Jump to content

Do The Majority Of Players Want To Get Rid Of Convergence?

Gameplay Balance

1126 replies to this topic

#521 ROSS-128

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 396 posts

Posted 08 April 2015 - 04:08 PM

Honestly, the whole argument about expert shots and popping heads at 1km is kind of pointless when you consider that we are not shooting at human-sized targets from 1km.

Posted Image

This is what we're shooting at. See the little guy striking an action pose next to their feet? That's what the sniper the two of you are arguing about is shooting at. And we're only shooting from around 200-600m most of the time, 1km shots are rare.

You want a cone of fire because it would be realistic? Alright, the cone of fire is about the size of the action pose guy at its largest. I'll probably still perform laser surgery on your side torso 95% of the time.

For people who aren't familiar with meters, a typical story (as in "[number] story building") is about three meters. So the mechs are around three to four stories tall, a couple are close to five.

If hitting a human sized target at 300m is an exercise in luck for you, I understand. That takes practice. If you have a hard time hitting a four story building from the same distance, you might want to see your doctor about those shakes or get your eyesight checked.

#522 Hotthedd

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The People's Hero
  • 3,213 posts
  • LocationDixie

Posted 08 April 2015 - 04:11 PM

View PostE Rommel, on 08 April 2015 - 04:08 PM, said:

Honestly, the whole argument about expert shots and popping heads at 1km is kind of pointless when you consider that we are not shooting at human-sized targets from 1km.

Posted Image

This is what we're shooting at. See the little guy striking an action pose next to their feet? That's what the sniper the two of you are arguing about is shooting at. And we're only shooting from around 200-600m most of the time, 1km shots are rare.

You want a cone of fire because it would be realistic? Alright, the cone of fire is about the size of the action pose guy at its largest. I'll probably still perform laser surgery on your side torso 95% of the time.

For people who aren't familiar with meters, a typical story (as in "[number] story building") is about three meters. So the mechs are around three to four stories tall, a couple are close to five.

If hitting a human sized target at 300m is an exercise in luck for you, I understand. That takes practice. If you have a hard time hitting a four story building from the same distance, you might want to see your doctor about those shakes or get your eyesight checked.

We're also not talking about shooting one weapon at a time....

#523 Dino Might

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Little Helper
  • Little Helper
  • 2,030 posts

Posted 08 April 2015 - 04:21 PM

View PostE Rommel, on 08 April 2015 - 04:08 PM, said:

Honestly, the whole argument about expert shots and popping heads at 1km is kind of pointless when you consider that we are not shooting at human-sized targets from 1km.

Posted Image

This is what we're shooting at. See the little guy striking an action pose next to their feet? That's what the sniper the two of you are arguing about is shooting at. And we're only shooting from around 200-600m most of the time, 1km shots are rare.

You want a cone of fire because it would be realistic? Alright, the cone of fire is about the size of the action pose guy at its largest. I'll probably still perform laser surgery on your side torso 95% of the time.

For people who aren't familiar with meters, a typical story (as in "[number] story building") is about three meters. So the mechs are around three to four stories tall, a couple are close to five.

If hitting a human sized target at 300m is an exercise in luck for you, I understand. That takes practice. If you have a hard time hitting a four story building from the same distance, you might want to see your doctor about those shakes or get your eyesight checked.


Grats, you seem to understand what we're talking about in that you aren't dismissing it out of hand - you're questioning, "what would be the realistic impact to our game mechanics?"

COF makes sense, and it won't change that much in the game, but the COF for different weapons can be adjusted for gameplay sake with only some slight additional considerations to our reason-based model, which also have to do with lore.

Edited by Dino Might, 08 April 2015 - 04:22 PM.


#524 SovietKoshka

    Member

  • PipPipPip
  • Liquid Metal
  • 80 posts
  • LocationSomewhere betwixed the stars of the inner sphere and rim

Posted 08 April 2015 - 04:21 PM

Cof=bad

removing convergence aka adding seperate crosshairs for each weapon= A-OKAY!

EDIT:

RNG IS A POOR WAY TO BALANCE ANYTHING AND EVERYTHING.

RNG IS NOT CLEVER GAME DESIGN!

Edited by SovietKoshka, 08 April 2015 - 04:24 PM.


#525 ROSS-128

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 396 posts

Posted 08 April 2015 - 04:23 PM

View PostHotthedd, on 08 April 2015 - 04:11 PM, said:

We're also not talking about shooting one weapon at a time....


Which happen to be at least semi-actuated weapons (ie they have at least a couple degrees of traverse) that I would assume are under the control of either a targeting computer, or a decent analog Fire Control System. I would hope your FCS can hit a four story building at 300m.

The point is that the feats of sub-millimeter precision those two are arguing about aren't really relevant to the nature of this engagement. So maybe the guns are always a bit off by a minute of angle or two, doesn't matter when our target is the broad side of a barn, and such small variances don't immediately translate into wildly inaccurate weapons that can't reliably hit a mech.

#526 Dino Might

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Little Helper
  • Little Helper
  • 2,030 posts

Posted 08 April 2015 - 04:32 PM

View PostE Rommel, on 08 April 2015 - 04:23 PM, said:


Which happen to be at least semi-actuated weapons (ie they have at least a couple degrees of traverse) that I would assume are under the control of either a targeting computer, or a decent analog Fire Control System. I would hope your FCS can hit a four story building at 300m.

The point is that the feats of sub-millimeter precision those two are arguing about aren't really relevant to the nature of this engagement. So maybe the guns are always a bit off by a minute of angle or two, doesn't matter when our target is the broad side of a barn, and such small variances don't immediately translate into wildly inaccurate weapons that can't reliably hit a mech.


Absolutely agree with you!

Now, could it be the difference from the CT/RT hit when you are aiming at the edge of the CT? Definitely. When your heat goes up to 80 or 90% would you expect that deviation to increase by a few meters? Yup. Will you still hit the mech if you aim at it, almost certainly!

#527 ROSS-128

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 396 posts

Posted 08 April 2015 - 04:46 PM

View PostDino Might, on 08 April 2015 - 04:32 PM, said:


Absolutely agree with you!

Now, could it be the difference from the CT/RT hit when you are aiming at the edge of the CT? Definitely. When your heat goes up to 80 or 90% would you expect that deviation to increase by a few meters? Yup. Will you still hit the mech if you aim at it, almost certainly!


HSR already takes care of that though, as does torso twisting/enemy movement. And "a few meters" is far too large to be reasonable unless you're trying to take a shot across the map, in which case you're probably using a precision weapon like the Gauss Rifle or a long-barreled AC2.

The level of deviation is logically too small to be worth modeling at most of this game's engagement ranges, and the level of devation you and some of the people in this thread are asking for (missing whole mechs, or having the probable hit zone cover so much of the mech that targeting a component is an exercise in luck) is far too large to be justified by tiny things like thermal expansion or barrel tolerances.

A couple minutes of angle at several hundred meters may look like a large dispersal on a human-sized target, but when you're aiming at a house on legs it's nothing.

#528 Bullseye69

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Undertaker
  • The Undertaker
  • 454 posts

Posted 08 April 2015 - 04:48 PM

For the record i am a inner sphere pilot and though I love my assualt I have found that the super high alpha dont kill any faster than say the 40 to 60 point alpha. I mount my weapon when possible on my arms so they should have convergence. Now the torso mount weapons should also have a separate convergence since they depend on you lining up the torso to hit the enemy. Now I find I die a lot from the over power and acccurate fire from dashi and war hawk boating mutliple gauss or ultra ac and er PPC. The game is in a good place right now better than it has been in a while. There is no overpower and every game LRM fest and the most boating I see on missile is the mad dog SRM boat that cruise the battle field. Those mechs you have to watch out for but the really annoying mechs ar the Crows and mad dog and mad cat with the multiple missiles LRM since they don't have a minium range so they can hit from point blank to max range yes the damage is degraded the closer than that. The clan can boat lighter weapon and ore of them with better speed and more range than inner sphere mechs , that is there advantage all we have advantage wise is the high alpha and convergence going for us and that helps balance it out. If you take that away from the inner sphere then you might as well ttake everyone inner sphere mechs away from themand replacing them at no cost with clan mechs and change the name to clan warrior online.

#529 Quxudica

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Little Helper
  • 1,858 posts

Posted 08 April 2015 - 04:49 PM

View PostEd Steele, on 08 April 2015 - 07:22 AM, said:

No "cone of fire", skillful aiming should be rewarded, I do not want to play a COD style spray and pray shooter.


The irony of this statement is CoD style is exactly what we have right now. Call of Duty has extremely limited and extremely forgiving weapon recoil models, and pretty much all the guns in that game are hitscan - meaning aiming is extremely easy (and not even remotely random). You aim at a single point with any weapon you have and you are almost guaranteed that every shot is going to hit that spot in CoD. You aim your entire mechs loadout at a single point and you are almost guaranteed every shot will hit that spot in MWO. Pretty much the only exceptions to this are SRM's and LBX, but both of those still have pretty close to perfect convergence at their optimal range (that is the optimal range experienced players use them at, not their listed "optimal" range).

A change to convergence would increase the skill required to aim, not decrease it. We aren't talking about making every shot go in a random direction, all shots should proceed to a predictable terminus - meaning you can aim just fine, but you can't just fire everything you have at once and expect it all to end up in the same place. With this model you have to make a decision as to whether you want huge burst from your alpha, or the precision targeting from one or two weapon groups. This choice doesn't currently exist in MWO, Alpha is the only answer to the question 95% of the time and as such it greatly reduces the amount of skill and thought involved in aiming.

For an in game example. Say you take a Pulse boat (any, doesn't matter which), you engage say an AC/20 Hunchback. In the current set up, you fire everything you have at the Hunch, your heat spikes but it all likelyhood at least 80% of your alpha lands on that Hunch and very likely removes it's armor (or comes very close) in one burst.

With the convergence change I would like to see, this scenario would play out differently. If you decided to Alpha, some of your pulse shots would hit the CT, the opposite ST and the Hunch (some may even miss depending on the exact point you aim for and angle of fire), in the end you may have delivered around 60% of your Alpha damage (just spitballing numbers) onto the Hunch compartment.

However, maybe you could decide you want to land everything on that Hunch: So instead of Alpha striking - you fire weapon group A, then aim for and fire Weapon Group B, Then aim for and fire Weapon Group C and so on. It takes longer to get all of your damage on target, you will have to twist between shots or weave into cover to avoid the AC/20, but if your aim is good enough you will land 100% of your damage on the Hunch, no randomness involved.

This has the resulting effect of greatly minimizing burst damage (making it situational, as it should be), increasing general TTK and making Pilot skill matter more. It also means the fight will reward the smarter player, who chooses both his target and his weapon usage correctly. You could still run into situations where Alpha is the right answer, either a hit and run scenario or maybe the Hunch is already armor stripped and you think you can pop it with an Alpha Strike. These are the situations Alpha's were intended to be used in, but with perfect universal pinpoint accuracy it simply removes almost any thought from attack choice, you Alpha until your heat threshold says you cant.

#530 Mister Blastman

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Survivor
  • Survivor
  • 8,444 posts
  • LocationIn my Mech (Atlanta, GA)

Posted 08 April 2015 - 04:59 PM

OP: Yes, get rid of it please.

#531 Xetelian

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Elite Founder
  • Elite Founder
  • 4,397 posts

Posted 08 April 2015 - 05:06 PM

The page count of this thread is too damn high!

#532 Eboli

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 1,148 posts
  • LocationCanberra, Australia

Posted 08 April 2015 - 05:15 PM

All I can say is YES to a possibility/research/implementation in removing convergence.

To be able to pinpoint hit with multiple weapons from different sections of your mech while moving at 50-152km/hr over various terrain...

Cheers!
Eboli

#533 SethAbercromby

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Urban Commando
  • Urban Commando
  • 1,308 posts
  • LocationNRW, Germany

Posted 08 April 2015 - 05:17 PM

I think we should reconsider delayed convergence.

Let's think of a relatively simple method. Your torso weapons have a convergence rate of 100m/s and your arm weapons have a convergence rate of 200m/s with lower arm actuators or 150m/s without. What that means is that the point of distance the weapons are zeroed in on will be corrected at that speed as you move your crosshairs.

If for example you were to correct your aim from 500m to 100m, your torso weapons would need 4 seconds to perfectly zero in on your focus point, your arm weapons would need 2 seconds with a lower arm actuator and 2,66 seconds without. This makes snap shots less effective as your convergene will cause the weapons to either be ranged in too far or too short. Even without changing the pinpoint potential of individual components, we have at least now sperated arm and torso mounted weapons and left and right side components have become less likely to hit the same spot.

#534 NocturnalBeast

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Shredder
  • Shredder
  • 3,685 posts
  • LocationDusting off my Mechs.

Posted 08 April 2015 - 05:28 PM

View PostSovietKoshka, on 08 April 2015 - 04:21 PM, said:

Cof=bad

removing convergence aka adding seperate crosshairs for each weapon= A-OKAY!

EDIT:

RNG IS A POOR WAY TO BALANCE ANYTHING AND EVERYTHING.

RNG IS NOT CLEVER GAME DESIGN!


Only complete mental deficients would want to have RNG targetting in an FPS, it is pointless to argue with them, they won't understand reason or logic. Mechs have weapon stabilization which would probably be many times better than what modern battle tanks use and modern tanks are pretty damned accurate at much longer distances than we are typically firing at each other from.

#535 R Razor

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The 1 Percent
  • The 1 Percent
  • 1,583 posts
  • LocationPennsylvania ...'Merica!!

Posted 08 April 2015 - 05:29 PM

View PostEd Steele, on 08 April 2015 - 05:28 PM, said:

Only complete mental deficients would want to have RNG targetting in an FPS, it is pointless to argue with them, they won't understand reason or logic. Mechs have weapon stabilization which would probably be many times better than what modern battle tanks use and modern tanks are pretty damned accurate at much longer distances than we are typically firing at each other from.



Which explains the 270 meter range of an auto cannon and the low to mid 400 meter range of a laser..........because, you know, technology.

Edited by R Razor, 08 April 2015 - 05:29 PM.


#536 Koniving

    Welcoming Committee

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Guide
  • The Guide
  • 23,384 posts

Posted 08 April 2015 - 05:30 PM

View PostApocryph0n, on 20 January 2015 - 02:01 AM, said:

The other possibilty that would be closer to canon/TT etc. would be to make weapons like WoT guns: ConeOfFire so that you can kind of aim still, but have spread (with lasers: terrible 200year old targeting computers :P). Would kind of replicate the RNG roll on which component got hit and instantly remove pinpoint as well. <-not an actual suggestion btw, I have no clue how this would work out ;)


Rather than World of Tank's method, War Thunder's method I believe would be much better. Absolute pinpoint spot on the target where your barrel is pointed! But wait...

The way your tank moves, the inclines of terrain, how you are moving, etc. all affect how you aim! OMG -- like Real Life!
How aiming worked (my first Realistic mode)
Same vid as above, but at a very specific moment after 10 minutes where I get info on where to hit the enemy to pierce the armor, aim and make the shot to kill a superior and heavier tank.
Brawling!
Slow down for best shots just like tabletop & Bullet dodging!
High speed shooting and harassment.
Mech in War Thunder (so here ya go, about what it would look like for an Urbanmech). <--Yes. That's a mechanized walking tank in War Thunder. No, I'm not kidding.

Now clearly, that's spot on target for the one gun you have. Got multiple guns on separate things, they will try to aim for the same spot. Though they generally fail at this due to imperfect convergence, despite perfect pinpoint per weapon.

Isn't a cone of fire. Just physics affect where your barrel is pointed, and the barrel isn't necessarily pointed at where you want to aim.

Edited by Koniving, 08 April 2015 - 05:39 PM.


#537 NocturnalBeast

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Shredder
  • Shredder
  • 3,685 posts
  • LocationDusting off my Mechs.

Posted 08 April 2015 - 05:41 PM

View PostR Razor, on 08 April 2015 - 05:29 PM, said:



Which explains the 270 meter range of an auto cannon and the low to mid 400 meter range of a laser..........because, you know, technology.


The amount of energy that it would take to make a laser melt through inches of armor plating at 400+ meters would be staggering, much more than what would be required to charge the capacitors (assumedly) power out Gauss rifles.

#538 Telmasa

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Bad Company
  • Bad Company
  • 1,548 posts

Posted 08 April 2015 - 05:46 PM

View PostLightfoot, on 08 April 2015 - 03:19 PM, said:

So I want MWO to respect Battle Tech canon and the charge mechanic on the Gauss or anything is pandering, not balancing, because Battle Tech has all the basic weapons balanced within reasonable limits.


Underlined part is just so not true....


@ Overall discussion:

For the love of God and all that is good in the gaming world,
DO
NOT
ADD
RNG

2, 3 years of complete *cancer* has been going on over on World of Tanks thanks *directly* to everything in that game being affected by force-injected RNG dice rolls.

Do NOT clone that epic level of ridiculous bull s*** here, dear god NO.

We already have enough levels of stupid gimmicks to create a neverending meta-B.S.-contest here in MW:O, do NOT make it any worse.

#539 Mystere

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Bad Company
  • Bad Company
  • 22,783 posts
  • LocationClassified

Posted 08 April 2015 - 06:02 PM

View PostDimento Graven, on 08 April 2015 - 02:18 PM, said:

Believe me, if I had to depend on getting "lucky" every time I took an aimed shot at a stationary target, or a target silly enough to move in one direction out in the open, I'd have LOOOOOOOOOOOOONG left this game behind.


The main problem I see is that you equate CoF to "getting Lucky", instead of the math behind the proposals being presented by people ...

View PostDimento Graven, on 08 April 2015 - 01:39 PM, said:

Now while in actual REALITY, such is life, in a GAME, it doesn't sound like much fun.


... and then finally reveal the real reason behind your "arguments".

Edited by Mystere, 08 April 2015 - 06:12 PM.


#540 Mad Strike

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Privateer
  • The Privateer
  • 1,298 posts
  • LocationLima , Peru

Posted 08 April 2015 - 06:21 PM

hmmmm interesting idea , could refresh gameplay a bit.

On the other hand , could make lights way more difficult to kill.





2 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 2 guests, 0 anonymous users