162 replies to this topic

[jss78]

cazidin, on 08 February 2016 - 04:01 PM, said:

So, you might say "just make it so that weapons only converge when you have a lock!" to that I have but two simple words. GHOST RANGE. Never forget.

But "ghost range" is nothing like lock-dependent convergence. Ghost range equalled lasers magically losing power into thin air without target lock. Lock-dependent convergence by comparison makes perfect sense: how could your weapons possibly converge at a specific distance without a target lock?

I agree a proper heat scale is also needed.

Edit: Also, it's a pity the entire info war thing was shelved just because there was one bad idea (ghost range) in it.

Edited by jss78, 08 February 2016 - 05:01 PM.

[Mister Blastman]

cazidin, on 08 February 2016 - 04:58 PM, said:

As I originally stated. They behave differently, but the result wouldn't be much different. Players would likely see how it actually works and complain until PGI reverses their decision. This would effect Ballistics AND Missile loadouts aswell.

Mister Blastman, that is a beautiful drawing of a majestic mech.

You give missiles splash damage to compensate. They would be the only weapon with splash. It would have a specialized purpose--to melt multiple panels in a single section to soften targets.

We have the computational power to handle multiple subsections. It is an obvious choice to go to if convergence has to stay in to keep the game in line with the spirit of Battletech.

[wanderer]

Quote

Well, Tabletop mechs are durable until you hit them with a bank of Gauss, AC/20, PPC, and/or LPL. Then they die pretty quickly.

Or they don't. Case in point, MechForce Mid-Atlantic Championship finals.

Ended up winning the tournament in a Hunchback-P that had literally been so savaged by two Axmen that I had the MWO equivalent of a cherry red leg, cherry red CT, and a dinged head. Nothing else remained, but if so much as one laser had hit differently, I'd have either been double-legged or cored. In MWO, that much damage would have killed me, given any reasonable aim. Period.

As it turned out, Axman #2 ended up with me having more focused damage and I ended up small-lasering his side torso out for an XL engine kill. The final turn they ended up charging me with a third Axman + King Crab (like I was going anywhere on one leg, LOL!) and emptying so much firepower into my toothpick that it'd have probably crippled me even at full armor.

No head hit, though. The head hit the ground as there wasn't a single hit location left otherwise that wasn't at 0, though I missed with the last SL shot.

Every time anyone talks about topics like this, I just look at the champion plaque I've got up on the shelf and laugh when they say damage spread ruins the game. Without it, a Battlemech is nowhere near as tough to kill as it should be.

[cazidin]

Didn't we have missile splash before? I've heard horror stories but I honestly wasn't around then. I think the problem was that the levels of splash damage was too high!

[1453 R]

.................................*Sigh*

Unfortunately Caz, you're never going to convince this community that being able to hit what you shoot at is a good idea. They will kvetch and kibitz and gnaw and rouse rabble until every single shot you fire deviates up to thirty degrees off-bore, randomly and without any ability to mitigate or compensate whatsoever, for no earthly reason.

Because being able to hit what you shoot at just isn't BattleTech™ enough.

I'm so done with f***mothering convergence threads. Fine. Remove convergence. Give us 60-degree cones of fire. Set up the fixed torso convergence where your gunsjust literally ignore the crosshair altogether. Do the whole drastic-heat-penalties thing where you start having to randomly roll for ammo explosions at 5 heat, even though everyone with anything resembling a working brain knows that's nothing remotely like how TT actually operated.

Do every single awful, moronic idea every jackalope in this forum has been bashing people over again and again and again and again and again and again and again. Do them. All at once. Every single one of them. Throw them out there. I'll take myself elsewhere and play other stuff until such time as stupid players in this stupid forum realize that being able to hit what you shoot at is, in fact, Really Important(C) and that no amount of BattleTech™ TT nostalgia is going to make unpredictable, uncontrollable, utterly random dice-based shot placement tolerable for any length of time whatsoever in a game where your most fundamental interaction with your fellow players is aiming and shooting.

[wanderer]

I love how people equate not being able to draw perfect lines of fire with "OMG RANDOM SHOT HIT THEM IN THE LEFT LEG WHEN I SHOTS THEM IN THE HEAD!"

Because, y'know, nobody here is suggesting that. Or heat penalties that basically guaranteed random Mechsplosions under 100% heat level, never mind 20% or something.

But seriously, being able to pixel-perfect shots at ranges where the crosshairs are covering a bigger space than the target takes up and you can't even reach them with your 'Mech sensors?

That's messed up. That's perfect all-the-time-every-time convergence.

[1453 R]

wanderer, on 08 February 2016 - 05:29 PM, said:

I love how people equate not being able to draw perfect lines of fire with "OMG RANDOM SHOT HIT THEM IN THE LEFT LEG WHEN I SHOTS THEM IN THE HEAD!"

Because, y'know, nobody here is suggesting that. Or heat penalties that basically guaranteed random Mechsplosions under 100% heat level, never mind 20% or something.

But seriously, being able to pixel-perfect shots at ranges where the crosshairs are covering a bigger space than the target takes up and you can't even reach them with your 'Mech sensors?

That's messed up. That's perfect all-the-time-every-time convergence.

_______________________________________________________________________________________

How do you like that Jenner's odds of getting tagged, Wanderer? They look awfully bad to me - and that Jenner is standing stock still doing absolutely nothing in the middle of an open field. And this is supposedly the least intrusive CoF/KILL CONVERGENCE DEAD 4EVER!!1! idea out there in recent days.

[Mister Blastman]

1453 R, on 08 February 2016 - 05:36 PM, said:

_______________________________________________________________________________________

How do you like that Jenner's odds of getting tagged, Wanderer? They look awfully bad to me - and that Jenner is standing stock still doing absolutely nothing in the middle of an open field. And this is supposedly the least intrusive CoF/KILL CONVERGENCE DEAD 4EVER!!1! idea out there in recent days.

Cone of fire is dumb.

Increasing armor panels is not. It is not only a good idea, it is realistic and ups the skill curve.

[Aresye]

wanderer, on 08 February 2016 - 05:08 PM, said:

Every time anyone talks about topics like this, I just look at the champion plaque I've got up on the shelf and laugh when they say damage spread ruins the game. Without it, a Battlemech is nowhere near as tough to kill as it should be.

I don't see many good players struggling to survive in the current environment, and they make the same mistakes as every other player from time to time...like poking out against a full firing line. The only difference between them and your average MWO player, is the average MWO player disintegrates in a split second, while the good player walks away missing a shield arm and a couple orange torsos.

Barring some very specific cases with HSR and/or hitbox issues, the majority of TTK problems in this game are due to pilot error.

Edited by Aresye, 08 February 2016 - 05:53 PM.

[Mcgral18]

cazidin, on 08 February 2016 - 05:08 PM, said:

Didn't we have missile splash before? I've heard horror stories but I honestly wasn't around then. I think the problem was that the levels of splash damage was too high!

Splash was broken, the fact that each missile had a radius, and every hitbox inside that radius took FULL damage of the initial missile.

As such, LRMs legged Lights like nothing else, and a SINGLE SRM6 could deal 90 damage against small mechs.

[DiabetesOverlord Wilford Brimley]

We need an engine upgrade, collisions, single player (added revenue stream), and knockdowns before we even look at convergence so 2020?

Edited by DiabetesOverlord Wilford Brimley, 08 February 2016 - 05:58 PM.

[CMDR Sunset Shimmer]

SuomiWarder, on 08 February 2016 - 04:18 PM, said:

I still don't understand the argument that lining up weapons that fit the exact pixel under the reticle under all conditions is "skill" and having to mentally juggle several variables like your speed, location, time of exposure and weapon layout to get the best chance of a hit is "random dice rolling".

Because to the people arguing against the second point, they cannot juggle all those variables.

Remember, PGI added the 3rd person view camera because "new players don't understand how their legs work relative to their torso!"

At the end of the day, people want the easy, pixel perfect aiming, because it's easy. Anyone can throw on 4-5 ERLL's and focus the attacks to a center point... people also don't want to wait for convergence, they want it fast, they want the speed. They don't WANT to slow down, and think, and be forced to hold a target for a little less than a second in order to put the damage out.

[Mister Blastman]

CMDR Sunset Shimmer, on 08 February 2016 - 05:59 PM, said:

Because to the people arguing against the second point, they cannot juggle all those variables.

Remember, PGI added the 3rd person view camera because "new players don't understand how their legs work relative to their torso!"

At the end of the day, people want the easy, pixel perfect aiming, because it's easy. Anyone can throw on 4-5 ERLL's and focus the attacks to a center point... people also don't want to wait for convergence, they want it fast, they want the speed. They don't WANT to slow down, and think, and be forced to hold a target for a little less than a second in order to put the damage out.

Most of the outcry against removing convergence or adding hitboxes is from folks who want "easy mode."

Heaven forbid this game grows deeper and even more skillful...

[ilikerice]

Everyone complains about convergence.

What you really mean to complain about is convergence with LASERS.

if your opponent is playing correctly you have to lead with srms and ballistics, WHICH MEAN, you are converging on a piece of terrain not the actual mech, (unless they are face tanking in which case that's their own fault)

Complain about convergence => get rid of/change convergence => makes srms and ballistics harder to use => MORE people use lasers => look back and realize your attempts to stop laser vomit through convergence leads to more laser vomit.

Why do we do this guys?

[CMDR Sunset Shimmer]

Mister Blastman, on 08 February 2016 - 06:02 PM, said:

Most of the outcry against removing convergence or adding hitboxes is from folks who want "easy mode."

Heaven forbid this game grows deeper and even more skillful...

What in blue blazes are you on about Blastman?

[Hawk_eye]

ilikerice, on 08 February 2016 - 06:10 PM, said:

Everyone complains about convergence.

What you really mean to complain about is convergence with LASERS.

if your opponent is playing correctly you have to lead with srms and ballistics, WHICH MEAN, you are converging on a piece of terrain not the actual mech, (unless they are face tanking in which case that's their own fault)

Complain about convergence => get rid of/change convergence => makes srms and ballistics harder to use => MORE people use lasers => look back and realize your attempts to stop laser vomit through convergence leads to more laser vomit.

Why do we do this guys?

Hm, wouldn´t lock-on-conversion lead to your AC/Gauss/SRMs converging at the range your target is instead of the terrain that´s 200 m behind it?
Wouldn´t this be a _benefit_ for those weapons?

[Aresye]

CMDR Sunset Shimmer, on 08 February 2016 - 06:15 PM, said:

What in blue blazes are you on about Blastman?

He wants to add in some convoluted mechanic that will end up making the game more complicated for everybody, likely thinking he (and other like-minded players) will instantly become the new top pilots, while overlooking the fact that by widening the skill-gap between good and bad players, it's just going to end up making the current top pilots and teams that much more impossible to beat.

I personally think we should go for it. I can't tell you how much I secretly look forward to that future forum rage.

[Mister Blastman]

Aresye, on 08 February 2016 - 06:26 PM, said:

He wants to add in some convoluted mechanic that will end up making the game more complicated for everybody, likely thinking he (and other like-minded players) will instantly become the new top pilots, while overlooking the fact that by widening the skill-gap between good and bad players, it's just going to end up making the current top pilots and teams that much more impossible to beat.

I personally think we should go for it. I can't tell you how much I secretly look forward to that future forum rage.

Extra armor boxes is not convoluted. It is explained in a damn picture.

Removing convergence isn't convoluted.

and it is simple...

Pick one... or the other...

Remove convergence...

or

Increase armor boxes

By the way, I do just fine with the current system. I would enjoy super tough robots, more.


The only people here making it convoluted are those who don't want a new challenge.

[oldradagast]

1453 R, on 08 February 2016 - 05:15 PM, said:

Because being able to hit what you shoot at just isn't BattleTech™ enough.

I'm so done with f***mothering convergence threads. Fine. Remove convergence. Give us 60-degree cones of fire. Set up the fixed torso convergence where your gunsjust literally ignore the crosshair altogether. Do the whole drastic-heat-penalties thing where you start having to randomly roll for ammo explosions at 5 heat, even though everyone with anything resembling a working brain knows that's nothing remotely like how TT actually operated.

Lol, you quote tabletop, a game system that relied upon semi-random hit-locations to actually work, while defending the idiocy of perfect instant convergence. I'll let you figure out the problems with that.

Quite frankly, I'm sick of listening to the people who defend the current system. They have zero understanding of what is being proposed and instead choose a mix of ignorance and intentional stupidity, screaming loudly about how "ruined" everything will be in between setting up their strawmen arguments. Heck, half of them I suspect don't even read the proposals and just give a knee-jerk response based on what they THINK is being written.. .such as your brilliant "60-degree cone of fire" comment. I also suspect not one of them has played any other FPS out there - most of them use a cone of fire to some degree - or even played Battletech which - surprise! - also doesn't have magic perfect convergence fairies guiding your every shot to the location of your choice.

But, hey - apparently the rest of us are supposed to listen to a group of people who think that "point-click-kill" is the height of "skill" in MWO, and that having a small miss chance at high ranges is somehow equal to 60-degree cones of fire and "skill not mattering." It would laughable were it not so damn stupid.

We now return you to your regularly scheduled laser-vomit meta - so much "skill" involved there.

Edited by oldradagast, 08 February 2016 - 06:43 PM.

[cazidin]

Let's not insult eachother. Mister Blastman's idea does have merit even though I personally would prefer a proper heat scale over any change to convergence.

This isn't about the fact that it would take more skill, which, it would, but that it'd be confusing for new players and frustrating for veterans who're grown accustomed to perfect convergence because again, this would effect ballistics too. Imagine how horrible this could be, especially on certain mechs like the Trebuchet or the Awesome.