149 replies to this topic

[Troutmonkey]

Mystere, on 10 February 2016 - 06:39 PM, said:

But isn't something like that is what is happening now (i.e. convergence point is somewhere else) when you lead a target?

Yes, but to a much much lower extent. Generally there isn't a massive difference between the target you are firing at and the ground / building behind them

Pjwned, on 10 February 2016 - 06:22 PM, said:

I understand that and I agree, but I'm suggesting fixed convergence without locks (which is different from zero convergence) and I'm not suggesting that convergence go away completely by any means either.

The demo also includes fixed convergence.
Fixed convergence is dumb because of the cross eyed effect that happens after the target distance. If ML's were fixed to 270m, they would be unable to hit anything after 300m.
Plus, 90% of the time people have locks, so 90% of the time your system failures to change or resolve anything

[LordKnightFandragon]

The Atlas Overlord, on 10 February 2016 - 06:50 PM, said:

Yes it absolutely should.

I really though PGI was going in the right direction until they cowered out of that change.

Cuz the meta overlords demanded PGI cease and desist any action against the status quo.

[Mystere]

Troutmonkey, on 10 February 2016 - 08:05 PM, said:

Yes, but to a much much lower extent. Generally there isn't a massive difference between the target you are firing at and the ground / building behind them

This is not quite correct. The convergence point depends on the angle of your aim relative to the horizontal plane. The building or ground in the direction of your aim could be 1000m beyond your target.

Troutmonkey, on 10 February 2016 - 08:05 PM, said:

Fixed convergence is dumb because of the cross eyed effect that happens after the target distance. If ML's were fixed to 270m, they would be unable to hit anything after 300m.

Fixed convergence is most certainly not dumb. Otherwise, WW2 planes would not have used them.

In addition, if I set my convergence distance to suit my load out and play style, and I'm capable of being within the convergence sweet spot, I will still be fine.

Edited by Mystere, 10 February 2016 - 08:39 PM.

[Troutmonkey]

Mystere, on 10 February 2016 - 08:18 PM, said:

This is not quite correct. The convergence point depends on the angle of your aim relative to the horizontal plane. The building or ground in the direction of your aim could be 1000m beyond your target.




Fixed convergence is most certainly not dumb. Otherwise, WW2 planes would not have used them.

In addition, if I set my convergence distance to suit my load out and play style, and I'm capable of being within the convergence sweet spot, I will still be fine.

Compared to perfect convergence at all times, yeah, fixed convergence would be really dumb to put into this game. Fixed convergence on WWII planes was due to a limitation in technology at the time. We could do fixed convergence if on todays aircraft, but we don't. Instead we use automated convergence based on target position, speed etc etc.

Edited by Troutmonkey, 10 February 2016 - 10:25 PM.

[Hawk_eye]

Troutmonkey, on 10 February 2016 - 08:05 PM, said:

Yes, but to a much much lower extent. Generally there isn't a massive difference between the target you are firing at and the ground / building behind them

This is true if you are brawling in River City or Mining Collective.
At mid to long range on Polar, Tourmalin or Canyon?
Not so much.

Troutmonkey, on 10 February 2016 - 08:05 PM, said:

The demo also includes fixed convergence.
Fixed convergence is dumb because of the cross eyed effect that happens after the target distance. If ML's were fixed to 270m, they would be unable to hit anything after 300m.
Plus, 90% of the time people have locks, so 90% of the time your system failures to change or resolve anything

Whut?

Scenario:
2 lasers are mounted on the left and right arms, 4 m apart (pretty much the worst case scenario)
Fixed conversion at 270m
After crossing each other at 270m, they move apart by about 1.48cm/m, so at 300m, the beams would be less than 0.5m apart. Hardly enough to completely miss the target.

[tangles 253]

1Grimbane, on 09 February 2016 - 11:58 PM, said:

no. OP your drunk go home

I agree

No, bad op

[Widowmaker1981]

Troutmonkey, on 10 February 2016 - 08:05 PM, said:

The demo also includes fixed convergence.
Fixed convergence is dumb because of the cross eyed effect that happens after the target distance. If ML's were fixed to 270m, they would be unable to hit anything after 300m.
Plus, 90% of the time people have locks, so 90% of the time your system failures to change or resolve anything

Just saying that if you set fixed convergence to be maximum range then you will never get the cross eyed effect, and weapons will get 50% convergence at optimal range, which should be enough to at least get all weapons to hit the target unless talking about very widely spread weapons (king crab arms) shooting a very skinny target (spider) - though of course over multiple hitboxes, which is the point i suppose.

That combined with perfect convergence with target lock would in my opinion:

Increase the value of target locking
Decrease the ability to snapshoot very accurate high damage alphas
Improve the ability of multiple travel time weapons to converge on their target with target lock.

As a bonus, to improve the value of low arm mounted weapons you could make it so that any weapons mounted in an arm where the mech has lower arm actuators keep their current instant convergence on reticule when unlocked, and gain convergence to locked target when locked.

[Thorqemada]

We had decreased Laserdamage on PTS without Target Lock - the Crying and Whining was insurmaountable for PGI to handle and they dumped it (and the System was not fully fleshed out yet and did confuse new players).

Edited by Thorqemada, 11 February 2016 - 04:31 AM.

[Mystere]

Thorqemada, on 11 February 2016 - 04:30 AM, said:

We had decreased Laserdamage on PTS without Target Lock - the Crying and Whining was insurmaountable for PGI to handle and they dumped it (and the System was not fully fleshed out yet and did confuse new players).

Of course they did, because the playerbase knows that massive crying works. PGI seems to get weak-kneed whenever it happens.

[Greyhart]

the problem I have is that it seems unrealistic that X number of multi ton weapons that are located in different parts of a mech are able to hit the exact same spot. That seems rather improbable to me.

Now I can see the point made about randomness and therefore that needs to be thought about and therefore to "simulate" the fact that things aren't hitting the exact same spot (although it is easier to program that they are) you are looking at some mechanic in the game regarding that.

I know that there is always articles thrown around about the accuracy of this or that weapon. However I have seen no article showing that say a battleship can fire all its weapons at the same time and those weapons hit the exact same spot i.e. within half a meter of each other. I don't know if they can or can't, but in terms of this game that is what we are looking at when more than one weapon is fired at the same time.

Could you even rig say 6 rifles to fire at the same target and all 6 bullets go through the bullseye? Then could you do that if the target was moving could you do that if the rig that the rifles were on was moving. Sure I could see that it could be done for 1 rifle but for multiple?

What would happen to a laser if it crossed with another laser as well?

[Widowmaker1981]

Thorqemada, on 11 February 2016 - 04:30 AM, said:

We had decreased Laserdamage on PTS without Target Lock - the Crying and Whining was insurmaountable for PGI to handle and they dumped it (and the System was not fully fleshed out yet and did confuse new players).

That nerf on the PTS, combined with the info warfare system where some mechs were taking 5 seconds to get targets, was completely stupid, because it effectively halved the range on all the lasers. Which, funnily enough being an epic giganerf, made them totally useless. Convergence on lock wouldn't have the same effect, instead of removing your damage it would just spread it. Also, not having totally insane modifiers on targeting time would be required for me to support any system like that.

The PTS system was basically saying 'big mechs are not allowed to use lasers' which is why people raged at it.

Edited by Widowmaker1981, 11 February 2016 - 09:20 AM.

[Ratpoison]

Mystere, on 11 February 2016 - 08:36 AM, said:

Of course they did, because the playerbase knows that massive crying works. PGI seems to get weak-kneed whenever it happens.

Or they simply figured out that it was as idiotic as most of the "simple fix to the game!" topics flying around the forums lately about non-convergence and arbitrary nonsense penalties.

Widowmaker1981, on 11 February 2016 - 09:20 AM, said:

Convergence on lock wouldn't have the same effect, instead of removing your damage it would just spread it.

This is, in effect, the same issue with the same problems. You're still wasting your damage all over, and it wont even be worth shooting at moving lights. GHOST CONVERGENCE is just as terrible as GHOST RANGE.

[Barantor]

I'm not going to read through all the replies in another thread about convergence but if it were to require locks then when there are no locks the weapons should default at their max optimal range. Different weapons wouldn't hit the same spot if their ranges were different, but would still have a fixed point of convergence.

ECM would not make it impossible to target, but would make it do a CoF effect.

That is how I would do it, though at this point I should make some mega post about how I would've made this game....

[Widowmaker1981]

tortuousGoddess, on 11 February 2016 - 09:23 AM, said:

This is, in effect, the same issue with the same problems. You're still wasting your damage all over, and it wont even be worth shooting at moving lights. GHOST CONVERGENCE is just as terrible as GHOST RANGE.

Its really not. Spread damage is still damage on the end of round screen for a start, and any damage to any torso section of a mech is potentially useful damage.

It also makes a lot more intuitive sense, ghost range is WTF, why would my guns be able to shoot further because of locking.

I dunno, i don't personally have a problem with the curent instant convergence and just think people need to take more responsibility for defence, twisting, using cover properly, not walking out in front of more than 1 enemy mech, etc.

But i would also MUCH rather have a convergence on lock system than some CoF that arbitrarily limited the max alpha to something you can pull off with a 50 tonner.

[Ratpoison]

Barantor, on 11 February 2016 - 09:25 AM, said:

I'm not going to read through all the replies in another thread about convergence but if it were to require locks then when there are no locks the weapons should default at their max optimal range. Different weapons wouldn't hit the same spot if their ranges were different, but would still have a fixed point of convergence.

ECM would not make it impossible to target, but would make it do a CoF effect.

That is how I would do it, though at this point I should make some mega post about how I would've made this game....

It would get removed from the game before it left PTS due to all the outrage from cross-eyed shots missing targets a little outside of max effective range. Fixed convergence is incredibly unintuitive and confusing to those who don't understand how it works, and there's no point to damaging the financial health of this game by alienating large numbers of newer players.

[Slambert]

Didnt read all the answers but in my experience convergence already works a little like suggested.

At least when i'm running a Firebrand the convergence when firing on a locked target opposed to, say, an ecm target is very different.

Only time I get pin point with the arm mounted ballistics is when I have lock...come to think of it, it seems the lasers converge much better - even on unlocked targets.

Anybody else notice a difference in ballistic and laser convergence?

[process]

I greatly prefer a system like this instead of things like cone of fire. There are basically 3 scenarios when firing:

1. Targeting: perfect convergence.
2. Not targeting: all weapons fire parallel. i.e. perfect convergence at an infinite distance away.
3. Targeting mech 1 while shooting elsewhere: perfect convergence at mech 1's distance, causing weapons to fan out beyond.

Obviously this depends on a robust targeting system. It should be no more complicated than hitting R and shooting at your target. No significant targeting times. No ghost mechanics whatsoever. ECM and certain modules would have to be nerfed or reworked.

This isn't a fix for focus fire, rather it prevents people taking potshots from across the map. High PPD should be addressed with heat mechanics and individual weapon behavior.

This also woud provide an alternate buff to light mechs, rather than having to depend on armor/structure quirks.

Edited by process, 11 February 2016 - 09:39 AM.

[Ratpoison]

Widowmaker1981, on 11 February 2016 - 09:28 AM, said:

Its really not. Spread damage is still damage on the end of round screen for a start, and any damage to any torso section of a mech is potentially useful damage.

That's incorrect since your total damage is not representative of your killing efficiency. All of the shots you fire that hit arms and legs due to sudden loss of lock from ECM/Radar Dep(guaranteed OP!!!) are about as useful as firing them into the ground, and you STILL have to pay the heat and ammo costs, meaning you are at a disadvantage.

The idea is HORRIFYINGLY bad.

[Barantor]

tortuousGoddess, on 11 February 2016 - 09:32 AM, said:

It would get removed from the game before it left PTS due to all the outrage from cross-eyed shots missing targets a little outside of max effective range. Fixed convergence is incredibly unintuitive and confusing to those who don't understand how it works, and there's no point to damaging the financial health of this game by alienating large numbers of newer players.

Yup, more for the sim crowd who might be used to it in WW2 fighter sims and the like where guns have a fixed convergence point until you change it.

I would rather use CoF than mess with the convergence anyway since more people seem to understand how it works and it is fairly intuitive.

[Ratpoison]

Barantor, on 11 February 2016 - 09:42 AM, said:

I would rather use CoF than mess with the convergence anyway since more people seem to understand how it works and it is fairly intuitive.

Not in a game where it takes up to three seconds to make a full stop and 5 seconds to wait for your weapons to fire a second time.