149 replies to this topic

[MischiefSC]

1453 R, on 12 February 2016 - 03:11 PM, said:

The point, Wanderer, is how is the pilot going to feel when his opponent has a cherry-red CT, he himself has orange armor over his CT...but he still dies because for a solid minute and a half, RNGsus decides he doesn't get to land the one shot he needs to finish his enemy off while the other guy manages to get the good rolls and hit him fine?

Yes, clearly an exaggerated outlier example...but it becomes a distinct possibility in the randomized-fire idiocy people going on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and ON and ON and OOONNN about. Randomized fire, by definition, means the player is no longer in control of his machine in combat - he's giving it directions, not piloting it.

I get that nobody likes lasers. Everybody* wants lasers to go back to being awful horrible garbage weapons no one sane ever put on a 'Mech, like they were for the entire history of MWO prior to the Clan release. Nobody likes alpha strikes (and never mind that heat-neutral alpha smashers were pretty much standard in TT with any amount of customization, or in any time period post-3025). Nobody likes taking damage.

Unfortunately, nobody will like being unable to aim, either. And the whole "convergence only on lock!" doesn't work, because what happens when you lock a nearby Fatlass, converge your guns...then take a long-distance shot at the Spider 600 meters away behind the Fatlas? How does the game know you're not just taking a horribly-aimed shot at the Fatlas you're supposed to be converging on, rather than the Spider? or what happens if you're in a scrum, surrounded by targets on all sides, and are shooting everything that ends up in front of your guns with converged shots because the one target you have locked is in the middle of the pack?

Seriously. Just...stop. Stop trying to tell players that aiming is bad.



*and by 'everybody' I mean everybody else, because the very notion is utterly ridiculous and I don't know why so many people support it.

Ah. I get it. So in your imagination anything that isn't instant, pixel-perfect accuracy means it's impossible to aim anywhere or in any way and everyone is spinning in circles shooting at the sky. Because if you don't try to make an absurd exaggeration you don't really have a point to make.

Have you never played a game with a CoF? ARMA? CS? Any FPS at all? Amazingly enough you still actually hit targets. Crazy, I know! You can still pull off a headshot even, you just can't hit him specifically in the left eye. I know that the difference between being able to put all 48 pts of laser alpha on the LT and getting ~22 pts on the LT, another 10pts across the CT and 8 pts on the left arm means that it'll take me a minute of spinning in circles and shooting at the sky to kill someone but I'm betting that maybe, just maybe.... people will manage. Good players anyway.

As insane as this sounds I've even seen players use Streaks and LRMs, which require locks to fire. A nearly impossible task I guess? I mean nobody has ever locked a target in the game; who uses locks anyway? You can only really lock targets in T5 play I guess because when a player gets good he is.... immune.... to... the R key?

Your argument borders on the insane. All the evidence that exists - every single game with a CoF or convergence-like mechanic, the prior use of convergence mechanics in MW:O, PTS 2 and PTS 3, how about real life stuff? Armored vehicle and tank combat in WW 2? Every example of air combat in WW 2? Did you know that fighters shot down bombers? Impossible I know given that accuracy was at a premium but amazingly enough with good positioning they shot down aircraft that needed repeatedly riddled with bullets.

Any and every example that exists points to you being wrong. Give me an example, please, of your point in any game. I'll even take real life examples. Point out to me how when we had convergence in MW:O it was impossible to hit anyone?

It's not just that you guys are wrong it's that you're demonstratively wrong. It's not hard to point out how and why you are wrong. Also given that almost every solution put forward still allows for precision accuracy with a bit of skill and effort it's not like there's this huge CoF effect anyone is proposing to add to shooting weapons.

What you're doing, what all you guys are doing, is called a strawman argument. You're creating an absurd point that nobody is talking about and that doesn't actually exist and then arguing against that while saying anyone who isn't agreeing with you is trying to put forward this ridiculous idea you've made up.

So we've all put forward actual examples of how you're wrong and that the idea you're arguing against not only doesn't exist but that nobody was even discussing except you. Please put forward actual examples of your idea being true - a convergence or CoF mechanic like exists in any current FPS or as proposed here that makes MW:O turn out like the absurd examples you've put forward.

Would love to see them.

[BearFlag]

MischiefSC, on 12 February 2016 - 07:47 PM, said:

What you're doing, what all you guys are doing, is called a strawman argument. You're creating an absurd point that nobody is talking about and that doesn't actually exist and then arguing against that while saying anyone who isn't agreeing with you is trying to put forward this ridiculous idea you've made up.

Talk about irony. You single out one statement, an obvious hyperbole, and then devote a lengthy and impolite post to demolishing the literal meaning. If the goal was to educate us in logical fallacy, you have done so by providing a textbook example.

You address the hyperbole in fine, if condescending, fashion - focusing your post on that while ignoring the points made. What about RNG? What about target-locking and situational nuances in the proposal?

Since we're teaching logic and interpreting literally, would you like another example? Here ya go.

MischiefSC, on 12 February 2016 - 07:47 PM, said:

[color=#959595]Any and every example that exists points to you being wrong.[/color]

Wow. Comprehensive and forceful. Also fallacy. "Any example", given or yet to be given, is wrong. Can't lose an argument if "any and every" point of evidence is dismissed - even before it's offered. Think I've had this argument with religious types....

[Mystere]

BearFlag, on 13 February 2016 - 12:46 AM, said:

What about RNG?

What about it? Or is that another strawman?

BearFlag, on 13 February 2016 - 12:46 AM, said:

What about target-locking and situational nuances in the proposal?

It would be better if you actually expounded on what you are saying.

[Imperius]

Just say no to anti-convergence and keep calm.

[Mystere]

Imperius, on 13 February 2016 - 06:40 AM, said:

Just say no to anti-convergence and keep calm.

We are calm. It's the automatic near-instant pixel-perfect convergence folks throwing a hissy fit.

Edited by Mystere, 13 February 2016 - 06:45 AM.

[Imperius]

My take on anti-convergence

[L A V A]

Instant convergence is simple unrealistic when multiple weapon systems must be brought to bear. At one moment your targeting system is aligning weapons at thousands of meters and then in a nanosecond they are aligned at exactly 432 meters. Impossible.

Modern targeting systems use many different and variable inputs to determine exact target location. Getting them ALL to work perfectly and to bear PRECISELY on the target, however, requires time. For example, if your navigational system is off by a meter or 3, your convergence will also be off by a corresponding amount. Radars and lasers, used to determine target range, require constant maintenance and calibration. Other factors involved include wind, temperature, velocity (both of shooting platform and target) and air density calculations. Having a targeting system which is working 100% under combat conditions is really... impossible... except, of course, in MWO.

Have you ever seen videos of aircraft or helicopters using gatling guns on ground based targets? If you have, you will notice that they always start firing short of the target and then walk the bullets into the target area. So much for modern technology.

IMO, using target lock is the easiest way to simulate actual combat conditions. In game, when faced with a target, you have 3 basic firing solutions presented to you by the game.

1) No target lock. Here you are "spit balling" all those calculations that your navigational and targeting system use to determine exactly where the target is. The farther away the target, the least likely you are to be correct.

2. Target Lock. Here your navigational and targeting system present you with a firing resolution which says "I know where I am and I know where the target is." In such a situation your weapons should be able to converge in such a manner as to hit the target with all weapons.

3. Target Lock with Target Information. Here your navigational and target system present you with a firing resolution which says "I know where I am and I have such a refined target solution that I can hit a precise location on the target."

Convergence on a single component on a target should only occur when your navigational and targeting system, using multiple sensors have resolved a targeting solution which allows all weapons to be able to be synchronized and aimed at a single component (Target Lock with Target Information). That is going to take time, and the game actually provides such a mechanism which fairly accurately simulates real world conditions.

To not use the mechanics already incorporated into the game (Target Lock) to provide a much more realistic simulation of combat, is IMO, irrational.

[Imperius]

L A V A, on 13 February 2016 - 08:15 AM, said:

Instant convergence is simple unrealistic when multiple weapon systems must be brought to bear. At one moment your targeting system is aligning weapons at thousands of meters and then in a nanosecond they are aligned at exactly 432 meters. Impossible.

Modern targeting systems use many different and variable inputs to determine exact target location. Getting them ALL to work perfectly and to bear PRECISELY on the target, however, requires time. For example, if your navigational system is off by a meter or 3, your convergence will also be off by a corresponding amount. Radars and lasers, used to determine target range, require constant maintenance and calibration. Other factors involved include wind, temperature, velocity (both of shooting platform and target) and air density calculations. Having a targeting system which is working 100% under combat conditions is really... impossible... except, of course, in MWO.

Have you ever seen videos of aircraft or helicopters using gatling guns on ground based targets? If you have, you will notice that they always start firing short of the target and then walk the bullets into the target area. So much for modern technology.

IMO, using target lock is the easiest way to simulate actual combat conditions. In game, when faced with a target, you have 3 basic firing solutions presented to you by the game.

1) No target lock. Here you are "spit balling" all those calculations that your navigational and targeting system use to determine exactly where the target is. The farther away the target, the least likely you are to be correct.

2. Target Lock. Here your navigational and targeting system present you with a firing resolution which says "I know where I am and I know where the target is." In such a situation your weapons should be able to converge in such a manner as to hit the target with all weapons.

3. Target Lock with Target Information. Here your navigational and target system present you with a firing resolution which says "I know where I am and I have such a refined target solution that I can hit a precise location on the target."

Convergence on a single component on a target should only occur when your navigational and targeting system, using multiple sensors have resolved a targeting solution which allows all weapons to be able to be synchronized and aimed at a single component (Target Lock with Target Information). That is going to take time, and the game actually provides such a mechanism which fairly accurately simulates real world conditions.

To not use the mechanics already incorporated into the game (Target Lock) to provide a much more realistic simulation of combat, is IMO, irrational.

You want realism?

Things to be added first! Before Anti-Convergence systems.
>Knockdowns
>Collisions
>Destructable Environments
>Cockpit Glass damage and weather effects
>Real vision modes not a filter that can be overridden by Gamma adjustment
>Sink spots in water
>Dynamic Weather
>More accurate DMG model
>Lose a leg the mech should actually just fall over

...I could go on forever... Thank god it's just a game right? Where perfect convergence > silly anti-convergence mechanic

[L A V A]

Imperius, on 13 February 2016 - 08:33 AM, said:

You want realism?

Things to be added first! Before Anti-Convergence systems.
>Knockdowns
>Collisions
>Destructable Environments
>Cockpit Glass damage and weather effects
>Real vision modes not a filter that can be overridden by Gamma adjustment
>Sink spots in water
>Dynamic Weather
>More accurate DMG model
>Lose a leg the mech should actually just fall over

...I could go on forever... Thank god it's just a game right? Where perfect convergence > silly anti-convergence mechanic

Hey, couldn't agree more.

But I thought the topic was perfect convergence and target lock.

Another nice side effect of using target lock is that folks would have to consider using the target info gathering module instead of just seismic and radar derp. Further, including in a BAP in your builds would do wonders in limiting mechs with 16 MPLs...

Jeez... we might get some actual diversity in the game. Heaven forbid.

[Mystere]

Imperius, on 13 February 2016 - 08:33 AM, said:

...I could go on forever... Thank god it's just a game right? Where perfect convergence > silly anti-convergence mechanic

Are you saying that the original delayed convergence during closed beta was terrible and that it should not be back even if PGI found a solution?

Edited by Mystere, 13 February 2016 - 09:03 AM.

[Imperius]

Mystere, on 13 February 2016 - 09:03 AM, said:

Are you saying that the original delayed convergence during closed beta was terrible and that it should not be back even if PGI found a solution?

Yes, because HSR and the servers don't need more convoluted systems added to them causing more lag and more hit-reg issues.

[MischiefSC]

BearFlag, on 13 February 2016 - 12:46 AM, said:

Talk about irony. You single out one statement, an obvious hyperbole, and then devote a lengthy and impolite post to demolishing the literal meaning. If the goal was to educate us in logical fallacy, you have done so by providing a textbook example.

You address the hyperbole in fine, if condescending, fashion - focusing your post on that while ignoring the points made. What about RNG? What about target-locking and situational nuances in the proposal?

Since we're teaching logic and interpreting literally, would you like another example? Here ya go.



Wow. Comprehensive and forceful. Also fallacy. "Any example", given or yet to be given, is wrong. Can't lose an argument if "any and every" point of evidence is dismissed - even before it's offered. Think I've had this argument with religious types....

Except the whole argument is hyperbole. Where did I say any example yet to be given is wrong? I said provide one. Show me an example where having some sort of CoF or convergence mechanic reduces the game to taking several minutes to kill another mech or makes it impossible to hit anything?

What you're doing is, again, like all the arguments against having some sort of reasonable, functional CoF/convergence mechanic have been so far, is just saying that only 'bad players' want it (which is patently false and has been pointed out already) and that having such would make it impossible to hit anything and make it all just luck - which, again, is patently false.

MW:O already had convergence. The only reason it got removed what hit-reg issues. What people are talking about is a better method of introducing that which addresses hitreg concerns. We've also gone over, repeatedly and at length, the fact that just about every other shooter has some sort of CoF/convergence mechanic that works just fine and that any good milisim absolutely has it. That the crutch is wanting to play as a floating sphere of perspective immune to its environment with pixel-perfect accuracy managed with a zero-order controller (that's your mouse) with adjustable DPI to fire the whole alpha strike all the time, any time. Which, again, has been pointed out breaks the mechanics the game is built upon.

We get that having some sort of mechanic to make getting accuracy a premium would make the game more complex than floating around and clicking exactly where you want the damage to go. The reality is that would reward better and more competitive players way more than bad ones and it would strongly reward teamwork (role warfare, IW, both of which are about coordination) over solo rambo play.

Give me an example of CoF making a shooter game all but unplayable. CoF/convergence making it impossible to hit targets in a game in a way that breaks the game or makes it hugely inconvenient.

[Mystere]

Imperius, on 13 February 2016 - 10:01 AM, said:

Yes, because HSR and the servers don't need more convoluted systems added to them causing more lag and more hit-reg issues.

Sigh! You skirted around my question. It was under the assumption that PGI does fix the HSR-related problems. So once again, are you saying that the original delayed convergence during closed beta was terrible and that it should not be back even if PGI found a solution to the HSR-related problems?

Edited by Mystere, 13 February 2016 - 11:18 AM.

[wanderer]

1453 R, on 12 February 2016 - 05:13 PM, said:

Assuming that 'convergence on lock' requires TIG, elsewise it largely defeats the purpose. Recall that convergence folks would prefer for it to take forty-five minutes to realign "THIRTY TONS OF GUNS" on a new aimpoint, because apparently that's more realistic.

And now you've ventured into a realm of horseapples. Try a few seconds instead. A few more with ECM active since it'll be tougher to hold locks.

But hey, live in that magical realm.

[wanderer]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 12 February 2016 - 07:32 PM, said:

This statement makes no sense. This is going to be the case for any weapon that suffers from spread, alpha based meta or no.

That's right, and convergence effectively reduces spread effects by getting all of your missiles traveling to the same general spot.

Given enough of them and the missiles in question dealing enough damage, it effectively becomes a weapon that doesn't "waste" enough damage to be useless. SRMs are light enough with convergence helping matters to do so, even though they only put a fraction of their full damage on the point you aim for (save at extremely close range, and even then you'll still get damage bleeding over to adjacent parts).

Without perfect convergence, those missiles would be already firing with an effectively wider spread. Six SRM-6's on a Splatcat or Mad Dog all focused at the same pixel put more damage on target than six hitting a target clustered around two different points.

[Imperius]

Mystere, on 13 February 2016 - 11:16 AM, said:

Sigh! You skirted around my question. It was under the assumption that PGI does fix the HSR-related problems. So once again, are you saying that the original delayed convergence during closed beta was terrible and that it should not be back even if PGI found a solution to the HSR-related problems?

Maybe you should try this after we get the new engine upgrade? Till then pointless, yet when I fought and begged for an engine upgrade. I had many against me. Thank god Imperius never listens to reason...

[BearFlag]

Mystere, on 13 February 2016 - 06:16 AM, said:

What about it? Or is that another strawman?




It would be better if you actually expounded on what you are saying.

You miss something? Address the poster, not me.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

wanderer, on 13 February 2016 - 12:40 PM, said:

That's right, and convergence effectively reduces spread effects by getting all of your missiles traveling to the same general spot.

That still doesn't make them "effectively" like it is hitting a single pixel, you are being hyperbolic.

wanderer, on 13 February 2016 - 12:40 PM, said:

Given enough of them and the missiles in question dealing enough damage, it effectively becomes a weapon that doesn't "waste" enough damage to be useless.

Any damage not hitting critical components is wasted damage, whether you accept it or not, especially if something is really close to death and it doesn't hit that component.

wanderer, on 13 February 2016 - 12:40 PM, said:

Without perfect convergence, those missiles would be already firing with an effectively wider spread. Six SRM-6's on a Splatcat or Mad Dog all focused at the same pixel put more damage on target than six hitting a target clustered around two different points.

Without convergence, the Splatcat would be worthless, because it already suffers from really wide hardpoints, the Mad dog on the other hand benefits already from clustered mounts so removing perfect convergence only reduces its effective range, requiring it to do more damage to compensate.



Look, you are trying to change the dynamics of the game without realizing there is no changing them. To keep all things useful, things have to do enough damage and be threatening enough that they are useful. Forcing people to stand still to get any sort of reliable damage at long range, without seriously buffing long range weapons just forces brawling to become the only meta. Keep SRMs with wonky hit reg, crazy wide spread, and limited damage removes them from the meta. The only thing you are changing is the cost of specialization (provided everything was worth bringing), which sort of removes some flavor when everything is forced to be jack of all trades designs to be worth taking (not that I'm against them being useful, unlike now).

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 13 February 2016 - 03:11 PM.

[wanderer]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 13 February 2016 - 03:06 PM, said:

That still doesn't make them "effectively" like it is hitting a single pixel, you are being hyperbolic.

Any damage not hitting critical components is wasted damage, whether you accept it or not, especially if something is really close to death and it doesn't hit that component.

Right...

Quote

Without convergence, the Splatcat would be worthless, because it already suffers from really wide hardpoints, the Mad dog on the other hand benefits already from clustered mounts so removing perfect convergence only reduces its effective range, requiring it to do more damage to compensate.

Yep...

Quote

Look, you are trying to change the dynamics of the game without realizing there is no changing them. To keep all things useful, things have to do enough damage and be threatening enough that they are useful. Forcing people to stand still to get any sort of reliable damage at long range, without seriously buffing long range weapons just forces brawling to become the only meta. Keep SRMs with wonky hit reg, crazy wide spread, and limited damage removes them from the meta. The only thing you are changing is the cost of specialization (provided everything was worth bringing), which sort of removes some flavor when everything is forced to be jack of all trades designs to be worth taking (not that I'm against them being useful, unlike now).

Somebody was telling me here that convergence doesn't matter to splatbuilds. Lo and behold, you've just said the same thing I did, only in longer sentences. Everything in the meta depends on convergence- even the SRM, which basically just has to deal more damage to match up with everyone else's alphas as it does indeed "waste" damage on other components, a waste that is limited by perfect convergence.

And again, forcing people to stand still at long range for accurate fire is a laugh and a half. Clearly, being able to run at 100+ kph over irregular terrain while under fire should allow you to neatly put your lasers into exactly the same spot, the same way it is equally easy to score a basket from midcourt on the run as it is when you're parked at the foul line, not moving an inch.

Accurate long range fire is sniping. Less accurate long range fire is...not standing still. Or overheating. Or perhaps dumping every weapon in your 'Mech at a target you haven't even got on sensors. Strangely enough, with a lot of the propositions going around, you get to choose either rapid, inaccurate fire or more deliberate fire when, y'know, you actually have the target on your sensors and all lined up to pew pew pew. There should be tradeoffs for being able to deliver maximized accuracy of fire.

I'm still all for a system that doesn't cause you to whiff center-of-target shots inside of effective range- that is, you should be hitting SOMETHING on the 'Mech if you put the robot in the center crosshair and pull the trigger.. But when the meta is rapidly popping back and forth out of cover for blind shots...no, that shouldn't be THAT frickin' precise. Nor should people be happily swapping off noscope YOLO killshots at the edge of effective range while nearly broiling their 'Mech, any more than they fire accurately while jumping around in the air now.

It's either that or you end up massively buffing other weapon systems that -can't- precision alpha to bring them into line with the ones that can. Cue the screams of "noobtubing" and "sniper shotgunners"? Would you agree that LRMs have no place in the meta? LB-X's? What would it take to make them competitive weapons given their utter inability to do what the meta considers essential? They're the most "wasteful" by tonnage in terms of directed damage.

Being able to converge enough damage to a certain efficiency seems to be what it takes to make a weapon viable in the meta's eyes. How do you fix the weapons that cannot to make them viable? Or do you just frickin' fix convergence, the ability that puts the meta-choices on top regardless of the flavor of the month?

Edited by wanderer, 13 February 2016 - 09:51 PM.

[Ratpoison]

wanderer, on 13 February 2016 - 09:49 PM, said:

People shouldn't be allowed to have that much skill.

Okay.