91 replies to this topic

[Troutmonkey]

So, because I'm sick of trying to debate with words, I decided to create a Unity project to show everyone exactly how zero converge and manual convergence would work. In short, you'd almost never hit where you are aiming and it feels really bad.

My stance on the issue is that a CoF system should be brought in to tackle high alpha strikes. For a comprehensive read refer to Homeless Bill’s Comprehensive Balance Solution to Alphas, Boats, Convergence, and Clans


Key in mind I spent less than an hour making this, and have no artistic skill whatsoever.

Red Cursor: Miss
Green Cursor: Hit


Delayed Convergence (now working perfectly)


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

Spoiler

And if you want to download the scene and play for yourself (Windows only)
https://dl.dropboxus...ergenceTest.rar
Controls:
Enter - Toggle Convergence modes
Scroll wheel - Change convergence distance (only for fixed convergence mode).

Edited by Troutmonkey, 11 February 2016 - 05:12 PM.

[TexAce]

Thats really cool!

Could you make one, where it auto converges but where it takes time (like .5 seconds for example from one extreme to the other)?
Because I think thats what most want.

Or where the COF increases the more weapons you shoot at the same time? (Targeting Computer Overload)

Edited by TexAce, 08 February 2016 - 01:52 AM.

[Aresye]

Nice work!

Don't hammer yourself on your artistic skills though I see lasers, and I see a mech. Objective complete!

[Lord Perversor]

Op that's pretty much what most of ppl advocate, start with no convergence (using weapons should feel like a barrage from a warship) but when you lock a target, your computer starts to calculate the convergence on that target automatically.

This way having a lock on targets becomes mandatory for most pinpoint damage, brawling with several mechs at close up and moving in and out of cover, means some shoots will miss due the constant change in range/obstructions for the computer convergence, and something as simple as peeakaboo will be greatly diminished as most of your shoots will not be placed straight into your target reticle, at least without a lock.

[Hit the Deck]

First I'd like to say, nice work!

I'd also like to say that there's a problem of drawing the crosshairs for each weapon on the "no convergence". Their positions from the center must obviously be adjusted according to the distance of the object you are aiming at and I'm not sure that this would look or feel good.

[TexAce]

Lord Perversor, on 08 February 2016 - 02:08 AM, said:

Op that's pretty much what most of ppl advocate, start with no convergence (using weapons should feel like a barrage from a warship) but when you lock a target, your computer starts to calculate the convergence on that target automatically.

This way having a lock on targets becomes mandatory for most pinpoint damage, brawling with several mechs at close up and moving in and out of cover, means some shoots will miss due the constant change in range/obstructions for the computer convergence, and something as simple as peeakaboo will be greatly diminished as most of your shoots will not be placed straight into your target reticle, at least without a lock.

Thats way too harsh for most people, seriously.

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 would not be against mixing this up with bigger COFs when alphaing to reduce pinpointing even further.
But your proposal is way to complicated and un-intuitive. It would drive most people mad and make them leave this game.

Edited by TexAce, 08 February 2016 - 02:13 AM.

[LordNothing]

i made my own infographic for that other tread but meh.

my idea was fixed or no convergence on torso weapons only (using one of the 3 modes i defined), arms would still have normal convergence. no actuator no automatic convergence.

if you wanted precision you would use mechs with a lot of arm hardpoints, if you wanted durability, you have to give up some precision. or you might pick something inbetween.

Edited by LordNothing, 08 February 2016 - 02:17 AM.

[Lord Perversor]

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

Thats way too harsh for most people, seriously.

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 would not be against mixing this up with bigger COFs when alphaing to reduce pinpointing even further.
But your proposal is way to complicated and un-intuitive. It would drive most people mad and make them leave this game.

I know i was just pointing the Op what some people advocate about convergence (a pretty broad explanation) not stating what must be changed.

I played in closed beta, and while sometimes annoying, specially when dealing with lights and their constant circling (thus forcing constant convergence changes) it wasn't that much of an issue and was quite playable.

P.S: now i just remember the no armed LRM's bouncing on cockpit at short range...

[MrMadguy]

We don't need completely invulnerable Lights, sorry.

But I would want some convergence improvements - we should make convergence smarter. For example, if you don't aim at some 'Mech - target computer should converge your weapons at your current locked target distance. That's will allow us to keep convergence, when we are leading targets and make Lights less invulnerable and cheating. Light piloting shouldn't be braindead task - Light pilots should think twice, before openly attacking entire enemy team.

Edited by MrMadguy, 08 February 2016 - 02:21 AM.

[TexAce]

LordNothing, on 08 February 2016 - 02:13 AM, said:

i made my own infographic for that other tread but meh.

my idea was fixed or no convergence on torso weapons only (using one of the 3 modes i defined), arms would still have normal convergence. no actuator no automatic convergence.

if you wanted precision you would use mechs with a lot of arm hardpoints, if you wanted durability, you have to give up some precision. or you might pick something inbetween.

What does not having any convergence in torso weapons have to do with durability?

MrMadguy, on 08 February 2016 - 02:18 AM, said:

We don't need completely invulnerable Lights, sorry.

But I would want some convergence improvements - we should make convergence smarter. For example, if you don't aim at some 'Mech - target computer should converge your weapons at your current locked target distance. That's will allow us to keep convergence, when we are leading targets and make Lights lesser invulnerable and cheating.

Its not cheating when they are just faster than you. Its called gameplay.
Its also called leading your target when you want to shoot someone who is faster than you. Thats what you got your arm weapons for.

Edited by TexAce, 08 February 2016 - 02:22 AM.

[LordNothing]

TexAce, on 08 February 2016 - 02:20 AM, said:

What does not having any convergence in torso weapons have to do with durability?

torsos are tougher than arms. if you use torso weapons those guns are behind armor and will last longer.

[Troutmonkey]

TexAce, on 08 February 2016 - 01:51 AM, said:

Thats really cool!

Could you make one, where it auto converges but where it takes time (like .5 seconds for example from one extreme to the other)?
Because I think thats what most want.

Or where the COF increases the more weapons you shoot at the same time? (Targeting Computer Overload)

I added cone of fire to the download, video should be coming shortly.
Delayed convergence is proving less than trivial to code.

Hit the Deck, on 08 February 2016 - 02:09 AM, said:

First I'd like to say, nice work!

I'd also like to say that there's a problem of drawing the crosshairs for each weapon on the "no convergence". Their positions from the center must obviously be adjusted according to the distance of the object you are aiming at and I'm not sure that this would look or feel good.

The crosshairs show you where on the screen those weapons hit. Its a straight worldToScreen coord transfromation. Weapon spacing up close appears larger because that's how perspective works. The distance between the weapons remains constant. Sometimes it hits behind what you're looking which would be very confusing for players which is why I'm against it.

[MrMadguy]

TexAce, on 08 February 2016 - 02:20 AM, said:

Its not cheating when they are just faster than you. Its called gameplay.
Its also called leading your target when you want to shoot someone who is faster than you. Thats what you got your arm weapons for.

You lose your convergence, when you lead target. This mechanic isn't intuitive for most players and that's the biggest reason for invulnerability of Lights. Most players assume, that if when they shot two weapons, crosshair shows hit - then both weapons hit, which isn't the case. Allow both of my two Gausses hit the right spot when leading Light - and he won't be so invulnerable.

Edited by MrMadguy, 08 February 2016 - 02:39 AM.

[Greyhart]

Great example OP.

What I think everyone is wanting:
1. spread of damage rather than pin point (or at least a need to properly line up shots).
2. The need to use info warfare and target enemies. Can someone make a tutorial on pressing R please

I have to say I think that the solution is something like a cone of fire. probably the size of the arm target circle. If you're running hot the aim gets worse. If you are shooting the mech that you have locked on too then smaller

[Widowmaker1981]

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

Thats way too harsh for most people, seriously.

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 would not be against mixing this up with bigger COFs when alphaing to reduce pinpointing even further.
But your proposal is way to complicated and un-intuitive. It would drive most people mad and make them leave this game.

We can't

HSR does not play well with delayed convergence, PGI have explained this before - its too much for the server to keep track of ~5s of historical convergence data for every mech at all times apparently, and it makes the game fall over. From what PGI says we simply cannot have delayed convergence with HSR, and we cannot get rid of HSR, since lag shooting is utter balls and client auth hit detection is the worst idea that has ever been had by anyone ever.

[TexAce]

Widowmaker1981, on 08 February 2016 - 02:40 AM, said:

We can't

HSR does not play well with delayed convergence, PGI have explained this before - its too much for the server to keep track of ~5s of historical convergence data for every mech at all times apparently, and it makes the game fall over. From what PGI says we simply cannot have delayed convergence with HSR, and we cannot get rid of HSR, since lag shooting is utter balls and client auth hit detection is the worst idea that has ever been had by anyone ever.

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!!!

Edited by TexAce, 08 February 2016 - 02:56 AM.

[MrMadguy]

Widowmaker1981, on 08 February 2016 - 02:40 AM, said:

We can't

HSR does not play well with delayed convergence, PGI have explained this before - its too much for the server to keep track of ~5s of historical convergence data for every mech at all times apparently, and it makes the game fall over. From what PGI says we simply cannot have delayed convergence with HSR, and we cannot get rid of HSR, since lag shooting is utter balls and client auth hit detection is the worst idea that has ever been had by anyone ever.

I'm against convergence removal, but I don't see problem here. As convergence is function of 'Mech positions you have to track 'Mech positions only - convergence may be calculated form position, when needed.

[Troutmonkey]

Added delayed convergence video to original post. Updated download to include new build of the test scene.

[Widowmaker1981]

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!!!

Didn't say we can't have a CoF. I said we can't have delayed convergence.

Id personally have no problem with a bloom CoF that bloomed when moving fast/too hot, and i assume it would be possible, but make no mistake that it removes skill from the game. It takes a good player to hold weapons on a moving target while moving, worse players need to stop to get good aim. A bloom CoF like that brings the good player down to the level of the worse player, since it forces him to stop moving in order to hit, where the worse player had to do that already.

Edited by Widowmaker1981, 08 February 2016 - 03:02 AM.

[MeiSooHaityu]

IMO delayed convergence would be the most ideal if the game we have could handle it.

If we had to get a rid of what we have now (immediate pinpoint) and delayed convergence wasn't an option, then manual set fixed convergence would be my other choice (convergence manually set per weapon group). No convergence really never made much sense to me and still doesn't.

Still, I think ultimately anything beyond delayed convergence would be too radical of a departure from what people are now used to in the game and it might not be very well accepted. It might even confuse some newer players to make such a radical change. If delayed convergence can't happen (most ideal), then I think we are stuck with instant pinpoint for the duration of MWO. Maybe if a sequel ever launches (be it a single player sequel or an MWO:2), then maybe variable convergence will be a thing.