1126 replies to this topic

[Joe Mallad]

I say keep convergence on arm weapons as you should be able to aim your arm weapons to a single location. But all torso weapons should not have convergence. The way they sit in/on you torso is the spread they should fire at. Or maybe give torso weapons half the convergence rate of your arms to represent weapons that while still in a torso, they may have some slight pivot ability to them. Think of the cars that have the head lights that turn as you tun a corner.

Edited by Yoseful Mallad, 20 January 2015 - 11:57 AM.

[Aresye]

If convergence was taken out the meta would just shift to massive SRM and streak spam.

[Zerstorer Stallin]

Convergence is a problem but its multiplied by striping the mech down adding 3-5 of the same weapons. Yes convergence should go. You could even keep it in the arms and ditch it in the torso. please stop the alpha meta, it was the bane of the all the other mechwarrior titles and its the bane of this game too.

RetroActive, on 20 January 2015 - 09:51 AM, said:

Please no. You think people complain about invincible lights now? Can you imagine how hard it would be to kill a light if there were no convergence?

I like hitting what I'm aiming at, thanks.



Please point me in the direction of a setup that can deliver more than 50 pinpoint damage.

its the crab but that doesnt matter, cause even 25, 30 pinpoint is WAY TO MUCH.

[Alistair Winter]

I haven't counted the "votes" yet, but it seems like there's no clear consensus. I'll watch the discussion go on for a few days, but it does seem like the majority of fans are not ready to accept this idea, at least not without trying it again with the current meta.

RetroActive, on 20 January 2015 - 09:51 AM, said:

Please no. You think people complain about invincible lights now? Can you imagine how hard it would be to kill a light if there were no convergence?

Uh, yeah, the scary light mechs are on the verge of dominating the game. That's why everyone is bringing 4 light mechs to CW drop decks all the time.

People complain about invincible lights because they can't aim. Nor do they have the skills to play light mechs, so they just stay in their assault mech and complain instead of taking advantage of the "invincible light mechs".

With the number of light mechs in the queue dropping down to 1%, it's pretty clear that the "invincible light mechs" crowd is in fact a real vocal minority. If lights were so invincible, everyone would be playing them. Like in 2012, when the Raven 3L was actually invincible.

1453 R, on 20 January 2015 - 08:45 AM, said:

What this thread, and all other convergence threads, boil down to is, really, a bunch of people arguing for their preferred method of:
"This is how I want to make sure nobody ever hits:
1.) what they aim at
2.) anything more than 150 meters away from their 'Mech
3.) lights
4.) with autocannons
...ever again."

What this post boils down to is:

"How can I misrepresent other people's argument with such a bad parody that it will contribute nothing towards constructive dialogue".

Edited by Alistair Winter, 20 January 2015 - 12:32 PM.

[DivideByZer0]

Apocryph0n, on 20 January 2015 - 07:54 AM, said:

Yeah the thing that does not work for me and most euros, sadly xD (I have to lead targets quite a bit even with lasers, to get hits registered at a ping of 90-110 :-/ )

I'm in the states, I get pings between 100ms and 300ms to MWO. You're not alone.

Yet google always answers back in 23ms.....

[Pjwned]

Fixing instant convergence would be good and make it so that alpha striking would not always be the answer in addition to spreading damage over more components instead of every shot landing on 1 torso or leg. I remember reading a post earlier that suggested arm mounted weapons would converge while torso mounted weapons would not, and that seems like a good idea to me, although there might be better ideas.

The problem seems to be how viable it is from a technical standpoint though.

Edited by Pjwned, 20 January 2015 - 12:43 PM.

[Tombstoner]

Kill Dozer, on 20 January 2015 - 11:37 AM, said:

"perfect convergence"

Yeah, that's what I think every time I shoot at a mech in the distance with AC's or PPC's and my weapons cross paths about halfway there and land on either side of them.

ya know convergence wasn't removed. From what i can see PGI set it to extremely fast levels. Thus in some instances such as poptarting or playing peeka boo your targeting icon crosses from object to target at some large range like ~1000 meters. convergence is still trying to converge and that convergent point will still be between you and the target when you fire.... thus your shots cross.

[1453 R]

I've never actually heard an appropriate answer to the question at stake here.

Why is hitting what you aim at a bad thing?

That's what these convergence threads are always saying - that aiming what you hit at is a negative aspect of the game and should be regulated, mitigated, or removed.

Yes, I know, real-world firearms are not laser-precise. If I felt like a display of real-world marksmanship, I'd head out to the range. Mechwarrior Online is a game, and games are highly encouraged - often even required - to take liberties with reality. The first shot out of any given Call of Duty gun is going to go exactly where the aimpoint indicates. When you're ADS'd, rounds always go where the aimpoint indicates - you simply don't have full control over the weapon's recoil. The same applies in Battlefield, to my knowledge, and in any other competent shooter with an aimpoint system. That's because players who lose a fight they should have won because the RNG Gods said so is going to be upset, and upset players are not profitable players. The game needs to be fair to be a proper game, and ensuring that the player's input equates to a given output is the first step in being fair.

Yes, I know, BattleTech lore is often characterized by extremely poor accuracy. 3025-era technology did not include targeting computers - at all. Mechwarriors didn't even have reticles, so far as I know - they were forced to take shots by raw gut instinct and practice, resulting in miserable hit rates. As I recall, by the time we got to 3050, targeting equipment was back in the game, and accuracy continued to improve steadily. Even beyond this, there is the fact that players in MWO do not usually want to pilot a half-decrepit centuries-old pile of rust with two thirds of its systems offline from lack of maintenance. While this is true to lore, it's hardly grounds for entertaining gameplay, especially when one considers that invading Clan 'Mechs would suffer no such penalties.

I ask once more - why is hitting what you aim at a drawback to MWO that must be removed, instead of being a standard requirement of any shooter?

Edited by 1453 R, 20 January 2015 - 02:34 PM.

[terrycloth]

It's a drawback because the game is balanced around being able to spread damage instead of just having a pool of hit points.

Most of the time, the current behavior is fine -- lasers tend to wobble and spread, ballistics are really heavy so it's hard to combine them, missiles already have a cone of fire.

It breaks down when you're able to combine a bunch of weapons into the equivalent of one big weapon, so that whatever part of the mech you hit is instantly destroyed. That's what people are trying to avoid.

I'd really prefer ripple-fire (rapid chain fire when you 'alpha') to losing convergence, though.

[Divine Retribution]

I don't want to remove convergence; I want to remove variable convergence from fixed weapons.

The basic implementation is that fixed weapons (torso mounted and arm mounted without lower arm actuators/lateral movement) will converge at the end of optimal firing range. For example, an unmodified AC/20 round fired from an Atlas will pass through the targeting reticle at 270m. Inside that range, the round will impact to the right and likely slightly below the reticle's point of aim. Beyond 270m weapon crossover occurs, impacts will happen to the left and slightly above the reticle's point of aim.

A more complex implementation continues following the above example, with the addition of modifying convergence points in the mechlab. Slight adjustments to weapon positioning by mechanics during mounting enables players to specify a convergence point. For example, if a PPC and gauss rifle are both torso mounted, the player could specify a convergence point of 500m for both weapons. Inside and outside of that range the player will need to deal with the issues shown in the previous paragraph. For reference, the convergence point of weapons can be listed in the match to the left of maximum effective range.

Weapons mounted on arms with lower arm actuators will become important for firing accurately at multiple ranges, followed by head mounted weapons and torso weapon mounted close to the cockpit.

I think it would increase TTK, add a real skill requirement when not fighting at convergence range (altering point of aim to compensate for convergence), and increase the value of LRMs on the battlefield (which seems to vary greatly depending on map and skill level of players). Snipers whom set convergence at a long range will be at a disadvantage in a brawl, brawlers with short range convergence will be at a disadvantage during long range engagements.

It may even result in players bringing a mixed weapons loadout with some weapons converging at long range, some converging at medium range, and some converging at short range. Whoah, that's kind of like what most mechs were built for in their stock loadouts, it just blew my mind!

Edited by Divine Retribution, 20 January 2015 - 03:23 PM.

[DONTOR]

Nope.

[Mcgral18]

1453 R, on 20 January 2015 - 02:32 PM, said:

I ask once more - why is hitting what you aim at a drawback to MWO that must be removed, instead of being a standard requirement of any shooter?

You can still hit exactly what you want with most suggestions; it just removes easy mode.

That is, hitting EVERYTHING exactly where you want simultaneously.


Of course, most players don't want to lose their easy mode. Understandable.

[pyrocomp]

1453 R, on 20 January 2015 - 02:32 PM, said:

I ask once more - why is hitting what you aim at a drawback to MWO that must be removed, instead of being a standard requirement of any shooter?

Actually, most people are not against 'hitting what you aim at', but against 'hitting same pixel across the map with each and every weapon on board'. In other words, as I undertstand these threads, all people want - damage spread for alphas. Not large to never hit Atlas from 200 m, but surely miss some shots on Locust at 1000 m distance.

[occusoj]

Quote

I ask once more - why is hitting what you aim at a drawback to MWO that must be removed, instead of being a standard requirement of any shooter?

Because the whole system MWO is built upon is based on the absence of perfect instant convergence and 100% accuracy everytime and everywhere.

What happens is that a mechs durability is relatively low in MWO, even though its armor has been doubled already.
The armor system is rendered mostly obsolete by perfect instant-convergence as its reduced to the armor in one spot. Thats either CT or ST and for a lot of lights legs.
Even my relatively low-damage WubShee can burn through any non-assault mechs in practically two alphas. Some heavies would need a third one. When my aim plus hitreg work well, lights are one-shotted by 8 weapons converging perfectly in one spot. Even if Im in full movement and aimed at a point 1000m away a split second before blasting someone thats 950m closer.
Thats not how its supposed to be. It becomes a boring game of alpha trading.

Q3-style aim works for those games but even CS, BF,... departed from that.
Its not any better on a snail-speed shooter with severly limited turnrates and slow movement that should have ended up as sim but didnt make it.

[cSand]

Mcgral18, on 20 January 2015 - 03:24 PM, said:

That is, hitting EVERYTHING exactly where you want simultaneously.

... on an unmoving target, at optimal range.


These people are asking to artificially nerf players' aiming ability, because they want easy mode. Not the other way around, friend
/thread

pyrocomp, on 20 January 2015 - 03:27 PM, said:

but against 'hitting same pixel across the map with each and every weapon on board'.

This is not, and never has been the case

[Mcgral18]

cSand, on 20 January 2015 - 03:54 PM, said:

... on an unmoving target, at optimal range.


These people are asking to artificially nerf players' aiming ability, because they want easy mode. Not the other way around, friend
/thread



This is not, and never has been the case

Obviously you're not a very good shot.


I'm fine with easy mode. Let me alpha 58 damage in half a second into any large component a mech. 80% of the damage will go where I want it.

[cSand]

pyrocomp, on 20 January 2015 - 03:27 PM, said:

but surely miss some shots on Locust at 1000 m distance.

I would like to meet the guy who doesn't miss a Locust @ a KM out

Mcgral18, on 20 January 2015 - 03:55 PM, said:

Obviously you're not a very good shot.


I'm fine with easy mode. Let me alpha 58 damage in half a second into any large component a mech. 80% of the damage will go where I want it.

And you will, cause your ******* opponent will stand there face hugging you. And no sir you whether you believe it or not your weapons are not hitting the same pixel from a snapshot 500m out

Only on an unmoving, useless **** of a target

IE most players


basically, if PPFLD is a huge problem for someone, that person just plain sucks a$$ at MWO.

End of story.


I drive QKD's for christ sakes, anything can alpha me into oblivion. But they rarely do. Unless I'm standing there like a dipsh*t in the open

then complain about PPFLD MRAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHH

This is the same argument as the TTK argument. Same old people complaining cause they die too fast.
Nobody admitting extreme levels of dumbassery that lead to those deaths

Edited by cSand, 20 January 2015 - 04:02 PM.

[Narcoleptes]

Let's leave it as is, this game is fun.

cSand, on 20 January 2015 - 03:58 PM, said:

I would like to meet the guy who doesn't miss a Locust @ a KM out



And you will, cause your ******* opponent will stand there face hugging you. And no sir you whether you believe it or not your weapons are not hitting the same pixel from a snapshot 500m out

Only on an unmoving, useless **** of a target

IE most players


basically, if PPFLD is a huge problem for someone, that person just plain sucks a$$ at MWO.

End of story.

I drive QKD's for christ sakes, anything can alpha me into oblivion. But they rarely do. Unless I'm standing there like a dipsh*t in the open

then complain about PPFLD MRAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHH

This is the same argument as the TTK argument. Same old people complaining cause they die too fast.
Nobody admitting extreme levels of dumbassery that lead to those deaths

This is a bit harsh, but is, in fact a correct assessment.

[cSand]

Narcoleptes, on 20 January 2015 - 04:02 PM, said:

This is a bit harsh, but is, in fact a correct assessment.

Truth hurts!!

[Alistair Winter]

1453 R, on 20 January 2015 - 02:32 PM, said:

I've never actually heard an appropriate answer to the question at stake here.
I ask once more - why is hitting what you aim at a drawback to MWO that must be removed, instead of being a standard requirement of any shooter?

I thought it was quite clear in the OP. The argument a lot of players are making is that removing convergence would create more diversity and stop the game from being dominated by laser vomit builds / assault mech AC20/ppc/gauss builds that are able to take out most mechs' components in one or two alpha strikes. It would also increase TTK and buff high DPS builds, creating more diverse gameplay.

That's the argument, anyway. Whether that's actually the case is what we're discussing.