see autocannons changed to burst fire. PPCs changed to splash damage. And gauss damage lowered but gauss given a special ability like armor piercing instead. It has the same effect of artificially reducing/spreading out damage, but its a more elegant solution, that doesnt increase complexity or learning curve of the game to levels approaching stupid.

Edited by Khobai, 15 January 2015 - 02:46 PM.


#17 terrycloth

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Little Helper
  • Little Helper
  • 769 posts

Posted 15 January 2015 - 02:30 PM

It made HSR even worse, because now where your weapons were aimed depends on where the enemy mechs were during the rewind, and the calculations overloaded the server.

Also, it gave fast light mechs an even more ridiculous advantage because you couldn't get your reticle over them for long enough and it was converging to your reticle and not to the range to the mech you were trying to shoot at.

So, basically, it was borked.

And realistically, assuming the weapons are mounted to converge, it should be effectively instant. Ten times faster than opening missile bay doors, since there's ten times less movement involved except in ridiculous extreme cases.

I like forced chain-fire better as a solution to massed PPFLD. The chain needs to be *very fast*, just not instant. Maybe 0.1 seconds or faster.

Edited by terrycloth, 15 January 2015 - 02:32 PM.


#18 Senor Cataclysmo

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 373 posts

Posted 15 January 2015 - 02:42 PM

I always imagined that torso lasers were mounted in such a way that they could pivot a bit to track with the arms, albeit to a lesser extent.

Still, great explanation and a sound idea, I'd love to see something like this in game.

Sod the 'gamers want to hit where they shoot' argument, I would personally find this way more immersive, and for me, immersion is King when it comes to gameplay.

If the system is a little convoluted for people to understand without explanations, it would be very easy to build an explanation into the game's tutorial. You could even have it presented "in character" by someone representing a training officer explaining how to aim your mech's weapons, something I would love to see as part of the New Player Experience stuff thats supposed to be coming this year

Edited by Senor Cataclysmo, 15 January 2015 - 02:46 PM.


#19 Khobai

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Elite Founder
  • Elite Founder
  • 23,969 posts

Posted 15 January 2015 - 02:51 PM

Quote

Sod the 'gamers want to hit where they shoot' argument, I would personally find this way more immersive, and for me, immersion is King when it comes to gameplay.


then you can already simulate that by not firing more than one torso mounted weapon at a time.

but dont try to ruin other peoples game experiences. I want my weapons to fire where I aim. But I do recognize pinpoint damage is a problem, so I presented an alternative solution to fix pinpoint damage that wont radically change the game or reduce people's enjoyment of it.

Edited by Khobai, 15 January 2015 - 02:54 PM.


#20 MauttyKoray

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,831 posts

Posted 15 January 2015 - 03:00 PM

View PostLordKnightFandragon, on 15 January 2015 - 01:39 PM, said:

As much as I hate Wargaming, their new "World of Battleships" actually uses a convergence system to aim the multiple turrets of the ships. I can imagine that being something we get in MWo. It would be hella confusing, no damn doubt, having to keep track of where both our arms are aiming and our CT reticule, but it would certainly keep people from being able to PPFLD everyone....unless you stayed stationary I guess...

On a dual barreled battleship turret you still have 2 barrels that can NEVER hit the same spot. You'll get 2 shots that stay the same distance apart from one another as the barrels. The arms' weapons act like this, being able to position around and utlimately can both fire at the same target, however the weapons on a single arm can never hit the same exact spot in a straight firing weapon (ballistics, lasers, etc, thought SRMs spread and ultimately could). The mech's body weapons can be thought of like a giant turret in that respect, it can turn and angle to adjust, however the weapons (again, other than spreads like SRMs) cannot pinpoint onto a single spot, they will be spread out.

I really like this post and wish PGI would do something along these line. The mech's computer is supposed to automatically adjust to assist in aiming the different weapons, however you can't make a static weapon barrel bend magically to converge weapons that way.

View PostKhobai, on 15 January 2015 - 02:51 PM, said:


then you can already simulate that by not firing more than one torso mounted weapon at a time.

but dont try to ruin other peoples game experiences. I want my weapons to fire where I aim. But I do recognize pinpoint damage is a problem, so I presented an alternative solution to fix pinpoint damage that wont radically change the game or reduce people's enjoyment of it.

Mech shooters like Hawken already exist. This game however is Mechwarrior, based on Battletech, and has always held a semi-simulation experience. I would much prefer this game not to have derpy pinpoint precision when it does not exist, promoting BAD gameplay and ultimately the game to finally die when enough people get fed up and leave. I'd rather the balance move toward TRUE Mech gameplay instead of this FPS mech shooter garbage that's been creeping its way in with the F2P twitch shooter crowd who more often than not don't even financially assist this game in its running cost.





4 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 4 guests, 0 anonymous users