92 replies to this topic

[Mystere]

Troutmonkey, on 07 November 2015 - 09:17 PM, said:

Fixed convergence is a terrible idea.

Why?

[Troutmonkey]

Mystere, on 07 November 2015 - 09:22 PM, said:

Why?

http://www.qqmercs.c...ence-and-clans/

Quote

Fixed convergence (whether pre-determined or user-set) would be irritating without fixing the problem. It just forces players to be at the range of convergence at all times if they want to be accurate. On top of that, it doesn’t solve those pinpoint alphas – it just makes you work harder for them.
In my mind, it would actually make the problem worse by encouraging more high-alpha builds. Because getting off as much damage as possible as quickly as possible at the range of convergence would be the goal, there’s no better way to achieve that than to run cheesy, high-alpha builds.

Fixed convergence in a game where the player is unmaneuverable (relative to other shooters) just becomes extremely annoying. It’s a simulation element that many players (especially casual / cross-overs) will hate. The negative effect it would have on pacing far outweighs the limited solvency it would achieve.

Verdict: Ineffective at solving the problem, extremely irritating, unintended effects on pacing and gameplay.

[WarZ]

Mystere, on 07 November 2015 - 09:19 PM, said:

I was referring to a statement from PGI that was implied in MischiefSC's post.

As for your "Thankfully" comment, why would you not want such a mechanic?

There is already a lot going on this game. You have to have significant awareness of multiple factors. Adding another complicated factor on top of all that is just more overload, that I personally think is not needed.

You have a cursor for your torso and arms already. That is plenty. Place a particular cursor on something you want to shoot and firing is satisfying, and not frustrating and / or annoying. IMO, it needs to be simple like that to balance out all the other battle awareness you need to keep up as it is. When you aim at something you want your fire to go there.

It is one of the shining bright spots in combat.

However, with convergence thats getting very close to CoF type mechanics. I absolutely hate RNG based CoF mechanics in anything you are trying to be even slightly PvP in.

Are you telling me, that there is no other way to address alpha's besides convergence ? How about weapon stat tweaks, which are rarely done, but have so much potential ? Maybe even a new mechanic to pair with heat, called "power requirement".

Example:
- Engine produces 100 power / second.
- Weapons require "x" power to fire.
- Say AC20 requires 60 power to fire. Now 2 AC20's cannot fire at the same time.
- Same for gauss ?
- PPC's require 40 power to fire. Now you can't fire more than 2 at once.
- The dev's hash out all the weapons, where you can only generate "x" amount of alpha at once.
- If you go over the 100 power available when firing and alpha, then some weapons don't / can't fire.

The idea of a power requirement, in combination with the current heat system would give the devs a very high level of control over weapon alphas, especially in boating situations.

And the cool thing about "power" is it is supported in the lore. In the novels it is clearly present. And it's intuitive. As long as it becomes part of the known stats.

There are other things you can do too.

Edited by WarZ, 07 November 2015 - 09:41 PM.

[Troutmonkey]

Dakota1000, on 07 November 2015 - 06:34 PM, said:

I hate the idea of shots not going where I'm aiming at. Whats the point of aim anymore if shots still just randomly fly off to different directions?

Then don't fire all your weapons at once? Under most proposed CoF solutions most fire would remain accurate outside of firing massive alphas which are currently a problem. If you want to increase TTK and don't like massive alpha one hitting things, there really isn't any other good solutions.

[Davers]

SirLANsalot, on 07 November 2015 - 09:26 AM, said:

Increasing the durability of mechs goes a long way to killing off alpha.
.

Not really. It just goes a long way towards killing off small lasers.

[wolf74]

Player Control Convergence (PCC) does not have to a Fixed Point. It could be Dynamic. As for the Detail Control of it. I thought of a few control setup. For the Dynamic we can use the Mouse wheel for ease of use.
1. All weapon groups Follows Main Convergence point
2. Each Weapon Group could have it own Convergence Point setting. (For Advance Users)[I like this one the best]
3. Fix Convergence point set in the Mechlab [I dis-like this one the most]

The biggest Problem of going to a Player Control Convergence are the Lock-on Weapons AKA Streak and LRMs. The Flight Paths for LRM would have to be Change (spread out the grouping and or give them a spread the Bone for locking on for evenly over the mechs.
One of the Minor Pro's for PCC & LRM is the power to be able to fire over a Hill without a lock by setting the Convergence point pass the hill itself.


personal thought on some of the system that could Help:
Something that would ease some players use of the Manual Control is a +-5m auto-correction for Locked on Targets. Pulse Laser would get +-30m total.

Not to Leave out the Targeting Computer out they would add a Max up to +-20m but you need the correct weight of targeting computer VS weapon Weight. (Pulse Laser would not affected by targeting computer correction)
[roundup(Direct* fire weapon weight /5)=A ]
for the I.S. Target computer it would be [roundup(Direct* fire weapon weight /4)=A ]
The Targeting computer installed [TCweight / A = B%, if B% is over 100% than B=100%]
B% X 15m = Auto Correction Bonus

*Direct Fire Weapon, are not SRM's,LRM's, Pulse Lasers or LBx Cannons, Flamers, M.G.'s
The 2nd tap of Ultra AC would not get the Bonus of the Auto Correction from a TC being installed.

Edit
P.S. Also have in the Option to Disable the Auto-Correct/Assist so TC/Pulse Laser and the Basic Auto-correction for Locked-on target does nothing for those who thinks it get in the way.

Edited by wolf74, 07 November 2015 - 11:25 PM.

[adamts01]

Why people here are idiots:

All the COF supporters are pretty much saying it's a penalty for grouped weapons.

If you don't want COF, chill out, un-knot your panties, you don't have to have it! Chain fire or don't fire all your weapons at once. There you go. Yes, you'll lose your easy button, no one else will have it either. If you still want a stupid high alpha, play a dual gauss something. You'll be slow, a big target and have a crap rate of fire. That's the price you pay.

[Kjudoon]

adamts01, on 07 November 2015 - 11:52 PM, said:

Why people here are idiots:

All the COF supporters are pretty much saying it's a penalty for grouped weapons.

Well that's a blatant oversimplification of the issue.

Quote

If you don't want COF, ...you don't have to have it! Chain fire or don't fire all your weapons at once. There you go. Yes, you'll lose your easy button, no one else will have it either. If you still want a stupid high alpha, play a dual gauss something. You'll be slow, a big target and have a crap rate of fire. That's the price you pay.

I don't want my opponent who wants the easy button to have it either, even with Dual Gauss/AC20.

[adamts01]

Kjudoon, on 08 November 2015 - 12:00 AM, said:

Well that's a blatant oversimplification of the issue.

I don't want my opponent who wants the easy button to have it either, even with Dual Gauss/AC20.

Dual gauss/AC20 isn't the problem. The only mechs that can realistically run those are assaults, and they're supposed to be vicious. My laser timby has a 61 point alpha and doesn't even run that hot, that's like a quad gauss that runs 89kph and if I want to brawl I just stick to my 2LPL and 26....26....26...26....26 all day. That abomination is a problem, not the fragile, dual gauss jager that runs out of ammo if he doesn't die.

[Kjudoon]

adamts01, on 08 November 2015 - 12:12 AM, said:

Dual gauss/AC20 isn't the problem. The only mechs that can realistically run those are assaults, and they're supposed to be vicious. My laser timby has a 61 point alpha and doesn't even run that hot, that's like a quad gauss that runs 89kph and if I want to brawl I just stick to my 2LPL and 26....26....26...26....26 all day. That abomination is a problem, not the fragile, dual gauss jager that runs out of ammo if he doesn't die.

Right, that is a problem solved by COF that mirrors lore more precisely.

[Ohmlink]

The COF wouldn't have to be very large to actually make a difference. A COF the size of the circle you aim with would probably be a pretty good base line for about how big it needs to be when your firing a group of weapons. I do think a single weapon should go exactly where you aim if all circumstances are ideal (not running, high heat, ect.)

Edited by Ohmlink, 08 November 2015 - 12:25 AM.

[adamts01]

Kjudoon, on 08 November 2015 - 12:19 AM, said:

Right, that is a problem solved by COF that mirrors lore more precisely.

I dig the idea that weapons start to COF more and more with heat. I don't like movement penalties, pugs sit still enough as it is. Convergence seems fine but sounds like a programming nightmare, especially when COF grouped weapons is so easy to implement. A lessened COF for a targeted enemy is good too. But what it completely comes down to is taking my easy button timber away from me. So that's why I oversimplified it. Because it is that simple.

[Kjudoon]

adamts01, on 08 November 2015 - 12:28 AM, said:

I dig the idea that weapons start to COF more and more with heat. I don't like movement penalties, pugs sit still enough as it is. Convergence seems fine but sounds like a programming nightmare, especially when COF grouped weapons is so easy to implement. A lessened COF for a targeted enemy is good too. But what it completely comes down to is taking my easy button timber away from me. So that's why I oversimplified it. Because it is that simple.

movement is the most reasonable factor in bad aim. You can't be a sniper while running a 100m sprint let alone walking. Even modern tanks don't have perfect aim when moving, although it is better than what it was 75 years ago. The heatscale does need to become gradual and affect play. Slower speed, worse movement, aiming problems... you name it. That will slow down DPS even more and make this game much deeper. You will be picking your shots more often and better instead of spamming chainfire or alpha strikes all day long. That single high damage weapon will suddenly become of great value as 'bags of guns' will no longer be feasable as their aim decrease in consistency. I know this not what players who just want MWO to be Doom2 on godmode infinite ammo cheats constantly firing their plasma rifles without consequence and always hitting where the target reticle is. But that kind of play isn't MWO either.

[adamts01]

Kjudoon, on 08 November 2015 - 01:03 AM, said:

movement is the most reasonable factor in bad aim. You can't be a sniper while running a 100m sprint let alone walking. Even modern tanks don't have perfect aim when moving, although it is better than what it was 75 years ago. The heatscale does need to become gradual and affect play. Slower speed, worse movement, aiming problems... you name it. That will slow down DPS even more and make this game much deeper. You will be picking your shots more often and better instead of spamming chainfire or alpha strikes all day long. That single high damage weapon will suddenly become of great value as 'bags of guns' will no longer be feasable as their aim decrease in consistency. I know this not what players who just want MWO to be Doom2 on godmode infinite ammo cheats constantly firing their plasma rifles without consequence and always hitting where the target reticle is. But that kind of play isn't MWO either.

I don't give a $hit if it's realistic, it's bad for gameplay. I think it's a cool idea but the mess of idiot players we have camps enough as it is. Not to mention poor lights, slowing down to take a shot is a death sentence, this would effectively remove the small population of light pilots we have left. None of this really matters to me now. I just got back from a 1 year break and I'm taking another. F*** PGI and what they've done to this game. It's been an especially crap day with matches. Win or lose it's the same few players doing 600 damage every game just hoping your $hit pug tier 3s on your team can break 100 damage. MM is a bigger problem than all of this mess. I'll check back in another year to see if PGI has gotten their heads out of their asses.

[Kjudoon]

adamts01, on 08 November 2015 - 01:13 AM, said:

I don't give a $hit if it's realistic, it's bad for gameplay. I think it's a cool idea but the mess of idiot players we have camps enough as it is. Not to mention poor lights, slowing down to take a shot is a death sentence, this would effectively remove the small population of light pilots we have left. None of this really matters to me now. I just got back from a 1 year break and I'm taking another. F*** PGI and what they've done to this game. It's been an especially crap day with matches. Win or lose it's the same few players doing 600 damage every game just hoping your $hit pug tier 3s on your team can break 100 damage. MM is a bigger problem than all of this mess. I'll check back in another year to see if PGI has gotten their heads out of their asses.

And this attitude is why I don't like Tier 1 player's attitude most times (a few of you are decent). I'll be honest. I've had it with all the arena shooter fans that have polluted this game with their esport nonsense. It's why I've gone to World of Warships mostly because gamers like you won't go near it with a hazmat suit and a ten meter cattle prod.

I'm glad you're locked out of Tier 4 and 5 and it's why if I ever go back into the Public Queues it will be after they remove map/mode voting or eliminate/fix TDM skirmish from the rotation. That's why when I did play, I deliberately worked to keep myself at Tier 4 by either focusing on low match score victory solutions or 'junk' builds that did marginally well. I LOVE losing now when I have a good match. Why? because my PSR doesn't rise. I love winning with a low match score from time to time, and with careful effort (if I come back to play the PQs) I will maintain this lockout on the players I generally never want to associate with. Otherwise my totality of playing anymore is an occasional match with a 'pug' 12man with my unit in CW where the seal clubbers don't visit anymore and have fun playing against equally matched 12man pugs who may or may not be coordinating.

PC gamers generally don't play shooters. They play strategy games, RPGS, social games and adventure games. Those are thinking games. Ones where you have to analyze cause/effect causality risk vs. reward with high levels of immersion. Console gamers play primarily shooters, sports and action. Those are not thinking games. They're reflex twitch games that require only rote memorization and speedy reaction for repetitive game experience with little to no immersion. If that's why PGI wants, make this game for the PS4 or Xbox.

http://www.theesa.co...ESA_EF_2014.pdf

Go to Page 11 where you see the difference in audience between Video (Console) games and Computer (PC) games in 2013. The trend hasn't changed that much.

There is not one SINGLE shooter in the top 10 of sales for PC games. Not. One.

There are 3 for console games, with another 4 that are more action/rpg/shooter games in the top 10.

If you want your shooter, go back to consoles. Play Titanfall. MWO is not the place for you. Hawken's all but failed and IIRC that was a shooter released on PC, which it shouldn't have if they wanted to follow the market for the most revenue and most receptive overall audience.

If PGI is smart, they'll figure this out and move the game over for you to play this on your console, or stop screwing around wooing the wrong audience here while alienating a majority who do not play arena shooters that make up the PC gamer set.

You may not like it, but hey! There's the market research for you. Argue with them.

They are two audiences you never will get to agree. Therefore, PGI should stop trying, pick their audience and go forth to prosper and stop screwing around with the rest of those who do not want what they have to build, but BE HONEST about it!

Edit: http://www.theesa.co...-Facts-2015.pdf

2014: One PC shooter game in the top 20: Titanfall at #7 which was a flash in the pan apparently. Consoles? 5 with a few quasi shooters as well.

Edited by Kjudoon, 08 November 2015 - 02:39 AM.

[adamts01]

Kjudoon, on 08 November 2015 - 02:35 AM, said:

And this attitude is why I don't like Tier 1 player's attitude most times .

What is the problem with me you have exactly? I don't want this to be exports as much as you don't. I hate the current 1 shot meta we have. What I want is a team to pull their weight and an opponent who is equally skilled. I'm sure you want the same thing in whatever computer games you play. You don't want to play chess with a toddler. That's how these seal clubbing matches are. A lot of guys like that, I don't. I hate games where half my team let's the front line collapse and we loose because they all chased a gun-less light around trying to get the kill. There's zero point joining a unit because 12 mans are intawin until you come across a 12 of EMP or SJR. All those easy wins are pointless. As far as why I don't want to see your movement penalty, I explained, right now a big problem I see is pugs sitting still and hiding. I don't want to give them another reason not to move. That's the same reason I don't want to see r&r in this current game, it's impossible enough trying to get your team to move from behind cover and shoot. Sorry if I didn't word it nicely enough, it's been a bad day.

[MischiefSC]

Mystere, on 07 November 2015 - 08:39 PM, said:

I'm going to ask for a reference to this, as it has gotten me pretty much excited.

Fair question; tribal knowledge from somewhere? It's been a while, it was a long time ago. Recently you posted links to what he said about it being something to discuss on the town hall.

[Spleenslitta]

I haven't read all the comments but i do know a few things about removing torso weapon convergence.

Yes. It will favor mechs like the Hunchback 4P that has 6 energy hardpoints in it's hunch.
But what if local heat got hotter than it is today?
Repeatedly firing 6 ML's from the same bodysection makes that bodysection incredibly hot and it damages the internal structure/components.
That means the 4P gets good convergence but it can't fire those lasers in the hunch as often as a mech with spread energy hardpoints.

Removing convergence gives more character to our mechs. Right now once we're at a range where all our weapons converge perfectly it doesn't matter whether our hardpoints are tightly packed or not.

As for convergence getting shaken up when we move...i wouldn't mind as long as it ain't as bad as when we use our JJ's.
It's worth a try on the PTS. It's worth checking out at least.

[Kjudoon]

Then perhaps you shouldn't try to shame anyone in a tier lower than you in this or any other thread I just read with you in it.

You stated you don't want fixes. You don't want smart, cautious gameplay. Fine, this shouldn't be the game for you then. If you don't want to play with anyone who doesn't play to the tier 1 standard, maybe you can ask PGI to lock the tiers so you never face anyone else not a Tier 1.

Edited by Kjudoon, 08 November 2015 - 02:59 AM.

[Kjudoon]

I'm game to try fixed convergence. I don't know how it could be worse than this current situation. I know it possibly could be, but I'm willing to risk trying it. The only current danger I see is that you will see 1 note charlie type of mechs that all carry weapons with the same convergence range, and THEN it's a real battle on positioning and take some smarts in maneouvering for getting that sweet spot. Honestly though, this could be good.