1126 replies to this topic

[KraftySOT]

DaZur, on 07 April 2015 - 10:40 AM, said:

Um.... Just for clarity, those 50's do converge...

http://en.wikipedia....n_harmonisation

The gunner has means to dead-set the range of convergence mechanically.

To further answer your question regarding torso based convergence and plausibility... Laser mounts gimbled lense mounts as such they are allotted some axial adjustment to allow convergence and the same can be accomplished for ballistics the same way WWII fighters did.

Yes, I know it's easier to just presume the mounts are static but that's just being myopic for the sake of bolstering ones argument

First of all, no, those mounted .50s do not converge, and that wiki is talking about the practice in general, which yes, in aircraft capable of it, you can mechanically set convergence before flight. Something obvious in War Blunder, that I think seeing some iteration here would be a blessing.

Its weird, the standard convergence was around 250-400m for most of the war whereas almost all the 'great aces and experten' had 100m or shorter convergence.

But thats a completely different topic.

Off the top of my head the only converging mounted guns are in the Fairey Battle, B26, B29, and SB2. The SB2, and prototype of the Ju87D, both had wire mounted dual 9mm machine guns, and the wire mounting allowed for them to be set to convergences. Not a bad thing for a tail gun. The B29 and later B52, adopted the same thing for their tail guns.

And well the HE-111 could rotate the nose gun so that the auxillary gun and main nose gun could be fired by the navigator/bombadier, and could be manually converged if hes firing both of them.



The entire housing can be rotated 360 degrees.

Now of course a P38, Bf110, Mosquito, could have the nose guns preconfigured to convergence settings but nothing could be set in flight.

Id think in a battlemech, you could probably set the convergence for the weapons that can do that, on the fly, and arm mounted weapons should always converge.

Maybe the Gargoyle wouldnt be so bad then. While my Wubshee no longer has a 63 point alpha strike thats pinpoint.

Edited by KraftySOT, 07 April 2015 - 10:55 AM.

[cSand]

nope

I refuse to believe that a giant deathmachine robot in the 31st century lacks the ability to converge its weapons


people just cry cause they die

[KraftySOT]

cSand, on 07 April 2015 - 11:00 AM, said:

nope

I refuse to believe that a giant deathmachine robot in the 31st century lacks the ability to converge its weapons


people just cry cause they die

Some did:



Some didnt:



What amazing 31st century technology makes these two AC20s converge dynamically?

Im pretty sure projectiles still have to travel down barrels in the 31st century and only travel in the direction that the barrel was facing, and if you want it to fire else where, you have to move the barrel.

How do you move the barrel in the Hunchy 2C?

Its obviously not rotating in those mounts.

Explain that one to me 31st Century Science Major.

[XX Sulla XX]

Well most players do not go to the forums and probably most players have not played with each system so are not 100% sure either way.

[Mystere]

Sjorpha, on 07 April 2015 - 10:03 AM, said:

Assuming you are talking to me?

I personally dislike randomness in game design. I'm not commenting on whether other people would like it or whether it has been popular in other games, I'm just saying I would not like it.

I prefer non random complexity to account for difficult aiming, like for example slow travel speeds, gravity dropoff for bullets, wind direction, delayed convergence (like a camera focus, and the trajectories would spread according to their travel path from their given hardpoint location through the current point of convergence range, it would be a sort of non-random CoF mechanic I guess, but it would be open to learning and mastering because it's non random, a good enough player could pull off extremely hard shots by accounting for all the factors)

How is that offensive to you? We just disagree on a game design detail. Your reaction is super weird, though you are probably a good person, but this ISP canceling jesus cockslapping mother of disney evolution whatever stuff: WTF?

Here's the rub. Does everyone here who is against CoF even know about the concept of CEP in ballistic weapons? How about mechanical slop?

How does one reasonably justify the total exclusion of CoF in any shooting game, given the existence of the above two concepts?

[DaZur]

KraftySOT, on 07 April 2015 - 10:49 AM, said:

First of all, no, those mounted .50s do not converge, and that wiki is talking about the practice in general, which yes, in aircraft capable of it, you can mechanically set convergence before flight. Something obvious in War Blunder, that I think seeing some iteration here would be a blessing.

Its weird, the standard convergence was around 250-400m for most of the war whereas almost all the 'great aces and experten' had 100m or shorter convergence.

But thats a completely different topic.

Off the top of my head the only converging mounted guns are in the Fairey Battle, B26, B29, and SB2. The SB2, and prototype of the Ju87D, both had wire mounted dual 9mm machine guns, and the wire mounting allowed for them to be set to convergences. Not a bad thing for a tail gun. The B29 and later B52, adopted the same thing for their tail guns.

And well the HE-111 could rotate the nose gun so that the auxillary gun and main nose gun could be fired by the navigator/bombadier, and could be manually converged if hes firing both of them.

The entire housing can be rotated 360 degrees.

Now of course a P38, Bf110, Mosquito, could have the nose guns preconfigured to convergence settings but nothing could be set in flight.

Id think in a battlemech, you could probably set the convergence for the weapons that can do that, on the fly, and arm mounted weapons should always converge.

Maybe the Gargoyle wouldnt be so bad then. While my Wubshee no longer has a 63 point alpha strike thats pinpoint.

Eh... I know for certain most all US paired gun emplacements had a mechanically set convergence... Mr. Google fails me while I'm at work but I know I have reference in a book at home. (Yes, I'm a air-combat nut as well)...

The solution to convergence is easy but few wish to accept it... and I've argued it at least a half-dozen times... The solution is three recticle: Lt. Arm - Torso - Rt. Arm

At rest, the three sights would converge / harmonize upon the center/torso. When in motion, they would de-harmonize and the amount of de-harmonization would directly correlate to the amplitude of movement. Additionally, like MW4, once the arm recticle swung to the full left or right extent, only that sides weapons would be live/viable.

I'd even go so far as to add de-harmonization as a result of firing ballistic weapons and or taking incoming fire... but that'd make some folks head explode.

Problem is a.) one side refuses to accept that PPD is correct / good under the right / ideal conditions and b.) the other side absolutely refuses to accept that a mechs recticle could be fouled and ruin their perfect aim.

The reality and logic lies somewhere in the middle... But you know around here "concession" is a dirty word.

Edited by DaZur, 07 April 2015 - 11:16 AM.

[Griggio]

Just a thought, but what if we had adjustable convergence, similar to setting your elevation (range) on BF4 snipers, with on the fly one push adjustments. Nothing to complex, maybe 3 settings for close, medium and far.

Well crap there goes my break from MWO

[Mystere]

Myke Pantera, on 07 April 2015 - 10:11 AM, said:

I am against the removal of Convergence.
1) Ammo driven weapons will waste more ammo and we have double armor with regular ammo with most weapon systems already.

Solved by having a better aim.

Myke Pantera, on 07 April 2015 - 10:11 AM, said:

2) Try hitting small lights with torso mounted weapons on broad assault.

Solved by having a better aim.

Myke Pantera, on 07 April 2015 - 10:11 AM, said:

3) LRM and SSRM will be king and I like neither of them

Solved by using cover (LRMs) or distance (SSRM).

Myke Pantera, on 07 April 2015 - 10:11 AM, said:

4) Weapon systems that require leading like PPCs, ACs and SRMs don't have convergence against moving targets anyway... So this is all about gauss (up to a certain range) and lasers...

Also all solved by having a better aim.

[DaZur]

Griggio, on 07 April 2015 - 11:15 AM, said:

Just a thought, but what if we had adjustable convergence, similar to setting your elevation (range) on BF4 snipers, with on the fly one push adjustments. Nothing to complex, maybe 3 settings for close, medium and far.

Well crap there goes my break from MWO

Nothing... Problem is as soon as PGI starts adding in "complexity" i.e... "Simulation" aspects like this, the casual kiddies heads explode.

[aniviron]

Removing convergence entirely is a really bad idea. It makes mechs that have spread out hardpoints, which tend to be bad already, even worse- mechs with tightly grouped hardpoints, however, reap the benefits of still having their shots all hit close to the same place.

I do, however, support delayed convergence like we had in beta. It gives a tradeoff between quick shots vs aimed shots and twisting vs staring.

[MrMadguy]

And what will happen? I won't be able to hit lights, cuz they will sneak between my shots? No thanks - they are invulnerable enough even without this nerf.

[cSand]

KraftySOT, on 07 April 2015 - 11:03 AM, said:

Some did:



Some didnt:



What amazing 31st century technology makes these two AC20s converge dynamically?

Im pretty sure projectiles still have to travel down barrels in the 31st century and only travel in the direction that the barrel was facing, and if you want it to fire else where, you have to move the barrel.

How do you move the barrel in the Hunchy 2C?

Its obviously not rotating in those mounts.

Explain that one to me 31st Century Science Major.

well do whatever you want. Those things could certainly pivot a little bit.. why not?

the people who complain about convergence, or balance, or the meta, or whatever else, will find some other scapegoat to blame for their shittiness once that is "fixed"


PGI should just make every weapon and chassis the exact same and be done with it cause apparently the mental capacity to survive in this game is beyond most of its playerbase

Edited by cSand, 07 April 2015 - 11:30 AM.

[DaZur]

cSand, on 07 April 2015 - 11:25 AM, said:

PGI should just make every weapon and chassis the exact same and be done with it cause apparently the mental capacity to survive in this game is beyond most of its playerbase

The scary part is there is a segment of this community that would love to see that come to fruition, hyperbole not withstanding.

[Mystere]

MrMadguy, on 07 April 2015 - 11:23 AM, said:

And what will happen? I won't be able to hit lights, cuz they will sneak between my shots? No thanks - they are invulnerable enough even without this nerf.

This is not a good rationale for not removing convergence because [1] lights are nowhere near "invulnerable" and [2] more skillful aiming takes care of the problem.

[KuroNyra]

remove the pin-point convergence.
Make it a delayed one.

You need to stay still in order to achieve pin-point convergence. If you do a single move, your weapons aren't synchronised and you will miss

Pin-Point convergence need to be removed from what is it now... It's not an option, it's a necessity.

[Sjorpha]

KraftySOT, on 07 April 2015 - 10:38 AM, said:

Yes. Your argument might as well be, I dont like carbon scrubbers in this new coal power plant, so we shouldnt use them, regardless of them being highly successful and integral parts of all the other coal power plants. You like black smog, and you dont care who knows it.

One mans opinion, is the worst possible of all cases to be made. Stick with the data. The data says, all modern games, have semi challenging aiming mechanics, all vehicle sims use some sort of convergence system, and no game anywhere, has weapons effects coming out at 80 degree angles to their barrel models.

That went out ... literally with Daikatana and Tribes in the 90s.

I have not argued against challenging aim mechanics at all, only RNG based CoF on more weapons because I think the weapons suitable for random spread already has it. I would welcome any other addition of more challenging aiming, and I'm all for some kind of none random spread that you could potentially master.

And there is nothing wrong with a statement of personal taste, I'm not trying to prove anything with it, just saying this is what i think is fun and this what I don't think is fun. You're off on some weird fit that has nothing to do with me.

I also generally like procedural animation over mocap, turn based strategy over RTS, directional control over melee attacks (like in M&B ) over semi automatic sequnences (like in most games) with the exception of proper context based combat (like overgrowth) . I think CoF is a suitable solution for certain weapons in certain games, and not in others. And so on. If you wan't to discuss these things you cant just stand and shout insults at some strawman.

Edited by Sjorpha, 07 April 2015 - 01:35 PM.

[Tarogato]

Sorry, not reading 20 page thread right now, maybe later. But I'll just cast my vote.

I'm all for delayed convergence.

It can have a CoF-like effect on moving targets while never delving into the deep end (RNG).

[operatorZ]

Ilyena Natarescu, on 07 April 2015 - 07:04 AM, said:

Perfect convergence is something that absolutely needs to be fixed.

Yes! Nice work on the 3 month old zombie thread...

[operatorZ]

Sooo I think some people need to realize that there are actually 3 ways to address this issue:

1) Convergence or lack thereof, scale of perfect all the way to none
2) Cone of Fire, Not all weapons are perfectly accurate, especially when firing together with other weapons

and my favorite...

3) Reticle shake, you have perfect convergence but your reticle moves with mech movement, recoil, collisions and impact. This allows for a high skill ceiling while also removing the "effect of perfect convergence" in most cases...unless you are dead still and not receiving fire...which means you should have perfect convergence.

All 3 of these increase TTK...which is what we are after...or at least those of us in the "know"

So carry on zombie thread...carry on

Edited by operatorZ, 07 April 2015 - 02:50 PM.

[Zordicron]

Dear Zombie thread:

Reworking convergence is/sounds like a lot of work. As it has the main point of making TTK take longer, and slowing down the mega alphas there is a much simpler and less "lots of work" solution.

That is, cut the heat cap in half, and change dissipation to go with it. I say half, but cut it by 2/3 might be even better.

Every time some mech with a 70 point laser alpha barfs out 70 points of instant dmg in .6 seconds of duration, a baby urbanmech dies. It doesn't follow the source material, it lead to this crazy alphawarrior game we have, and it makes people play peek a boo and hide and play turret war. People want role warfare. Impossible with instagank gameplay we have now. Assaults are LOL, every heavy in the game can match assault firepower(mild exageration but not by much) if looking at alpha dmg, and can move at least 1/3 again as fast, and there is no appreciable difference in survivability. So we see that the game has migrated from heavy/assault loaded cues to basically just heavy.

Fireing a 70 point laser alpha in any previous MW title would make you explode immediatly. Think MW3, Supernova. that alphastrike button was just another name for "eject". Every time I think abot balance, i think about that MW3 game. They had things so much better balance wise. Burst AC's, low heat cap and high dissipate, useful LRM that prevented mass bombardment through heat and ammo dependancy, etc. Basically, you could shoot lots of weapons, in chainfire. Lots of trigger pulling shooty good times. you could NOT instagank people left and right, because it put you into serious trouble. Load up 5 CERML? Yes! Fire them all at once? I mean, you could, but that would be suboptimal to say the least, and would put you on the defensive for a long bit while the enemy blasted you. Chainfire ERML for a long freegin time? Yes!

it's what made that game so fun, mech battles were lots of shooting, but not at the cost of TTK making it feel arcady or CoD ish. thats what we have right now. CoD boom headshot play with lasers.

Sure we could add cone of fire or some other whole new targeting scheme. OR we could cut the heat cap down big time and force people to break up the 70 point alphas or overheat and die. Sounds harsh, but it really isnt and the backlash would be minimal and brief IMO. At the least, it could be sent to test server for extended trials(like 4 months) to see how it affects play.