91 replies to this topic

[Widowmaker1981]

Bobzilla, on 08 February 2016 - 05:42 AM, said:

I'd have to really disagree with you. The skill set for this game isn't solely point and click twitch (tho is seems like it with perfect convergence). Changing perfect convergence would just put more weight on all the other skills involved like twisting, positioning and map awareness.

I don't think anyone thinks that aim=skill only, if this was the case, adding a CoF wouldn't make a lick of difference anyways as poor aim is still going to lose to good aim, even if both are stationary.

I didnt say it was the ONLY skill. I said it was *a* skill. Removing *a* skill from the game is not removing *all* skill from the game.

Lets take two fictional players, Steve and Bob. They are have identical skills, except that Bob has a problem with relative motion for some reason and he finds it really hard to track a target while he is moving. When Bob fires, he stops first because hes found thats the best way to get his damage on target. It makes him an easy target though, so he often dies quite fast. Steve on the other hand has mastered this skill, so he tends to last longer in matches than Bob, and does more damage. Steve is a better player than Bob purely for this one reason.
Now though, a CoF mechanic is introduced that makes precise aiming impossible while moving. Now, Steve has to stop moving if he wants to get his damage on target, just like Bob already had to. Now Steve and Bob are equal players. Steve used to be better than Bob. Steve didn't get worse, and Bob didn't get better.

Edited by Widowmaker1981, 08 February 2016 - 06:05 AM.

[Troutmonkey]

Widowmaker1981, on 08 February 2016 - 06:01 AM, said:

I didnt say it was the ONLY skill. I said it was *a* skill.

Lets take two fictional players, Steve and Bob. They are have identical skills, except that Bob has a problem with relative motion for some reason and he finds it really hard to track a target while he is moving. When Bob fires, he stops first because hes found thats the best way to get his damage on target. It makes him an easy target though, so he often dies quite fast. Steve on the other hand has mastered this skill, so he tends to last longer in matches than Bob, and does more damage. Steve is a better player than Bob purely for this one reason.
Now though, a CoF mechanic is introduced that makes precise aiming impossible while moving. Now, Steve has to stop moving if he wants to get his damage on target, just like Bob already had to. Now Steve and Bob are equal players. Steve used to be better than Bob. Steve didn't get worse, and Bob didn't get better.

Which is why I'm against CoF for movement. I only want it to be brought in to tackle the issue of high alphas.
Shoot every at once: Inaccurate
Pace your shots: Accurate
No other metric should affect the CoF. Moving and shooting isn't a problem that needs solving, and neither is firing while hot as it's punished in it's own way.

[GreyNovember]

First off, props for actually doing something illustrative and not armchair designer-ing your way to make a point.

Second, any chance I could get source code? Sheer curiousity, I'd like to see how you did manual convergence.

[Widowmaker1981]

Troutmonkey, on 08 February 2016 - 06:06 AM, said:

Which is why I'm against CoF for movement. I only want it to be brought in to tackle the issue of high alphas.
Shoot every at once: Inaccurate
Pace your shots: Accurate
No other metric should affect the CoF. Moving and shooting isn't a problem that needs solving, and neither is firing while hot as it's punished in it's own way.

Hmm, ok, but then there are other unintended consequences. For large mechs, they would move to a system of using few large weapons rather than massed small ones, to get around this issue. Other mechs however don't have that option (lights, some tonnage starved Clan Omnis), literally their only valid use is to mass smaller weapons because that is the only thing they can do with their tonnage - so a CoF that blooms more the more weapons you fire nerfs those mechs disproportionately

You cannot force mechs to chainfire lasers. Chainfired lasers are so terribad that forcing them to chainfire just forces them out of use instead. Its literally not possible.

Edited by Widowmaker1981, 08 February 2016 - 06:20 AM.

[Troutmonkey]

Widowmaker1981, on 08 February 2016 - 06:18 AM, said:

Hmm, ok, but then there are other unintended consequences. For large mechs, they would move to a system of using few large weapons rather than massed small ones, to get around this issue. Other mechs however don't have that option (lights, some tonnage starved Clan Omnis), literally their only valid use is to mass smaller weapons because that is the only thing they can do with their tonnage - so a CoF that blooms more the more weapons you fire nerfs those mechs disproportionately

You cannot force mechs to chainfire lasers. Chainfired lasers are so terribad that forcing them to chainfire just forces them out of use instead. Its literally not possible.

It's not the literal count of weapons, but the total value of fire being put down range. Basically each weapon will effect the CoF a different amount, the larger the weapon the larger the effect. Shooting 4LLs will have a much bigger impact on your CoF than say shooting 5MLs. It's better than Ghost Heat because you can't avoid it with different weapon combinations or weapon types. The only way around it is to stagger your fire, and by stagger I don't mean shoot them one at a time, I mean just don't try and fire all 6LLs from your Stalker 4N if you want to hit the one spot. Instead, try in groups of 2. Now there's nothing stopping people from still firing all their weapons if they want, they'll still do a lot of damage, just not all to one component

Edited by Troutmonkey, 08 February 2016 - 06:27 AM.

[Widowmaker1981]

Troutmonkey, on 08 February 2016 - 06:24 AM, said:

It's not the literal count of weapons, but the total value of fire being put down range. Basically each weapon will effect the CoF a different amount, the larger the weapon the larger the effect. Shooting 4LLs will have a much bigger impact on your CoF than say shooting 5MLs. It's better than Ghost Heat because you can't avoid it with different weapon combinations or weapon types. The only way around it is to stagger your fire, and by stagger I don't mean shoot them one at a time, I mean just don't try and fire all 6LLs from your Stalker 4N if you want to hit the one spot. Instead, try in groups of 2. Now there's nothing stopping people from still firing all their weapons if they want, they'll still do a lot of damage, just not all to one component

So just ghost heat then, but the 'power draw' version and with CoF instead of Heat?

Fine, but what difference does it make at that point? Might as well just change ghost heat to power draw system and leave it at that.

[Kodyn]

Am I wrong in that nearly every person who has such a hard time with pinpoint alphas just hates how fast mechs, or parts of mechs, die?

It seems like all this could be solved by just a blanket lowering of damage of all weapons. Then there would be no huge alphas. Then most mechs could survive a big alpha, a poorly-timed peek around a corner, etc.

I think we'd find then that most people complaining about this were just making poor decisions in game, and that they weren't even dying to one alpha, but focused fire from several on the enemy team, and that's something that will always kill.

Point is, players will always find the best way to kill their opponent, and players that make mistakes and die often or early will always find a way to do so. Players with better aim will always have better aim. Focused fire will always be better than every mech shooting at a different mech, cone of fire, no cone of fire, whatever you decide to do to it.

Iff everyone just wants higher TTK, then increase mech health or lower all damage, it's very simple...we don't need all these over-complicated solutions.

[Aeon Veritas]

Wow, nice work Troutmonkey.

IMHO we should have both implemented, convergence and cone of fire!
But actually for different weapon systems.

Convergence for the lasers, standard convergence point for each laser is at optimal range if no target is locked.
This greatly desynchronize different lasers without target lock.
As soon as target lock is acquired the convergence point shifts to the actual distance to the locked target (regardles if you actually shoot on that tagret or at the mech next to it).

Cone of fire should be implemented for projectile weapons including the PPC.
Sure, the CoF should not be too big, something that you definitely hit a fully exposed average target at optimal range of the weapon if you aim at the center.
I'm not sure on the actual needed values, but it sould be displayed in the Mechlab as x meter at 100m (x is the diameter of the hitzone).
CoF could also be used as a ballancing factor, UAC's have a higher RoF, so they get a higher CoF, too.

[Wolfways]

Troutmonkey, on 08 February 2016 - 05:32 AM, said:

Did you see the video's or try the demo? With fixed convergence you're shots with fly off wildly to the side if your convergence distance is closer than the target. As for manual convergence just download the game files and see how quickly you can move around while setting the convergence point and still hit stuff.

Yeah I watched the video's.
Manual convergence sounds like a bit too much micromanagement for use during a match.

Imo the best thing would just be to lower the heat cap and increase dissipation.

Edited by Wolfways, 08 February 2016 - 07:44 AM.

[Widowmaker1981]

after thinking about it a bit (and playing my 4xAC5 2xPPC Mauler) i think the best convergence solution would be for all weapons to converge at the range of whatever you have targeted currently, or if you have no target converge at the individual weapons maximum (not optimal) range. That would actually be a slight buff / sidegrade to projectile weapons because it would become possible to converge weapons on a laterally moving target, which you can currently only do if you are significantly above it, and would be a slight nerf to snap shooting laser fire (they would all still hit the target at optimal range with no target, but over at least 2 hitboxes), hopefully bringing the weapons a bit further into line with each other. ECM would probably need to be nerfed too. (imo so it provides dorito delay rather than denial)

Edited by Widowmaker1981, 08 February 2016 - 09:45 AM.

[Mystere]

TexAce, on 08 February 2016 - 02:12 AM, said:

They just have to remove INSTANT convergence, thats all. It just has to take a tiny bit of time, like it did back in CB, you was not able to shoot all your weapons at a moving target while you also moved, convergence was just not on par with that. We just need to go back ot that.

I'd want delayed convergence too. But, the problem is that PGI has already said they can't bring it back without messing with HSR. As such, many of the alternatives proposed are fully or partly static:

• zero convergence
  
• fixed convergence, but possibly adjustable by player
  
• convergence on lock

Edited by Mystere, 08 February 2016 - 09:48 AM.

[Mystere]

Troutmonkey, on 08 February 2016 - 01:42 AM, said:

Delayed Convergence (dodgyly done)

We can't have it because ... PGI.

Troutmonkey, on 08 February 2016 - 01:42 AM, said:

Cone of fire (not how I envision the final build for Bill's TCL, just for demo)

Use a normal/gaussian distribution, not an equal distribution.

Now try my method:

• convergence on lock
  
• fixed convergence without lock

Edited by Mystere, 08 February 2016 - 09:54 AM.

[Mystere]

TexAce, on 08 February 2016 - 02:45 AM, said:

We can, if they finally get their **** together, put a coder in a room and let him work for a month.

We have CoF already on MGs, what would be the problem to enable just that for the beginning. it would even make sense, you could explain it with Target Computers overloading, you could reduce the CoF with equipping Command Consoles and better TCs, by locking your target, by equipping modules, by pilot skills aimed for CoF reduction.

Hell, its so simple, it would reduce pinpointing, it would tremendously help to balance this game, it would make mechs more distinct, some mechs with arm weapons could be more worth than now.

ITS SO ******* SIMPLE PGI!!!

Because to many people, cone of fire -- or in other words, random numbers -- are the Devil Incarnate Himself and interferes with their leet skills.

[Mystere]

Troutmonkey, on 08 February 2016 - 03:19 AM, said:

Try the demo. I think you might change your mind. Fixed convergence is actually worse than no convergence because if you set your convergence point to short your shots will always miss. I made this demo to visually demonstrate just how bad no convergence and fixed convergence are.

I will have to disagree on the highlighted portion. The trick with fixed convergence is to not to go short and be cognizant of your weapons' relative position to the center of the reticule. By doing so, you don't even need a dot/marker per weapon. And remember, there is nothing in a fixed convergence system that prevents it from allowing a convergence distance of infinity.

Having said that, I still prefer having convergence on target lock simply because that makes acquiring locks much more meaningful.

[pbiggz]

Well done OP. At the very least, this post proves to the bitter vets and arm chair game designers that weapon convergence may be a more complicated issue than they thought, requiring...

MATH

*gasps*

[Malcolm Vordermark]

Of the displayed methods, perfect convergence is actually the one I like best.

I would be OK with a much faster version of your delayed convergence. To my understanding it does not play nice with HSR, though.

I would rather have HSR than delayed convergence, and I would rather have perfect convergence over the other demonstrated methods.

[Mystere]

Wolfways, on 08 February 2016 - 07:40 AM, said:

Manual convergence sounds like a bit too much micromanagement for use during a match.

That's what mouse scroll wheels, HOTAS analog inputs, and a pair of keys are for.

Alternatively, choose your weapons and convergence distance wisely to suit your intended playstyle for the Mech you're setting up.

pbiggz, on 08 February 2016 - 10:11 AM, said:

Well done OP. At the very least, this post proves to the bitter vets and arm chair game designers that weapon convergence may be a more complicated issue than they thought, requiring...

MATH

*gasps*

I love math!

[Oni74]

I think convergence should be a arm-mounted weapon-only benefit/cost balance.

• As an arm mounted weapon, it is at greater risk of being destroyed, but benefit of being mechanically adjusted by computer for weapons fire convergence.
  
• Torso mounted weapons, however, are safer from destruction but should not benefit from convergence since they aren't any mechanisms to adjust the weapon barrel for convergence.

With this type of cost-benefit setup, mech specialization and variety goes up and caters to different types of players - risk averse vs. risk takers.

Combined with weapon hardpoint sizing (another wishful change for MWO), we'd have significantly greater variety of mechs and customization of the MWO experience.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Mystere, on 08 February 2016 - 09:53 AM, said:

We can't have it because ... PGI.

I wouldn't say it is because PGI don't have good enough coders (I mean that is part of it), but more because HSR is already computation/resource heavy, I believe which is why most other games use predictive logic instead of HSR-esque systems.

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 08 February 2016 - 11:41 AM.

[DeathWaffle]

Great video, I too feel the need to communicate things where words simply aren't enough, but I can't make a video like you so I decided to draw something on my other topic with online ms paint, to no avail
(MG tracers not hitting target is not esthetically satisfying)


To stay on-topic without getting too side-tracked, I would vote for all of the above, and laser fixed convergence, where you aim at a distance, and with the press of a button it coverges and sticks to it until further command.