1126 replies to this topic

[operatorZ]

Gas Guzzler, on 23 January 2015 - 08:45 AM, said:

NONE OF THIS LIST HAS PPFLD!!!

PPC TDR okay it can run 3 zOMG!! Gyrok already mentioned that one anyway.

Guess we were talking about boats....not about PPFLD.

When I was talking about instant pin point convergence I was talking about all the weapons on your mech instantly convergaing on your reticule no matter the situation or range....

When I was talking about pin point weapons I was talking about weapons that deliver damage to one point i.e pin point (lasers, IS AC's, IS PPC's)

If I got my signals crossed on the terminology I apologize for the confusion.

[Gallowglas]

Joseph Mallan, on 22 January 2015 - 07:31 AM, said:

You mean like a Tracer round?

I can't personally vouch for the accuracy of tracer rounds, but the effect I experienced was way more extreme than I have seen for tracers. Specifically, I could be aiming dead center on an Atlas torso and an AC20 shot would fly off to the upper left-hand corner of my screen. It wasn't even close.

[Gas Guzzler]

operatorZ, on 23 January 2015 - 09:39 AM, said:

Guess we were talking about boats....not about PPFLD.

When I was talking about instant pin point convergence I was talking about all the weapons on your mech instantly convergaing on your reticule no matter the situation or range....

When I was talking about pin point weapons I was talking about weapons that deliver damage to one point i.e pin point (lasers, IS AC's, IS PPC's)

If I got my signals crossed on the terminology I apologize for the confusion.

Well you said boated weapons that travel the same speed which implies FLD (lasers move infinitely fast, wouldn't call it a speed), but okay fine.

operatorZ, on 23 January 2015 - 09:27 AM, said:

ummm LRM's ...they seem balanced to me, I don't really notice them that much I guess. I don't have any suggestions on that. I don't use them personally, all though they can be very effective in certain situations. To me boating LRM's is signing up for less exciting game play, so those that do...more power to you I guess.

They won't be balanced if all weapons spread damage like LRMs do. Besides, you said boating was wrong, so that doesn't apply to LRMs or...?

Edited by Gas Guzzler, 23 January 2015 - 02:27 PM.

[Ilyena Natarescu]

Perfect convergence is something that absolutely needs to be fixed.

[Kh0rn]

I am supporting this change as well getting real tiered of the system we have now another reason I went too MWLL the combat system is more robust and well done.

[Bishop Steiner]

pwnface, on 20 January 2015 - 02:06 AM, said:

Please no. I want to play a shooter not roll digital dice.

getting rid of convergence does not mean iut has to be CoF. But even if it was, it would be preferable to the ezmode crap we have now for aiming

Alistair Winter, on 20 January 2015 - 01:49 AM, said:

It's something I see talked about a lot on the forum. People shaking their heads at the pinpoint convergence of mechs with 60-80 damage alpha strikes, and people who still think ghost heat was a bad solution that ultimately didn't fix the real problem.

Do the majority of players want to get rid of convergence? If you don't know what I'm talking about, convergence is the mech's ability to focus all firepower on the exact same spot, as opposed to firing weapons directly forward and thus hitting different spots depending on how far apart the weapons are mounted. Right now, two torso mounted weapons will hit the same exact spot at any range. If you removed convergence, the torso mounted weapons would fire in parallell trajectories and it would be impossible for a CPLT-K2 with gauss to hit the same Center Torso with both weapons simultaneously, for example.

Is this what the community wants, or is it simply a Vocal Minority™? Or do the majority of players actually prefer the status quo, with perfect convergence? If it's the latter, what is the more popular solution to the MWO arm's race? Is it another look at how heat works? Greater penalties for overheating?

It's an old topic, but people do change their opinions now and again. At least, some of us do. Right now, I'm really not sure what the consensus is, if there is one. Most people only post in the General forum and PGI won't let us have polls here.

Well, most Tryhards probably don't....ezmode perfect convergence would seriously "ruin" their gig.

[Burktross]

Only if we implement Burktross's Convergence System™

(Convergence meaning CoF)

Torso Mounted Weapons:
-Minimum convergence is decent
-Maximum convergence is never perfect.
-Convergence is slower
-less recoil.

Arm Mounted Weapons:
-Minimum Convergence is inaccurate
-Maximum convergence is near perfect
-Convergence is fast
-Most recoil

This would also give arms a purpose, especially for PPCs.
As in the Thunderbutt's case, you're currently obligated to smack your PPC(s) on the torso for maximum meta ridgehumping. However, with convergence implemented as I suggest, arms would play a valuable role in housing the perfect sniper weapons.

Edited by Burktross, 07 April 2015 - 07:27 AM.

[Dimento Graven]

Alistair Winter, on 20 January 2015 - 01:49 AM, said:

It's something I see talked about a lot on the forum. People shaking their heads at the pinpoint convergence of mechs with 60-80 damage alpha strikes, and people who still think ghost heat was a bad solution that ultimately didn't fix the real problem.

Do the majority of players want to get rid of convergence? If you don't know what I'm talking about, convergence is the mech's ability to focus all firepower on the exact same spot, as opposed to firing weapons directly forward and thus hitting different spots depending on how far apart the weapons are mounted. Right now, two torso mounted weapons will hit the same exact spot at any range. If you removed convergence, the torso mounted weapons would fire in parallell trajectories and it would be impossible for a CPLT-K2 with gauss to hit the same Center Torso with both weapons simultaneously, for example.

Is this what the community wants, or is it simply a Vocal Minority™? Or do the majority of players actually prefer the status quo, with perfect convergence? If it's the latter, what is the more popular solution to the MWO arm's race? Is it another look at how heat works? Greater penalties for overheating?

It's an old topic, but people do change their opinions now and again. At least, some of us do. Right now, I'm really not sure what the consensus is, if there is one. Most people only post in the General forum and PGI won't let us have polls here.

1. Instantaneous, perfect, 100% of the time convergence in this game is a myth.

Anyone who pays attention to the results of firing their weapons knows this.

Lasers come close to the myth, ballistics only if you can take time between shots will come close, and of course everything else doesn't have convergence so it's not even moot.

2. Whether the vast majority of players realize it or not, they do NOT want convergence to change in this game. The ONLY players that truly do are those that primarily play missile builds.

Since missiles don't have convergence they suffer a disadvantage during brawls, but of course anyone who has to rely on computer guided weaponry, and third party targeting, is a weak player from the start, and their opinions should be weighted on that perspective.

3. Assuming that the weapon mounts in Battletech are fixed is a fallacy.

[AntiCitizenJuan]

I personally think the real problem is Heat Scale.

If we cut total amount of heat a mech can take and increase dissipation it would greatly discourage Alpha Striking all the time (also increasing TTK in the process)

People would switch to Gauss to counter it, but (as much as you all hate it) this could be negated by only allowing 1 Gauss Rifle to charge at a time.

I just dont like the idea of your weapons not going where you are aiming them, especially in a FPS style game.
I imagine in the future weapons would be positioned in such a way that they would all fire towards a central point on the HUD

Edited by AntiCitizenJuan, 07 April 2015 - 08:28 AM.

[Christof Romulus]

Removing convergence would increase TTK - but the issue of convergence is only exacerbated by the issue of hardpoint location.

The reason that the Dragon Slayer was so good, and the Awesome so bad, or the reason the Thunderbolt out performs the Awesome - Hardpoints that are clustered together will strike the same place. WITH convergence, it meant they all just hit the same place, without convergence, they will very likely still all hit the same place.

Removing Convergence would hurt the Atlas the most - wide, varied hardpoints, strewn across multi-leveled weapon mounts. But removing Convergence wouldn't affect the Battlemaster nearly at all - each energy hardpoint basically pressed against the next.

The largest factor in a mech's success is not it's ability to HOLD weapons, it's to USE them.

[Jetfire]

The way convergence should ultimately work is like this.

Torso and vertical only arm weapons: Fixed point of convergence at max useful range of each weapon system.

Arms with full articulation: Convergence to the point of fire at a given rate for each mech, when not pointing reticules at a mech the convergence rests at the max useful range point as above. This makes more sense than it trying to converge on the rocks in front of you, your system knows what mechs are vs rocks. It should auto track convergence on a targeted mech.

This would not add COF but would spread damage apart the closer to the target you are and add interesting benefits to mechs like the laser HBK. It would have closely spaced weapons so better pinpoint from the hunch. It would also improve pinpoint at long range which basically is a sort of auto balancing as pinpoint grows as dmg and difficulty of the shot increase.

You can always aim and fire rapidly, even articulated arms would would not do the old crazy crosseyed blasts that rocks used to cause.

[Tombstoner]

Seriously... after four years PGI is not going to change convergence. The game is what its going to be till the day the doors close.

Edited by Tombstoner, 07 April 2015 - 08:51 AM.

[DaZur]

[Hellcat420]

they should make it more battletech like and require you to have a targeting computer installed in order to target specific parts of a mech.

[Apnu]

I think MWO has a powercreep problem. Now that we have 60-80 pt alpha Direwolves, we'll need other 100 ton monsters to beat that. Hello Kodiak, nice to see you.

[Apnu]

Hellcat420, on 07 April 2015 - 08:57 AM, said:

they should make it more battletech like and require you to have a targeting computer installed in order to target specific parts of a mech.

Then we might as well remove the IS from the game. Every min/max player will play clans now and forever. They hate RNGs and there's a very vocal community about that. Since IS can't get a targeting computer, they'll simply exist as fodder for clans.

We don't have that because of gamer behavior. Min/Maxers are driving the meta and therefore are driving the game. The STK-4N will get nerfed because gamer's can't help not taking it 100% of the time in CW.

[Armorine]

No! Don't really want to see it go away. I'm happy with it the way it is. No ones come up with an acceptable alternative that won't drive players away or doesn't go against lore.

[Lightfoot]

MWO's mechanics are pretty good. Stuff goes where you aim, but at different speeds and durations and that protects the skilled Mech Pilot who moves laterally to the attacker from Convergence.

So for the skilled Mech Pilot there is no Convergence in MWO except from identical weapons which are controlled by Ghost Heat to be balanced.

So, no. Do not dummy-down MechWarrior Online. Players will learn soon enough to move laterally and like their new skills and be thankful no one listened to them about Convergence when they were still learning to avoid it.




.

Edited by Lightfoot, 07 April 2015 - 09:47 AM.

[Hellcat420]

Apnu, on 07 April 2015 - 09:04 AM, said:

Then we might as well remove the IS from the game. Every min/max player will play clans now and forever. They hate RNGs and there's a very vocal community about that. Since IS can't get a targeting computer, they'll simply exist as fodder for clans.

We don't have that because of gamer behavior. Min/Maxers are driving the meta and therefore are driving the game. The STK-4N will get nerfed because gamer's can't help not taking it 100% of the time in CW.

you cant really min/max effectively with targeting computers working as they should. not all weapons work with a targeting computer, and the targeting computer gets larger as you add more weapons to it, which leaves you less room for weapons.

[C E Dwyer]

can't remember if I replied to this but sure I'd get rid of instant convergence, I'd go with cone effect weapons, would make it closer to the proper game.

Won't happen though

To much QQ I'm not going to have my leet targeting skills ruined by making the game work like the proper franchise should be tears

Apnu, on 07 April 2015 - 09:00 AM, said:

I think MWO has a powercreep problem. Now that we have 60-80 pt alpha Direwolves, we'll need other 100 ton monsters to beat that. Hello Kodiak, nice to see you.

battle tech always had a power creep problem it started with the clans then the legal problems of Unseen, made it even worse