385 replies to this topic

[Duke Nedo]

I think we need to be a bit careful what we ask for. Too strong anti-convergence and all weapons become LBX/SRM style.

I favor Wanderers suggestion of having perfect convergence on locked targets and default static convergence at max range for unlocked shooting. That will have a rather subtle defocusing effect, while also hooking up with the Infotech work PGI has done on the test server.

[Brandarr Gunnarson]

I'm just going to sound like a broken record.

So... see posts above for simple solution that is fair and reconciles keeping pinpoint accuracy and preventing pinpoint alphas without adding any new mechanics to the game.

And with that, I'm done unless anyone comments directly to me! GL, HF!

[mechkearney]

SethAbercromby, on 08 November 2015 - 01:02 PM, said:

So I took the time to make a crappy GIF of how I think delayed convergence could work.

I think it's awesome not crappy.

[mechkearney]

Brandarr Gunnarson, on 07 November 2015 - 07:06 PM, said:

@Duke Nedo:

Just to be sure, my suggestion has no bloom in it at all. It is, precisely, your shots go where you put them. It just puts them into different places according to where they are mounted.

I've written a few examples above, but here's the basics:

Reticle looks like this

[oxXxo]

The "o" are where the LA/RA hit, respectively. The small "x"s are where the LT/RT hit, respectively. The bid "X" is where your CT(and maybe missiles) hit.

That would absolutely reconcile pinpoint accuracy with breaking up alpha strike. It would also absolutely require great skill to do "sweep shots" and get all weapons to hit the same place.

I would still combine this with heat changes. I really like the idea of removing base heat capacity and leaving it all up to heatsinks!

I like the suggestions.

The only thing I would say is I think mechs should have a base heat. The heat sinks simply help dissipate the heat faster, not raise the heat threshold.

[mechkearney]

VorpalAnvil, on 26 October 2015 - 09:39 AM, said:

Complaining about Alphas, OP clan tech or whatever the boogeyman of the week is, is easy. Using the system given to win matches and get kills/assists is hard. Pretending it is otherwise is just a cop out for poor performance and an unwillingness to change. In short; GETGUDSCRUB

In BattleTech there was a movement and an attack phase. You COULD move and fire at the same time, but it was very inaccurate.

This needs to be implemented.

I can do just fine with my wolfhound with 6 small pulse lasers. It's boring. And it breaks lore. The game is becoming nothing but high alphas, and Call of Duty-esque.

If I wanted to play CoD/Mow/CS:Source I would. I do not. I want to play a game where 1 weapon fires at a time (just like in BattleTech), you have to work as a team, and a single wolfhound with 6 small pulse lasers can't take out a direwolf and a mad dog

You know what I want to play? BattleTech.

[Serpentbane]

Zionkan, on 09 November 2015 - 11:59 PM, said:

@Serpentbane, your solution has some flaws, it hits mechs with Torso only weaponry hardest while not touching in same way mechs with arm mounted weapons, see Gargoyle/Exe/Dire vs Banshee as example.

True, but I never went for the smudge and smooth solution where every mech and setup has to be the same. Then we could just as well place a single ML on every mech and have a speed vs armor game.

Yes, arm mounted weapons would have some benefits. The mechs you mention are assaults, aka the kind of mechs able to have some serious weaponry in the arms as well as the torso. You know, assaults, they are supposed to deal a shitload of damage. IMHO, running into a Dire with a light should give the light pilot that “oh ****” face. But, instead they just start running around him having a laugh. Just look at the average game, ehat do you most often see, 500+ dmg Dires or 500+ dmg cheetas?

Those assault mechs are rather slow, and when they are able to land a few hits, those hits should hurt. For the other smaller mechs with main weapons in the arms, like the Centurion, they would have some advantages as well. Given that they have flexible joints in the arms, I don’t remember if the Cent have those. If not, the arm weapons would converge with the torso weapons. Anyways, even so, losing that arm would also be a disaster.

So, no. I don’t consider this flaws. I consider this by design. The realistic, explainable solution, that takes away a great deal of the alpha strikes, while not making everything just a useless and boring paper, scissors and rocks game.

[Serpentbane]

mechkearney, on 10 November 2015 - 10:56 AM, said:

In BattleTech there was a movement and an attack phase. You COULD move and fire at the same time, but it was very inaccurate.

This needs to be implemented.

I can do just fine with my wolfhound with 6 small pulse lasers. It's boring. And it breaks lore. The game is becoming nothing but high alphas, and Call of Duty-esque.

If I wanted to play CoD/Mow/CS:Source I would. I do not. I want to play a game where 1 weapon fires at a time (just like in BattleTech), you have to work as a team, and a single wolfhound with 6 small pulse lasers can't take out a direwolf and a mad dog

You know what I want to play? BattleTech.

Well, turn based single movement table top games don’t exactly fit well in a real time simulation. But, there could be some penalty to accuracy while moving, this is uncommon in the games you mention btw. There could be a scale, where high speed leads to inaccuracy, for example a scale from 0-150kph where 150 would be very inaccurate. I would to an actual speed scale rather than percentage of top speed as the slower assaults should be able to move at 50kph with the same relative stability as a light moving at the same speed. Just an example on how this could be done.

I also agree that wolfhound and other lights should not be the paper against the rock assault in this rock, scissors and paper game MWO is somewhat becoming. But, as there is no way to make use of tonnage limitations and also even out the clan tech efficiency, there is no way to make the assaults as powerful as they should be.

I do also have a solution for this. But it changes the game. I call it asymmetrical drops, and would open for several drops per game, like in CW. But not limited to 4 drops. Each player should be able to drop several lighter mechs, or fewer assaults. Also, Clan mechs should be more powerful, but fewer in numbers. This would also require larger maps, and more objective based gameplay. I have explained this in detail in this thread. It’s a little long, but if you read it I think you would like it.

http://mwomercs.com/...-down-the-road/

[CainenEX]

This article was quite insightful with a heat system. Give it a read:
http://www.qqmercs.c...-to-ghost-heat/

Other than what the article suggests I think that a cumulative heat system, based on the amount of weapons fired, is neccessary. It can work in the following way:

1 weapon: no heat
2 weapons: +2
3 weapons: +5
4 weapons: +9
and so on.

Just food for thought.

Edit: Why am I stoll seeing "convergence + cone of fire suggestions. I'm very sure pgi has sadi they will flat out not do this.

Edited by CainenEX, 10 November 2015 - 04:13 PM.

[Inti Raymi]

dante51, on 23 October 2015 - 03:41 AM, said:

Why? It just should be fitted into the gameplay - e.g. alpha strike = seme bad consequences. Why would you want to affect gameplay with some weird and illogical limitations?

Because this is not COD or CS - this is Mechwarrior. The idea that lasers "automagically" converge on what I'm looking at instantaneously is a little absurd. That's why machine guns aren't used by snipers by and large. Because they are "walked onto the target". The idea that an <any> tonnage mech can simultaneously focus energy weapons in different geometries on the same spot while moving is sort of absurd.

One man's illogical is another man's logic, I guess. If you want instant convergence, I suggest other FPShooters.

[Mad Dog Morgan]

Honestly, aside from the weight and ammo limitations, ballistics are generally pretty desirable due to their FLPPD qualities. What can be done about this? Well, having recoil might be a good starting point.

Heat and duration is often a good balancing point for lasers. While I do feel that convergence should be considered (since the lenses should take some time to adjust and focus on point if they're gimballed), it should be more about the convergence time of arm weapons vs. torso weapons. Weapons that are closer together should have better convergence overall.

Missiles are modified by spread, range, cooldown and travel speed.

Edited by Vaskadar, 10 November 2015 - 07:13 PM.

[BigMekkUrDakka]

how about learning to play ie torso twist, proper positioning and teamplay!
alpha pinpoint damage never was and never will be issue if you know how to handle your mech
ghost heat made this game boring enough already no need to add more annoying systems to indulge lazy slowpokes

[Bloodweaver]

Hotthedd, on 08 November 2015 - 06:28 AM, said:

2) Unfortunately PGI has strongly stated that this is out. The claim is that delayed convergence mechanics increase the data stream too much for the servers to handle.
Please note: This is different than each shot hitting a different pixel, the servers already handle that in the instances of partially blocked shots, chain-fire, etc.
PGI needs to choose another method.

This is false. It did not increase data stream at any point. All weapon flight paths are still calculated in real time, even now. Your weapons are always in a permanent mode of dynamic convergence. Coding the weapons to converge at a distance 100 meters (arbitrary value for the sake of example) beyond your target, and gradually correct that convergence point to match the target's actual distance, would be absolutely identical to what happens in the game right now if you maintain your reticle on a target as it moves 100 meters closer. There would be exactly ZERO further calculations needed.

It was removed - but not because of server strain. It was removed because it unfairly punished players with high ping. If you've ever played a match where your ping was higher than usual, you will have noticed how much longer than usual it took to achieve missile locks. Delayed convergence suffered a similar effect. Australian players would basically never have their weapons fully converged. It was, basically, lag-shooting to the power of ten. That's why it was removed. Nothing to do with server strain at all.

This "lag-shooting^10" issue, is no longer an issue. There are three separate regional servers. Delayed convergence could easily be reintroduced, because having separate regional servers has eliminated high-ping issues for the majority of the playerbase. Only He-Who-Shall-Not-Be-Named stands in the way.

Edited by Bloodweaver, 15 November 2015 - 09:54 PM.

[DivineEvil]

Quote

This is false. It did not increase data stream at any point. All weapon flight paths are still calculated in real time, even now. Your weapons are always in a permanent mode of dynamic convergence. Coding the weapons to converge at a distance 100 meters (arbitrary value for the sake of example) beyond your target, and gradually correct that convergence point to match the target's actual distance, would be absolutely identical to what happens in the game right now if you maintain your reticle on a target as it moves 100 meters closer. There would be exactly ZERO further calculations needed.

Tracing a vector from your mech to the target and moving a convergence dummy to the point of collision is completely defferent from doing that but with adding permanent lerp algoritm applied to this movement.

[Scanz]

remake heat system
med lasers - 6 to 4

CainenEX, on 10 November 2015 - 04:11 PM, said:

This article was quite insightful with a heat system. Give it a read:
http://www.qqmercs.c...-to-ghost-heat/

Other than what the article suggests I think that a cumulative heat system, based on the amount of weapons fired, is neccessary. It can work in the following way:

1 weapon: no heat
2 weapons: +2
3 weapons: +5
4 weapons: +9
and so on.

true

[Hotthedd]

Bloodweaver, on 15 November 2015 - 09:46 PM, said:

This is false. It did not increase data stream at any point. All weapon flight paths are still calculated in real time, even now. Your weapons are always in a permanent mode of dynamic convergence. Coding the weapons to converge at a distance 100 meters (arbitrary value for the sake of example) beyond your target, and gradually correct that convergence point to match the target's actual distance, would be absolutely identical to what happens in the game right now if you maintain your reticle on a target as it moves 100 meters closer. There would be exactly ZERO further calculations needed.

It was removed - but not because of server strain. It was removed because it unfairly punished players with high ping. If you've ever played a match where your ping was higher than usual, you will have noticed how much longer than usual it took to achieve missile locks. Delayed convergence suffered a similar effect. Australian players would basically never have their weapons fully converged. It was, basically, lag-shooting to the power of ten. That's why it was removed. Nothing to do with server strain at all.

This &quot;lag-shooting^10&quot; issue, is no longer an issue. There are three separate regional servers. Delayed convergence could easily be reintroduced, because having separate regional servers has eliminated high-ping issues for the majority of the playerbase. Only He-Who-Shall-Not-Be-Named stands in the way.

Well then thank you for the clarification. It has been a while so I must have remembered it incorrectly.

Unfortunately I still believe PGI is unwilling to add that feature back into the game.

[Bloodweaver]

DivineEvil, on 16 November 2015 - 04:05 AM, said:

Tracing a vector from your mech to the target and moving a convergence dummy to the point of collision is completely defferent from doing that but with adding permanent lerp algoritm applied to this movement.

I don't know why you think it would be completely different. The weapons wouldn't be starting from any specific distance relative to your target, they would be starting from a point of infinite (i.e., zero) convergence, and adjusting towards your target distance. The game already is capable of doing this exact thing. It already was doing this exact thing, as noted previously - and it was removed not because of high data loads, but because of how it affected high-ping players.

I should also note there are two ways to implement delayed convergence. The first would be to do what MWO originally did - have convergence always be based on where your reticle is, but make the weapons adjust towards the reticle "distance" gradually. The second would be to still have the gradual adjustment, but make it adjust based on your selected target's distance is instead of what your reticle is physically pointing at.

I prefer the second solution, for a number of reasons. First, it seems easier to implement - you are essentially converging on a "ghost target" so long as you have an enemy selected, regardless of where that enemy actually is on your screen. And boy does PGI love "ghost" anything...

Second, it reinforces the importance of information warfare in a way that actually matters. The first PTS attempt at info warfare was ridiculous, since the only advantage you got was in getting target info faster... which doesn't really mean anything at all once you get past a basic skill threshold. Tying target info to weapon convergence is a more natural and elegant version of both that, AND the silly "ghost laser damage reduction" concept which has now been completely scrapped(thankfully).

Third, it allows for "blind fighting" to become a new, unique talent that pilots can learn and refine. No target selected = weapons converge at infinity. Being able to effectively put your non-converged weapons onto a Hunchback brawling with you at an average distance of 100m becomes something worth boasting about.

Hotthedd, on 16 November 2015 - 06:39 AM, said:

Unfortunately I still believe PGI is unwilling to add that feature back into the game.

On that point you are almost certainly 100% correct. Especially the "unfortunately" part. Even so, at bare minimum they could reimplement zero convergence for weapons fired without a target selected, and keep weapons instantaneously converged to whatever distance your selected target is showing.

That would be a similar solution in spirit to the old delayed convergence. The difference is that there would be no delay, and it would be based on your target's distance instead of where your reticle is pointing. The lack of delay makes it a complete non-issue even on those rare games where your ping inexplicably jumps, and tying it to target distance maintains the relevance of "info-warfare" PGI is trying (ineffectively, so far) to add to the game.

I strongly prefer the delay, as it makes combat way more immersive AND it provides a tool against which to balance boated weapons - but I'm convinced PGI is irrationally terrified of implementing it. Having weapons converge on a selected target's distance instead of reticle "distance," even instantaneously, would still be a massive improvement.

Edited by Bloodweaver, 16 November 2015 - 03:28 PM.

[Havoc2]

Pin point damage is not the problem, people standing still and trading shots like they're in a civil war reenactment is the problem.

MW PC games have always had pin point damage, MWO is not special in this.

[Bloodweaver]

Havoc2, on 16 November 2015 - 03:20 PM, said:

Pin point damage is not the problem, people standing still and trading shots like they're in a civil war reenactment is the problem.

MW PC games have always had pin point damage, MWO is not special in this.

They do this because it's effective. It is effective because you can constistently focus single components on single targets no matter how far they are or how little time you've had to aim at them. PPFLD is absolutely the problem.

MW games have usually (not always) had damage that was both pin-point and front-loaded, yes. And their multiplayer has usually suffered enormously as a result. They were designed as single-player games with multiplayer tacked on. The only one that had a moderately-balanced multiplayer experience was MW4, and even that had a gross imbalance that was a direct result of the effectiveness of PPFLD - pop-tarting. That tactic is useless without weapons that are both PP and FL. Other MW games besides MW4 did slightly reduce PPFLD's effectiveness, though - by having low heat caps.

MW2 had a very low heat cap. This meant you had to chain-fire a lot more than you would in MWO or MW4. This, in turn, meant your damage would spread, even with all weapons being pinpoint. The cMPL was bugged, however, and provided way more DPS than it was supposed to.

MW3 also had a low heat cap, forcing lower alphas, plus a number of weapons that were either not front-loaded (pulse lasers, autocannons) or not pin-point(missiles). The only PPFLD weapons in that game were standard/ER lasers, which again, were affected by the low heat cap. Autocannons were bugged in this game, however, often providing more damage than they were supposed to, knocking 'Mechs down and making them limp even before their legs were actually destroyed.

MW4 is where the heat system took a whole new direction, for the worse. Previous MW games had a more TT-accurate approach of low cap, but high dissipation. You'd reach overheat status a lot more easily, but your 'Mech would also cool off a lot faster. This decreased alpha fire and increased chain fire. It's the whole reason alphas in TT are so risky. MW4, instead, implemented a much higher heat cap, and a much lower heat dissipation. It also made all weapons except missiles and machine-guns use PPFLD. Hello, pop-tart central.

MWO did the same thing as MW4 with its heat system, only even more so, by implementing a rising heat cap and 'Mech efficiencies. It also kept PPFLD. So you can alpha high-damage loadouts using lasers (the weapons with the most effective damage-to-weight ratios in the game) over and over again, just so long as you cool off behind cover for a minute.

Oh and also, MWO removed graduated heat penalties. In other games you didn't have to necessarily shut down from overheating before suffering some ill effects. MW2 and MW3, ammo would explode, actuators would be damaged, the HUD would start disfunctioning, just from riding a high heat curve over a certain amount of time. MW4, your 'Mech would slow down. MWO? Absolutely nothing happens, at all, until you reach 100% heat. And even then its really a minor penalty.

PPFLD is a problem. It always has been. The thing is, in previous games, the low heat cap helped to offset that quite a bit. It still didn't do so entirely, but it did help. MWO has both PPFLD and a ridiculously (infinitely, in theory) high heat cap. These problems feed into and exacerbate each other.

[Fire for Effect]

Karl Streiger, on 02 November 2015 - 06:16 AM, said:

because somebody got boozed and thought that the Clans or SDLF would be a good idea

not really, even before where some chassis good and others kinda bad. Clans just made that problem obvious to everyone...

[Lanceafer]

My two cents. I keep calling for it hoping that someone will listen. Have the heat scale function like table top. If you start to push that bar up you will have greater and greater penalties. Keep the same high damage alphas because to me that is part of battetech, however you will pay for using them. If you alpha and then need to spend the next 5-10 seconds cooling off because you are now moving at half your top speed, targeting recital is bouncing around like you are mid jump and you cant turn for a damn, it will make you think twice.

My rough idea say the scale is 0-30 by default. I know heat sinks in this game will add to the top threshold but figure that the effects happen at a % of heat.

0-4: no effect
5-7: -5% top speed
8-9: -5% top speed, torso twist/turning
10-12: -10% top speed, -5% torso twist/turning
13-16: -10% top speed, -10% torso twist/turning, cross-hair shakes slightly
17-20: -20% top speed, -15% torso twist/turning, cross-hair shakes, hud gets a little fuzzy
21-24: -40% top speed, -30%torso twist/turning, cross-hair shakes a lot, friend or foe icons are gone and hud blinks on and off
25-29: -60% top speed. -45%torso twist/turning, cross-hair shakes a lot, friend or foe icons are gone and hud blinks on and off
30+: Shutdown, 2% chance of ammo explosion every second, minor damage to all internal components

Everything on here would be very easy to implement. The only thing I'm not sure about is the friend or foe icons being separate from the hud. They could simply have the same effect as the hud blinking on and off and there would be no new systems to code other than the heat scale. My guess would be a day tops to add it to the game.

Edited by Lanceafer, 20 November 2015 - 09:02 AM.