7 replies to this topic

[Serpentbane]

There have been lots of discussion regarding convergence. For those unaware the problem is when all weapons hits the same spot of a mech regardless of distance, allowing for high damage pinpoint Alpha strikes and stuff like that.

Personally, I have no problems with convergence, but many people do. There have been several solutions suggested, but most of the suggestion do not feel real. If you design a mech in real life you would make it as effective as possible. If you want to remove the “problem” with convergence, I think it must be explainable in a realistic way.

In the current rebalancing project, PGI is apparently experimenting with mechs suddenly getting bad aim when they don’t have any lock on the enemy mech. But if I have understood this correctly, this only affects lasers, not ballistics. If this is true, then the realism is broken. Why would they make the mech depend on locks for lasers and not ballistics? Solutions like this does not add up. And even if it do affect all weapons I find it to be a strange solution.

So, I have come up with a possible solution for convergence that would solve some of the convergence issues in a realistic way, that can be explained from a mech design point of view. I have written this in convergence related posts earlier, but I’ll try to visualize a little more here.


Static Convergence for torso mounted weapons.
The weapons on mechs can be mounted on either torso or arms. These two locations are very different. The arms can move independently of each other and the torso, while they still follow the torso movement as well. The torso can move, but all weapons on the torso will point at the same direction.

Torso weapons are bolted on to the hull. This means they should not be able to move independently at all. They can only move with the torso. In short, the convergence range on torso mounted weapons should be the same regardless of the range to the object the pilot targets.

Weapons on the more flexible arms could however adjust to converge at the distance of the object the pilot is aiming at.

Now, take a look at this high detail representation of a Dire Wolf shooting at a smaller mech and an enemy Dire Wolf with fixed convergence ranges on the torso mounted weapons. I have included several examples, where Convergence Value (CV) represents a defined set of convergence ranges in each example. (CV1000 converges at 1000m) As you can see, this can really affect the effective convergence depending on the defined CV relative to the range to the targeted mech. In particular if the CV is set at close range where the problem is bigger.



Now, this can be implemented in several ways.

1. PGI defines the default CV for all mechs or per chassis.

2. Players can set a CV for each mech in the mech bay.

3. Players can adjust CV ingame, but this takes time as the servos do their work. Lets say 20 sec where the weapons cannot fire.

I also think that removing arm joints also removes the arms flexibility, and weapons mounted on that arm converges with the torso mounted weapons.

In this next high quality representation of the batteflield I also let the mech fire it’s arm mounted weapons. They will converge fine at all ranges, except at close range where the arms on some mechs can come in conflict with the mechs body. Also, the shots will hit the closer mechs out to the sides if you’re piloting a Dire shooting at a smaller mech. Like in example 3.



This would also work depending on the height of the mechs weapon mounts. So the spread will really be circular relative to the aim.


So, with CV1000 aiming high on the CT/head, the hits will be spread out or even shoot above the close by mech.

The strength of this design is the ability to tailor your mech to a certain role and play style. Having high CV would make the mech less accurate at closer range spreading the damage or even making the shots miss. At long range the ordinance spread would be less, however the aim would also be less accurate and the weapons could suffer from lowered damage.

Players wanting to have high close range alpha strikes could still do this, making them dangerous close range opponents. However, having low CV values make them close to useless at ranges surpassing the set CV.

So, what do you think?

I realize this will affect wider mechs more than the smaller mechs. And mechs with CT mounted weapons would have some advantages. But, then again, the high dmg pinpoint alphas are usually tied to the larger mechs as well. In all cases, the convergence point will spread some counting weapons from left to right arm. Adjusting convergence is not about making the mech useless either.


* Yeah CR (Convergence Range) could have been a better word, but I already made the images.

I've also made a thread about my take on the development direction of MWO, and how it should/could be.
http://mwomercs.com/...-down-the-road/

Edited by Serpentbane, 08 November 2015 - 01:54 PM.

[DailyFrankPeter]

This makes more sense than the proposed PGI solution you mentioned.

[Dracol]

Has PGI been able to overcome the technical limitations of convergence encountered when it was first implemented?

Also, your proposal would make mechs with weapons loaded on one side, or even in one component gain advantage over split builds. How would you compensate in the new, weaker mechs?

Finally, information warfare is not involved, something ghost damage incorporated. The community responded to the first news of information warfare by stating that unless it affects combat directly, IW will have little influence on balance. How would you incorporate IW into your proposal?

[Serpentbane]

Whatever solution you choose, there will be builds with some advantages. IMO you shouldn’t balance every mech and every part of the game down to the point where you might as well have a one weapon shooter.

What technical limitations PGI have I do not know. This is merely a suggestion, if it’s possible or not only PGI can answer.

The only part of the mech not affected much by this is the CT, or rather, weapons close to the cockpit, and few mechs can load all their weapons there. Even if you load all weapons in your left torso, they will not fire in a straight line parallel to your aim. The offset will wary depending on the chosen CV, weapon placement and location of your cockpit relative to them.

Yes, you could make a habit of aiming on the arm to hit CT at range X with CV set a Y. But this offset will wary somewhat depending on all the actual range each time.

Also, the images do not show height. The Timber high mount shoulder mounted lasers with hig CV could overshoot a closer target aiming at his CT, if the CV is high. So the spread of the weapons will be circular relative to the aim. I included a new picture trying to illustrate this.

Yes, it will still be possible to side load a mech to get higher pinpoint. But that would also lower the total Alpha capacity of a mech, and also make it more vulnerable. And the pilot still need to calculate offset to hit the enemy where he wants. It is still possible, but harder.

I never said I went for a solution evening out everything. My solution removes some of the pinpoint alpha possibilities of mechs, this is what ppl complains about the most, while still offering a realistic and explainable solution. I don’t want a game so smooth we can’t see any edges.

If we look at the Gauss + ML timber with CV1000 he will still be powerfull and deal lots of damage. But at close range the impact will be spread across the targeted mech removing the pinpoint issue. This will be a good over all setup. The pilot can choose to set the CV to 250 or even 100, and be extremely dangerous at that range. But such a mech can be utter useless on long ranges.

I never intended to blend convergence with IW. On this I have a completely different approach. I posted a link in my first post. In that thread, I write up my initial thoughts on IW. It’s in the last section of the first post.


For all I know this will not work at all. But I’d rather see it tried out that having an artificial solution that makes no sense, just to alter gameplay.

Edited by Serpentbane, 06 November 2015 - 11:14 PM.

[DailyFrankPeter]

I think asymmetrical builds are fair play and should not be balanced against. It is a tradeoff anyway because you can lose that side completely when peeking.

I'd like to add to OP's proposal that it would be good to let players choose the position of weapons around the model (within the component). Some of these positions are half a light mech apart from each other, and it seems to be dictated by model aesthetics at the moment. Say if a very wide mech has ST weapons bolted like this:
XX---XX
...or like this:
X---X
X---X
...makes a difference if they are not going to converge.

Also, Jager with this setup:
X-----X
X-----X
...would only be a able to shoot enemy in the shoulders if they were parallel (bad deal). Or be forced to fire "first left, then right" without really knowing the offset from center, which would remind me of the Planetside 2 MAX suit Falcon weapons, and how bloody unpredictable they were.

To solve this I could imagine there being a reticle that has a red DOT PER EACH GUN and actually shows you the predicted convergence, for current distance. Imagine how Sci Fi that reticle would look!

Edited by DailyFrankPeter, 07 November 2015 - 02:52 AM.

[Andi Nagasia]

seems abit over complicated,
it could be something as simple as a Range Finder Multiplier
Much like my (Convergence Idea To Lesson The Pin-Point-Alpha Problem!)
this could be a Similar solution thats more Reliable for Balance,

[Spleenslitta]

I do agree that mechs like the Hunchback 4P would have an advantage with this system....but look at it from another angle for a moment.
Right now there is little difference between a Hunchie 4P and just about any other mech once the distance between opponents allow total convergence.
Serpentbane's idea allows individuality between the different mechs at least and most importantly it lenghtens TTK for certain.

[Serpentbane]

Andi Nagasia, on 07 November 2015 - 09:09 AM, said:

seems abit over complicated,
it could be something as simple as a Range Finder Multiplier
Much like my (Convergence Idea To Lesson The Pin-Point-Alpha Problem!)
this could be a Similar solution thats more Reliable for Balance,

I think the mechanics are the same, with weapon convergence at a different range than the targeted mech. With your solution however, the convergence range will always change relative to the object you aim at. And I see a couple of problems with this.

• Realism. Why would it be like this?
  
• The game always need to calculate convergence range. More complex than fixed range.

In addition, this will have less impact on the overall spread as it will always be at the same degree.


I’m not saying it will not work, or that it’s a bad idea. It’s a different take on the same thing. It’s just that it feels artificial, why would the weapons behave like this?

I’d also like the ability to tailor my mech to my play style. If you choose, you can still make high pinpoint close range mechs that deals lots of damage. But they would be utter useless at ranges beyond their set CV. Mechs with high CV would lose some effectivity on close range, while keeping their long range capabilities. However, at long range they would suffer from decreased damage and less accurate aim. At 1000 convergence is not a huge problem unless you are standing still.

Edited by Serpentbane, 09 November 2015 - 08:55 AM.