1126 replies to this topic

[LordKnightFandragon]

zagibu, on 21 January 2015 - 05:04 PM, said:

I haven't heard of and can't think of any solutions, that, combined in any way, would improve the current situation without leading to new problems.

- CoF: leads to more camping, because someone who stands still has better aim than someone who moves, and doesn't actually fix the problem, because the worst offenders aren't moving much anyway
- Fixed convergence: messes only with some builds while leaving other builds unchanged
- Automatic slow convergence: doesn't help as much as people think (you can still achieve almost 100% convergence by aiming at map terrain where you know enemy will come from) while increasing network traffic a lot, because it would have to be validated or could easily be exploited by cheaters
- Recoil: only nerfs certain weapon systems and has no effect on alpha strikes anyways
- Hard limit on amount of X type of weapons that can be fired at the same time: another intransparent ruleset like ghost heat that is hard to balance and will let a few builds through the slips

The only way to improve the situation is in my signature: we simply need other things to shoot at. PPFLD isn't good against many weak targets. If you build a PPFLD mech, you will rock against other mechs, but suck against AI units.

See, who says CoF has to apply while moving? I personally wouldnt apply Cof to movement, not in MWo. Instead, apply it only according to the number of weapons you are firing.

[zagibu]

So two weapons fired would already spread enough to make one hit another section? Because if not, dual gauss jager is unaffected.

[Gyrok]

CoF is an inelegant solution.

Basically, you are saying firing a certain number of weapons is bad, and less than that ok with a mechanic as you describe.

What are the limits? Why those numbers? Do you think players would not just group weapons into smaller groups? How do you determine when it engages and does not? Would high alpha 2-3 weapon builds work? Would high number of weapon lower damage alphas work?

Too many questions that all have crap answers.

[LordKnightFandragon]

Gyrok, on 21 January 2015 - 05:16 PM, said:

CoF is an inelegant solution.

Basically, you are saying firing a certain number of weapons is bad, and less than that ok with a mechanic as you describe.

What are the limits? Why those numbers? Do you think players would not just group weapons into smaller groups? How do you determine when it engages and does not? Would high alpha 2-3 weapon builds work? Would high number of weapon lower damage alphas work?

Too many questions that all have crap answers.

The issue people have is mass accurate PPFLD shots of 6, 7, 8, 9 lasers or ACs or w/e combo. If we cant get convergence cuz of w/e game engine issues, then a CoF seems logical.

With a CoF making large weapon groups moderately inaccurate and spread some, you help prevent people from wanting to fire mass alphas cuz they are not as effective for the heat spent to do so.

I vote for 1 weapon being spot on, 2 weapons being marginally less accurate. At less then 250m 2 weapons would likely still hit the same spot your aiming. 3-5 weapons at 500m is where you would see your weapons not hitting the exact spot your aiming. You fire 4 lasers, 1 might hit the CT, 1 would deviate off and skim the LT the other would skim and hit the RT. If you fire 6+ weapons at 500m you would see some hit pretty much every portion of the mech.

A CoF might just persuade more brawling, and I can see the issues with CoF doing just that. But it makes longer range lolphas a fair bit less effective. You would prolly see slower firing of smaller groups over all, then people rushing to get in close to brawl it up....

A CoF mixed with a much lower heat capacity paired up would kinda help to stop even mass close range lolphas, as up close, firing 80 points of heat, and then shutting down equals you eating alot more damage then you would other wise like.

[Texugo87]

No CoF, (maybe introduce CoF at high heat values though)

What i'd like to see is non-instantaneous convergence coupled with a visual indicator. (eg. 2 dots that track in and out horizontally from crosshairs or something). Also, maybe a non-random rise and fall with high speed, etc, particularly for torso weapon.

Also an improvement would be if things like jump and fall animations upset aimpoint.

I would be opposed to anything random (maybe small CoF for ballistics and have varying accuracies between weapons), but highly supportive of a non-random, predictable system like non-instant convergence, rise-fall, etc.

[Gallowglas]

Convergence in beta was a disaster. Not only did it compound hit reg issues, but it was confusing and would randomly cause shots to go off in extreme directions. I have zero desire to return to that sort of gameplay. There are several distinct reasons it was taken out and none of them were arbitrary.

Edited by Gallowglas, 22 January 2015 - 07:15 AM.

[Joseph Mallan]

Gallowglas, on 22 January 2015 - 07:15 AM, said:

Convergence in beta was a disaster. Not only did it compound hit reg issues, but it was confusing and would randomly cause shots to go off in extreme directions. I have zero desire to return to that sort of gameplay. There are several distinct reasons it was taken out and none of them were arbitrary.

You mean like a Tracer round?

[Hotthedd]

Mechwarrior Buddah, on 20 January 2015 - 05:42 PM, said:

The funny thing is when ppl scream about convergence, then scream about this game should never have RNG either.

Another funny thing is the people who scream against RNGs, but use targeting computers, MGs, LB-Xs, LRMs, or AMS.

[Joseph Mallan]

Mechwarrior Buddah, on 20 January 2015 - 05:42 PM, said:

The funny thing is when ppl scream about convergence, then scream about this game should never have RNG either.

It would be interesting if we could Name (and Shame) those hopping the fence!

[The Dreaded Baron B Killer]

my primary beef with convergence is range issues.

by this I mean someone is face-hugging my atlas, yet I can alpha him and magically my missiles and AC20 converge...

if he is within 50m, my SRMS could not magically fire at the crosshair.. unless the torso itself has it's own turret style rotator or I twisted my torso, they should fire in a straight line...

The argument can be made that the cannon is turret style and can move.. but not missile tubes.

as for the Alpha argument... I actually have an idea.. add a charge up mechanic to it. like the gauss, you have to charge it up for afew seconds, then release and fire. This would stop people using Alpha's all the time, add an element of timing to it, give some players a chance to avoid being alpha'd, etc. you could go a step further by adding that you have to be stationary to charge the alpha, but that might be a bit too much. The charging mechanic goes kinda hand in hand with the fact that you need to have power in reserve to fire all your weapons at once (remember you do have a reactor that's powering everything) without overloading the engine.

you could even add a cool electro style animation to the mech to show it's about to alpha, little bits of electricity fluctuating around briefly. or have the atlas's eyes light up, just anything really.

I don't hate alpha centred builds.. I just hate it when you basically don't have brawls or fights, you have guys just alpha'ing over and over, and usually 2-3 are more than enough to drop anything. and I am talking about myself. my DDC build when it alpha's is just brutal and if I aim correctly with anything running an XL engine, or a lighter mech, it's usually instant death or close to instant death. I had one game where I got 5 kills and my health didn't drop below 90%...

[Lightfoot]

operatorZ, on 21 January 2015 - 02:55 PM, said:

it shall be noted that this does not apply to "boats" or "boating" as some call it...the problem in the first place.

I fail to see how convergence is "feature" that teaches skill...the opposite is true IMHO
should it be removed entirely or even halfly? NO.
Could it be tweaked to add *some* realism, better weapon balance, more variety of load outs and add a higher skill ceiling? YES

For boating identical weapons they added Ghost Heat as a blocker and it does. For mixed weapons there is no Convergence if you move laterally. This is a Skill called Mech Piloting.

So for players who just sit/peek and shoot, or charge opponents straight on, all incoming damage hits accurately and they are destroyed. Whereas players who move laterally dodge 50-70 percent of incoming damage converging into the same section. Different travel times spread the damage across several sections or cause it to miss. Lateral movement also forces your opponent to aim and they miss quite often.

And it's a Skill you learn because it takes practice and you improve. At first moving laterally is awkward and makes it hard to aim. And it does not come naturally or even occur to many players that they need to do this to avoid Convergence and alpha-strikes. With practice moving laterally to dodge Convergence becomes second nature and your first response to an attack. Then you find you can win a lot of duels when the odds were against you just because you did this better than your opponent. It is at the core of correct defensive mech piloting. Mech Piloting Skill is the countering skill to Convergence.

So if you added something to remove or block Convergence rather than requiring players to learn to pilot their mechs to dodge it, you would remove the greatest Simulation aspect of MWO and turn it into an arcade shooter with robots. A game where all anyone has to do is park on a hill and twitch their finger the fastest.

[Gas Guzzler]

pyrocomp, on 21 January 2015 - 10:04 AM, said:

Ok, let me put it that way. I'm not against you hitting the moving Locust at 1000 m distance with your ERPPCs. I'm against you hitting same pixel on that Locust at that distance. E.g. some spread. I cannot compare the present day shooters, haven't run thaem for many years, but comparing to the LB-X the spread should be lower. You, with perfect lead and shot placement still have high chance to have both ERPPCs hit, but the chances that they will hit same leg of abovementioned Locust are very low (but not zero). So it's not the 'pair of medium lasers in my old Victors' left arms hitting completely different locations of an enemy 'Mech, within optimal medium laser range', but mind the distance. Easy mode not in hitting with both ERPPCs, but with hitting the same pixel with both. So, I think, thi is not a 'can't-hit-what-you-aim-at crap', do you agree?

And yes, some other way to make pinpoint damage above 20-30 really hard would've been good, but not at the current level of `Mech damage and heat model, or even weapons mechanics. WIth more complex models even the GH probably could become redudant.

It doesn't sound like you fully grasp how convergence in MWO works. If the Locust is moving (you have to lead your target), the PPCs will never hit the same pixel because in most cases what your reticle lies on when leading said Locust is not at the exact same distance that the Locust is at when the PPCs intercept the Locust. Therefore, the PPCs (since fired from the arm of a warhawk in this case, if they were fired from Catapult K2 arms it may not be as close) would collide at two different spots of the Locust. The "same pixel" phenomenon is only experienced by stationary pilots. So against PPFLD projectiles, your best defense is MOVEMENT. But you aren't a bad player so you knew that already right?

Edited by Gas Guzzler, 22 January 2015 - 09:25 AM.

[Lightfoot]

@Baron B

I don't see this happening. At very close range or when you have an AC20 in the arm the weapons don't converge. I have had Light mechs at ramming range and not been able to hit them at all. Convergence is good, but not perfect or impossible.

[SaltBeef]

Hell No. Convergance is Good ...just like Greed.

Edited by SaltBeef, 22 January 2015 - 11:33 AM.

[Cyberiad]

I want convergence removed from weapons mounted on the same component. 2 lasers both mounted on the center torso shouldn't converge. Two lasers mounted both on the left arm shouldn't converge. However if weapons are mounted on both arms, the center axis of both arms should be able to converge.

[Mechwarrior Buddah]

Joseph Mallan, on 22 January 2015 - 08:44 AM, said:

It would be interesting if we could Name (and Shame) those hopping the fence!

never did here

Wish I could play tho -.-

[operatorZ]

Lightfoot, on 22 January 2015 - 09:22 AM, said:

For boating identical weapons they added Ghost Heat as a blocker and it does. For mixed weapons there is no Convergence if you move laterally. This is a Skill called Mech Piloting.

So for players who just sit/peek and shoot, or charge opponents straight on, all incoming damage hits accurately and they are destroyed. Whereas players who move laterally dodge 50-70 percent of incoming damage converging into the same section. Different travel times spread the damage across several sections or cause it to miss. Lateral movement also forces your opponent to aim and they miss quite often.

And it's a Skill you learn because it takes practice and you improve. At first moving laterally is awkward and makes it hard to aim. And it does not come naturally or even occur to many players that they need to do this to avoid Convergence and alpha-strikes. With practice moving laterally to dodge Convergence becomes second nature and your first response to an attack. Then you find you can win a lot of duels when the odds were against you just because you did this better than your opponent. It is at the core of correct defensive mech piloting. Mech Piloting Skill is the countering skill to Convergence.

So if you added something to remove or block Convergence rather than requiring players to learn to pilot their mechs to dodge it, you would remove the greatest Simulation aspect of MWO and turn it into an arcade shooter with robots. A game where all anyone has to do is park on a hill and twitch their finger the fastest.

I guess I never though about it that way having played most of the mechwarrior titles. It seems obvious that you would use "strafe" to effectively make yourself harder to hit. Its not so much a matter of skill as a matter of necessity. However, with the current low TTK compared to other mech titles this "skill" is severely limited in effectiveness. I do not believe it is relevant to what my points are on convergence, for these reasons:

1. Moving laterally or not, I can easily hit you with my alpha strike because of instant pinpoint convergence. Unless your a 150kph light which is a different story all together.

2. "A game where all anyone has to do is park on a hill and twitch their finger the fastest." I believe that is actually closer to what we have than your assertion that you can "move laterally dodge 50-70 percent of incoming damage converging into the same section" many good players can put 50-70% of damage on a particular component as you move laterally because of instant pinpoint convergence.

I would love to play the game you describe, I just don't see it here.

I think you are assuming that I want do away with convergence, I do not. I do endorse the idea of adding some tweaks that make the game where you can dodge 50-70% of incoming damage by good tactical movement, increasing TTK and making the game less "where all anyone has to do is park on a hill and twitch their finger the fastest." This is not removing convergence all together or even reducing it by half, just adding some realistic dynamics that make it so actually hitting somebody at 1000m with all your weapons is a skill rather than a given.

In fact you could (and my preference) leave convergence as is and just make the mechs reticule react to mech movement, enemy fire and recoil. This would accomplish the same thing while still allowing for perfect convergence at times..further increasing the the skill cap while still allowing for the game to be easily learned by new players. Almost every modern shooter I can think of has some sort of reticule bloom or movement and it does its job well.

[Gas Guzzler]

operatorZ, on 22 January 2015 - 01:32 PM, said:

I guess I never though about it that way having played most of the mechwarrior titles. It seems obvious that you would use "strafe" to effectively make yourself harder to hit. Its not so much a matter of skill as a matter of necessity. However, with the current low TTK compared to other mech titles this "skill" is severely limited in effectiveness. I do not believe it is relevant to what my points are on convergence, for these reasons:

1. Moving laterally or not, I can easily hit you with my alpha strike because of instant pinpoint convergence. Unless your a 150kph light which is a different story all together.

2. "A game where all anyone has to do is park on a hill and twitch their finger the fastest." I believe that is actually closer to what we have than your assertion that you can "move laterally dodge 50-70 percent of incoming damage converging into the same section" many good players can put 50-70% of damage on a particular component as you move laterally because of instant pinpoint convergence.

This is not true. Your alpha may hit me, but the PPCs might hit my LT and the Gauss will hit my CT. Unless I torso twist and take the brunt of it in my arm... You will not have "instant pinpoint convergence" unless all projectiles move at exactly the same speed. And lasers... if you can track the same component for the total duration, hats off to you.

I do agree with lightfoots assessment that folks who want to "nerf" (for lack of a better word) convergence just sound like people who don't want to have to try to spread damage. Why bother if I just have to stand there and magically have shots miss or only get one hit on each component. No thanks. Not looking to play Stare-downWarrior. That's what I do when I am too tired and greedy for kills, and then I usually get insta-gored. Why? Not because of some broken game mechanic but because I made a fatal mistake.

[operatorZ]

Gas Guzzler, on 22 January 2015 - 01:50 PM, said:

This is not true. Your alpha may hit me, but the PPCs might hit my LT and the Gauss will hit my CT. Unless I torso twist and take the brunt of it in my arm... You will not have "instant pinpoint convergence" unless all projectiles move at exactly the same speed. And lasers... if you can track the same component for the total duration, hats off to you.

I do agree with lightfoots assessment that folks who want to "nerf" (for lack of a better word) convergence just sound like people who don't want to have to try to spread damage. Why bother if I just have to stand there and magically have shots miss or only get one hit on each component. No thanks. Not looking to play Stare-downWarrior. That's what I do when I am too tired and greedy for kills, and then I usually get insta-gored. Why? Not because of some broken game mechanic but because I made a fatal mistake.

I was refuting his assertion that lateral movement can "dodge" 50-70% of incoming damage.....it cant. This is true unless pilot is not very good. It is possible to hit you with my alpha strike while you are moving laterally and easily so easily put 50-70% damage on one component because of instant pinpoint convergence. And the inner sphere weapons have a huge advantage in this due to PPD weapons.

On your second point you are stretching the tweaks I think are reasonable to accuracy way beyond what I stated. Furthermore you are taking the position that if weapons become slightly less accurate that movement and torso twisting will no longer be viable tactics in the game. The opposite is true, if lateral movement, torso twisting and spreading damage are effective in the current state they will be even more effective with a slight "nerf" to overall accuracy. That's just logical. This further benefits players that do this and does not "nerf" skill, quite the opposite.

[pyrocomp]

Gas Guzzler, on 22 January 2015 - 09:24 AM, said:

It doesn't sound like you fully grasp how convergence in MWO works. If the Locust is moving (you have to lead your target), the PPCs will never hit the same pixel because in most cases what your reticle lies on when leading said Locust is not at the exact same distance that the Locust is at when the PPCs intercept the Locust. Therefore, the PPCs (since fired from the arm of a warhawk in this case, if they were fired from Catapult K2 arms it may not be as close) would collide at two different spots of the Locust. The "same pixel" phenomenon is only experienced by stationary pilots. So against PPFLD projectiles, your best defense is MOVEMENT. But you aren't a bad player so you knew that already right?

You are, if I'm correct, describing a naturraly occuring `speed shield'. But this is mostly true only if you are leading a mech against empty background (sky or something really far off). This is really a rare occurance. Most often you have something close to the above mentioned Locust, mostly terrain. So the chance to hit same location is still high except for the legs, but same torso section still most probably will be hit twice (I woulde've preferred to check probabilities, but haven't figured how to do it in game, not in modeling soft).

I agree that term 'same pixel' is inaccurate, but hitting same component isn't any better. Especially across the map. Mid range, low range, optimal range - all ok, this is MW. But not across the map. The effect of convergence behing the actual position of a mech that occur becuse of the leading in most cases is not large enough to spread damage between components at high distances. That'll be more accurate statement. Should it be this way or not in MWO is a matter of discussion. I'd like to have a limit in damage local density at high distances. Wether this will be achived by more detailed mech structure, complex heat system (for example, instead of single heat meter divide mech into sections that transfer heat to each other and dissipate it according to heat sinks placement with penalties for overheating) or some more complex wepon shot mechanics (CoF, recoil, convergence to different points etc.) is a different question.