1126 replies to this topic

[Mister Blastman]

Why is this thread so long? It is clear...

Everything, be it constant weapon balance flipping, ghost heat, quirks, all of this--is the result of ONE problem. Convergence.


So that means... we have a convoluted mess of changes that have never solidified because the root cause, convergence, has never been taken care of. What is this?

[Mystere]

Almond Brown, on 13 April 2015 - 11:15 AM, said:

Because they used MW:LL's Joystick code.

What's this, time travel?

[1453 R]

Let me lay this out a little better for you, Blastman. I mean, I tried to get people to lay off it a few pages ago, but apparently the old dead thread has attracted a new batch of yayhoos who need to be shouted down. Blegh.

Anyways. here ya go!

Mister Blastman, on 13 April 2015 - 11:32 AM, said:

Why is this thread so long? It is clear...

Everything, be it constant weapon balance flipping, ghost heat, quirks, all of this--is the result of ONE problem. Aiming.


So that means... we have a convoluted mess of changes that have never solidified because the root cause, aiming, has never been taken care of. What is this?

[xImmortalx]

Mister Blastman, on 13 April 2015 - 11:32 AM, said:

Why is this thread so long? It is clear...

Everything, be it constant weapon balance flipping, ghost heat, quirks, all of this--is the result of ONE problem. Convergence.


So that means... we have a convoluted mess of changes that have never solidified because the root cause, convergence, has never been taken care of. What is this?

Well that just ends the argument guys, because we all know that blaming everything wrong with this game on convergence with zero evidence and posting an Einstein picture with a totally unrelated quote is an "I win" button for forum arguments.

Say, Mister Blastman, shouldn't you be off with the WBC telling everyone that everything bad that happens to people happens because marriage equality?

[pbiggz]

Kuritaclan, on 13 April 2015 - 11:28 AM, said:

That does not prove it false - i quoted aiming/targeting assistant systems out of a BATTLETECH®-source book. It just does not matter what was first. it is the BATTLETECH®-Universe what is the anchorpoint - what is made out of it (TT,Novels,other things) have to be conform with BATTLETECH®-Universe. But there is no interdepance as some do claim between TT and MWO - if they have some chared basics, they come from the BATTLETECH®-Universe.


This is not much away from what i said a couple pages away (http://mwomercs.com/...ost__p__4349588) to quote myself #566:


As said back then, Your proposal is not thought out, when it comes down to higher count weapon mounts in one location, like the 6 Laser Hardpoints in the HBK or the 4 Mounts of the arm in the GRF-1S or the 4 to 5 mounts in the BNC or the arms of the Dire Prime or the Nova Prime with 6 Lasers. - Those Laser Arays are set on the mech parts to converge ultimative.



You mean the other way around. A gauss that is fit into mg slot has nearly to no angle to converge, while the stock mg could converge rather quike since it is stock. This would have had hand and foot. But anyway this needs remodeling so much, that you nearly will break the aiming, and hitreg system of the game. Maybee this "reality effect" will be introduced via patch in 50 years. Harr harr.

I would argue with you, but your reading comprehension is worse than a first grader. I already mentioned that my formula [#of weapons fired * modifier {between 0 and 1} / 3] compensates for smaller weapons or mechs with big weapon arrays that were meant to fire lots of medium lasers.

Lets do some math for your stupid brain.

6 medium lasers (lets say they're on a hunchback 4p)

medium lasers will have a modifier of 0.4

6 * 0.4 = 2.4

2.4/3 = 0.8

Thus you do not trigger the cone of fire.

The next time you try to shoot down my argument, use real numbers, prove your system works mathematically, because your response was just another nonsensical wall of text.

[Mystere]

1453 R, on 13 April 2015 - 11:45 AM, said:

Let me lay this out a little better for you, Blastman. I mean, I tried to get people to lay off it a few pages ago, but apparently the old dead thread has attracted a new batch of yayhoos who need to be shouted down. Blegh.

Anyways. here ya go!

Check Blast's latest edit. It probably affects what you just said.

[ROSS-128]

Mystere, on 13 April 2015 - 11:30 AM, said:

Where did I state that I wanted 1 MoA? I mentioned adopting something like R95 specifically because it will create "Oh, ****!" moments, and hopefully at the time you want it least to happen.

Because the basis you're trying to use to justify it will really struggle to cover any more than that. For it to consistently throw a wrench into typical fights you'd need a standard deviation of 1-3 meters at 300m. Just ballparking it without a calculator, that's somewhere between 10 and 30 minutes of angle!

If my engineer told me that his weapon had a mechanical precision of 30 MoA, I'd volunteer him as the target we'll zero it on.

[BaconCouch]

Would it be worth while to, rather than change a core mechanic in convergence, to lengthen the burn time on lasers (like was done with Clan lasers to nearly double their duration) meaning, these weapons are powerful, but require time to do such damage. Autocannons could be balanced by making them all clan-burst fire style. LBX ACs dont really need changes in that regard.
SRMs are fine as is, at their max range, they are extremely hard to hit with, but deadly up close.
LRMs are tricky, they do spread damage, and require a lock on. Perhaps making a stream-fire mode like clan LRMs for reduced heat, or burst fire for increased heat might make that a trade off?

I feel like without convergence, this game falls apart. I do agree however, that weapons should not converge immediately, and within a certain distance, ought to be hitting different components, but that should be based on a mechanical reason, like the mech doesnt have arm actuators, and not RNG

[Burktross]

KraftySOT, on 13 April 2015 - 07:13 AM, said:

You guys have to realize, even if this was 44 pages of everyone agreeing with each other. They havent read it, you cant tweet an idea this complex, its not going to be implemented, this is an action game not a sim, and PGI simply isnt ready, or willing, to advance the franchise.

They didnt lease this IP, to revolutionize it. They leased it to produce a minimally viable product from a bygone franchise, and raise it from the dead.

Complex mechanics will never, ever, be a part of the game. As much as they should be, regardless of the naysayers and blabbermouths in this thread.

The problem is that we have an obscene lack of pretty pictures with concise yet useful captions.
We need pretty pictures with concise yet useful captions.

Hopefully we'd then be able to pester Bishop to pester Russ to pester the rest of the dev team.

[Burktross]

Almond Brown, on 13 April 2015 - 10:45 AM, said:

And we could call it GHOST FIRE. LOL!

We'll call it recoil.

[1453 R]

Burktross, on 13 April 2015 - 12:02 PM, said:

We'll call it recoil.

So recoil happens before the weapon discharges now?

Man, 3050 physics really are screwy as hell.

[Kuritaclan]

Mystere, on 13 April 2015 - 11:12 AM, said:

In other words, you have nothing.

How about you don't ask me to find out if you did something or not, but rather tell me if you did - I do not waste my time finding nothing. If you say you did not do so, this okay.

Mystere, on 13 April 2015 - 11:12 AM, said:

Let us be perfectly accurate here. What I said was:

Quote

In other words, you do not like increasing the skill cap. Got it, loud and clear.

And even then, I do at times do get rude to someone who chooses to paste a whole wall of text, especially if the intent is to obfuscate, rather than just placing a concise argument that goes straight to the point.

However you clearly showed that you are against auto-conv. And I said now many times the auto convergence is fine. Just let it be as it is - or come up with a usefull idea.

If you think that aut-conv is low skill. Than it is okay. If you think this games needs a rise in skill cap. Then ok you might think so. I think the game has enough sources to be busy making the best out of it in combat, so my point is it does not need more sources of distraction.

And I do not at all say this, because I would be overwhelmed, as you try to imply with your second sentence in the statement, but maybee i also looking out of my point of view and rather try what a new player would think about this.

I do not know what is so obfuscate on like say post #902: http://mwomercs.com/...st__p__4358236#

If you have problems following some trigonometric equations to underline that the game is not influenced in alpha by auto convergence with diffrent weaponsystem and how they behave its your problem.

If you then on top of this want to add Cof like you stated in post #851 you do not see hat spread is naturally within the model that raster the surface of the mech.

For example if your target zoomed in the side torso of mech and this is like 40Pixel high and 5 pixel wide you can not provide that steady aim on this side torso anyway, when the mech is moving and you try to apply your laser beam over a second. Adding cof on top of this and non outo convergance is insane. You may also underestimate the problems of diffrent resolutions - the game needs to be playable for a wide spread of users. Some have hardware which does not even provide full HD. so a sidetors is on a rather 22" Monitor with a small resolution less hitable as on 32" 4K Monitor, where you have with higher mouse sensitivity the chance to aim more pixel truely. This is system bound CoF.

[Mystere]

E Rommel, on 13 April 2015 - 11:54 AM, said:

Because the basis you're trying to use to justify it will really struggle to cover any more than that. For it to consistently throw a wrench into typical fights you'd need a standard deviation of 1-3 meters at 300m. Just ballparking it without a calculator, that's somewhere between 10 and 30 minutes of angle!

One of the thoughts I threw in here was adopting a 2-3 meter R95 at 1000m while stationary and firing only 1 weapon. And so, yes, under those ideal conditions, they don't matter. But once you start moving and fire more than 1 weapon, then things start to get not so ideal.

Converting to your numbers (and if my math is correct ), it is equivalent to around 15 MoA while stationary and firing 1 weapon, and 60 MoA when running at full clip and firing XXX weapons or more. At 500m, that should be good enough to possibly miss the component you want to hit.

But as I said in a prior post, I just threw those numbers out there. It's the R95 I am interested in.

E Rommel, on 13 April 2015 - 11:54 AM, said:

If my engineer told me that his weapon had a mechanical precision of 30 MoA, I'd volunteer him as the target we'll zero it on.

You're a cruel person. Hope I don't see you in the Hague.

On a more serious note, let us not forget that according to lore (according to the lore folks here anyway), much of the IS tech in 3050 is early 20th Century equivalent. So 10-15 MoA is fine by me under ideal conditions.



And which reminds me, I'm really here on this thread for convergence, not CoF. So why am I again offering suggestions for the latter?

Edited by Mystere, 13 April 2015 - 12:29 PM.

[Mystere]

Kuritaclan, on 13 April 2015 - 12:25 PM, said:

However you clearly showed that you are against auto-conv. And I said now many times the auto convergence is fine. Just let it be as it is - or come up with a usefull idea.

Just to reiterate, it is not automatic convergence that I and others have some(?) issue with. It is the near-instant automatic convergence people have issue with, especially when compared to the delayed convergence that existed in closed beta.

And again just to reiterate, I myself would like fixed convergence that is adjustable by the player in the MechLab and possibly also in-battle.

[Hotthedd]

Mystere, on 13 April 2015 - 12:27 PM, said:

And which reminds me, I'm really here on this thread for convergence, not CoF. So why am I again offering suggestions for the latter?

Same here! (Except I could see a heat penalty CoF)

The answer to your question, however, is that the pro Instant PPFLD alpha crowd does not have an argument against harmonics (set convergence/ no convergence). They DO have an argument against their misrepresentation of what a CoF is, though.

So, first they ignore, then change the focus, THEN misrepresent the idea they have changed the focus to, then attack THAT with "Muh Skillz, bro!"

[Kuritaclan]

pbiggz, on 13 April 2015 - 11:48 AM, said:

I already mentioned that my formula [#of weapons fired * modifier {between 0 and 1} / 3] compensates for smaller weapons or mechs with big weapon arrays that were meant to fire lots of medium lasers.

No you did not at least not in this post you quoted yourself in that you gave me to read and you blamed me that i didn't read it to make a joke of my reading comprehension: "As I suggested before, a simple system where Weapons convergence (distance from the center of the reticle that your weapons can hit in) is calculated as # of weapons fired * weapons convergence modifiers (number between 0 and 1) all divided over 3 means that with a weapon that has 1 as a modifier (i.e. no weapons convergence mod) you will need to fire a minimum of 3 to begin incurring any notable convergence issues." - There is nothing mentioned about the "big weapon arrays" how they would be modeled into. All you said is that over 3 weapons the convergence become a notable issue! And i wrote down my concerns about this proposal.

Anyway your proposal stays near to what i said about the locked arms. - I do not think that lasers set in the torso are a problem if they converge (or at least they are meant to do so, otherwise they would not be set as an array), but if you are against auto converge than the combination of auto converge torso weapons+autoconverge arms with one big aiming crosshair is the thing to talk about in first place when it comes down to boating.

Mystere, on 13 April 2015 - 12:42 PM, said:

Just to reiterate, it is not automatic convergence that I and others have some(?) issue with. It is the near-instant automatic convergence people have issue with, especially when compared to the delayed convergence that existed in closed beta.

How realistc do you wan't it to be? Is the first question you need to ask, if you wann change it. Having a mechanical device to turn a 12t weight in a certain amount of time with a acceptable precision is hardly to achive in the real world. While align laserser by some 100g of optical elements with e-servo motors for full degree and wormgear for arcseconds precision is easy peasy engineering and production tolerance.

While you will be pleased to have something in it, that does not have to be true for others exspecialy new players, who then may see up or above 10 little dots moving with diffentspeed over your screen, and when you hold the aim still they will converge all after another in one big dot.

And if we set up such borders how does it influence the over all experience and just another question, can the server of mwo handle this input and to add up, could the systems of the users handle this experience or do you then need a $2000+ rig to have at least some okayish performance.

Edited by Kuritaclan, 13 April 2015 - 01:08 PM.

[Burktross]

1453 R, on 13 April 2015 - 12:14 PM, said:

So recoil happens before the weapon discharges now?

Man, 3050 physics really are screwy as hell.

If its inaccurate after having multiple weapons fired, it is recoil. There is no way for the game to predict you're going to alpha, and as such, the only logical conclusion to be made would be that the "ghost fire" is applied post volley.

[Mister Blastman]

xImmortalx, on 13 April 2015 - 11:47 AM, said:

Well that just ends the argument guys, because we all know that blaming everything wrong with this game on convergence with zero evidence and posting an Einstein picture with a totally unrelated quote is an "I win" button for forum arguments.

Say, Mister Blastman, shouldn't you be off with the WBC telling everyone that everything bad that happens to people happens because marriage equality?

Excuse me? I don't want to bring politics into this forum because frankly that has no place here. Drop it.

Secondly... I've nothing more to say on the issue of convergence. As, once again, as I have shown, to do so would be... insanity. Nothing will change. Nothing has changed. PGI has proven they are incapable for fixing the problem.

But if you really care about this game and want to put the time in, feel free to dig through my thousands of posts for the relevant ones on this issue. I've written plenty. Unfortunately quite a bit of the best ones were made back in 2012 on the old beta forum.

[Mystere]

Kuritaclan, on 13 April 2015 - 12:45 PM, said:

How realistc do you wan't it to be? Is the first question you need to ask, if you wann change it. Having a mechanical device to turn a 12t weight in a certain amount of time with a acceptable precision is hardly to achive in the real world. While align laserser by some 100g of optical elements with e-servo motors for full degree and wormgear for arcseconds precision is easy peasy engineering and production tolerance.

Which is why I myself am proposing fixed convergence that is adjustable at the MechLab and possibly also in-battle. It gets rid of that very problem you mentioned.

[Kuritaclan]

Mystere, on 13 April 2015 - 01:34 PM, said:

Which is why I myself am proposing fixed convergence that is adjustable at the MechLab and possibly also in-battle. It gets rid of that very problem you mentioned.

You wanna undo one extreme with another one. *handclap* I'm curiouse how this would make the game more a "simulation". Since even if it claims it would simulated more reality as it prove itself it does not do, because the most common point between slow and fast converge with high/low precision is not self set convergence.

Or in other words your just want the developers to invest manhours to make the convergence other but not better or more realistc.

Edited by Kuritaclan, 13 April 2015 - 01:58 PM.