Pjwned, on 16 June 2016 - 02:35 PM, said:
Because there's a difference between trying something bad while halfassing it and trying something good without halfassing it.
It should go without saying that PGI are expected to do a good job rather than take a good idea, turn it into complete ****, and then not ever be expected to do it properly just because they can't come up with a good idea themselves to save their lives.
I would argue that the mere existence of this thread is proof enough that convergence being a good idea is debatable, especially in the forms usually proposed in the forums.
Pjwned, on 16 June 2016 - 02:35 PM, said:
That's not what it means at all, shooting too wide or shooting too narrow (by a matter of only a few meters in most cases) due to improper convergence is not a case of the damn crosshair being ignored entirely; that's such ridiculous hyperbole.
Assume for the moment that the MechLab-determined 'fixed-distance convergence' or the 'any given weapon converges at its maximum effective range" models of convergence typically proposed in these forums go through. In either case, the convergence point for any given weapon on your machine is set in stone once the machine drops and
cannot be adjusted in-match. As such, any time someone fires a weapon, the crosshair serves only as a loose guide to where that weapon fires, outside the rare circumstance of that player's target being
exactly the given convergence distance away from the firing machine.
In a game where delayed convergence exists and somehow does
not break the game, then this is less of an issue, yes. In the fixed-convergence systems most people tend to end up arguing for, however, you can honestly mostly just dispense with the crosshair altogether and tell players "Center the other 'Mech in the middle of your screen and hit the triggers. If you've Gitted Gud enough, you'll hit. If not...Git Gudder."
Pjwned, on 16 June 2016 - 02:35 PM, said:
It mostly sucked because it broke the game, not because it was an entirely bad idea.
I would kinda figure that breaking the game is a bad idea?
Pjwned, on 16 June 2016 - 02:35 PM, said:
Wrong, delayed convergence breaking hitreg and HSR doesn't automatically mean any other (de)convergence system would do the same, and saying this means you don't understand why delayed convergence in particular was a problem.
No, but fixed deconvergence systems run into the same "your crosshair is a polite request at best" issues we've already been over. And delayed dynamic reconvergence...breaks the game.
Pjwned, on 16 June 2016 - 02:35 PM, said:
Yep, I agree that a system that doesn't allow weapons to reconverge on the target would be bad because again convergence doesn't need to be completely dismantled.
You'd be
shocked how many people
don't agree that a system which doesn't allow weapons to reconverge on the target is a bad idea.
Pjwned, on 16 June 2016 - 02:35 PM, said:
Because reticle sway, assuming it's affected by movement, would just make the game stagnate into peek-a-boo laser vomit even more than it already is and still not actually address convergence itself; it's also hardly different from cone of fire unless I'm somehow completely missing something with the idea.
I'm also not convinced by fear mongering BS that a more balanced convergence system would break the game because my expectations are that PGI not be a bunch of incompetent hacks, and if that's the main problem then they need to get off their *** and work on it so the game doesn't remain an unbalanced mess.
By 'reticle sway', I mean the motion of the reticle we can see in the game today, via the 3rd-person view camera. It
is affected by movement, but in a natural, intuitive manner which also drags the massive laser alphas and Quack fusillades everyone is trying to break off of single target points in a logical, easy-to-see manner, whilst allowing for precision shots by enabling pilots to time their fire to coincide with the 'Mech's natural rhythm, learning to adjust their aim on the fly to compensate for the motion of the machine (both of which count as ways one can Git Gud), or simply by slowing down to reduce motion-derived reticle sway.
Convergence remains instant, and as such HSR and hitreg survive more-or-less unscathed if I have any proper read on either system at all. The 'Mech's aimpoint is visible and concrete at all times. At any given instant, the player knows where their shots are going to go if they decide to fire. The change is simply that the player is no longer the only factor influencing the exact position of that aimpoint - the movement of the 'Mech influences it as well. Excessive heat can influence it, introducing some M.A.S.C./jump-jet-style jitter (if not to the ridiculous degree currently seen in the game) to simulate faulty, heat-addled targeting or actuation systems that can no longer fully compensate for the 'Mech's heat load. Moving the 'Mech at a higher speed means the natural sway of the reticle is also faster/more severe because the 'Mech motion generating it is more severe. Taking a significant hit can also introduce a brief spike of reticle jitter, which may offer some benefit to currently underutilized large, hard-hitting weapons.
It's clean, it's elegant, it preserves existing hitreg assets, it's intuitive and easy to understand just by watching it work, and it accomplishes the spacing-out of large salvos of weapons fire without robbing players of the ability to Improve their Gudness. No one has yet told me why a reticle sway system is so savagely inferior to wonky convergence weirdness save that Wonky Convergence Weirdness is more realistic/more A BattleTech Game™.
And if A BattleTech Game™ is your reply to "why is this a bad idea?", then I really only have one reply, unfortunately:
Quote
For Balance, Corerule Ignore
Thunder Child, on 16 June 2016 - 03:16 PM, said:
1453 R.
Please, take a breath and clam down.
I'd actually meant to address your last post here, but then there was a new one so I figured I'd be timely.
Thunder Child, on 16 June 2016 - 03:16 PM, said:
If you read what Levi and I wrote, at no point was there a mention of NOT being able to reconverge. Drop below 70% heat, and have your throttle below 70% (as ball park figures), and you have your perfect convergence back in the idea that was proposed.
At no point were we ever advocating the complete IMPOSSIBILITY of hitting your target.
What we are asking for is penalties to people going balls to the wall, ALL THE DAMNED TIME.
Which is a problem with the half-implemented heat system more than with shot deviation systems or the lack thereof, but yes. It would be nice if we had a heat system with a bit more depth to it, and you'll never find me arguing against such a system. Unless it's another grognard arguing for a straight-from-TT import of the 30-point heat scale, for reasons I got into above with Pjwned.
Thunder Child, on 16 June 2016 - 03:16 PM, said:
Mechwarrior should not be a run'n gun shooter. Not if it wants to try and stay true to lore. We are not asking for you to stand dead still, with 0 heat, just so you can maybe, maybe, make a shot hit. We are asking that when mechs are under strain due to stressing the reactor, or running too hot, that penalties come into play.
MechWarrior should
absolutely be a run-and-gun shooter - if you're in a light or fast medium 'Mech. Run-and-gun, or to be more precise in my language here: the ability to fire accurately whilst on the move and actively attempting to outmaneuver the enemy, is a critical component of virtually any non-assault player's skillset, and frankly even 100% dedicated assault players need to learn how to R&G to some extent. As an infamous video game @sshole once said: "Speed is life. if you go slow, you die." Trying to discourage players from engaging in mobile battle is a
fantastic way of ensuring this game dies a quick, ignoble death. If both sides are trying to mostly just sit still and wait for the other team to make the explicit error of moving...well, that's going to be a long, boring, really kinda frustrating game.
Thunder Child, on 16 June 2016 - 03:16 PM, said:
Personally, I like Levis' Predictable Divergence mechanic. That said, I could live with Crosshair sway based on a mechs throttle and movement characteristics, if we also got debuffs to agility when running hot. Maybe a sliding scale starting at 1% agility and top speed debuff at 50% Heat, going up to a negative 50% debuff at 100% heat. Ballpark figures, a starting point.
These could be the equivalent of aiming penalties when running hot, because as the mech becomes sluggish, it is harder to track targets. Though I like this idea less than the Divergence, I still think it would be an acceptable compromise.
At the end of the day, I'd just like to see penalties for pushing your mech too hard. Right now, the "skill" in hitting targets is based on the quality of your gaming rig and relative latency.
Predictable Divergence, as I recall, is the gradual deconvergence of your weapons based on multiple external factors to hit near specific regions of an expanding crosshair. It's workable in theory, but also runs into the "this breaks hitreg/HSR" issues that any other dynamic convergence system does, and frankly it's always smacked of committee compromise to me. Levi's a cool guy, don't get me wrong, but having your weapons deconverge, but not deconverge
too much, and fire sorta randomly but not
actually randomly, but instead at specific regions of your crosshair based on their compass direction from the center of your 'Mech, is...weird. It's an ungainly system in my particular personal view, and once again invokes the issue of the crosshair being a polite request rather than a command. As well, it does the thing most people do with their thing and Predicts the Future(echo, echo, echo....) such that crosshair divergence happens
before a large salvo of weapons fire, in order to ensure that accurately putting a large salvo of fire on target is
never possible.
As for penalties for pushing the 'Mech...sure. Absolutely, let's see how that falls out. But the penalties need to be commensurate with the rewards (i.e. being able to move quickly, or shoot a lot of stuff all at once), rather than being so
enormously punitive that doing the thing which triggers the penalties is pretty much always a mistake, in all circumstances.
Pushing a 'Mech hard and having it complain would be a great addition to the game. Pushing a 'Mech hard and having it just fall completely to pieces under you and lose any and all semblance of being a devastating war machine is...a little much.
Mystere, on 16 June 2016 - 03:57 PM, said:
Frankly, I'd rather have reticle bloom instead of crosshair sway, especially for high sway frequencies. They're just annoying. The former conveys the same information without the annoyance factor.
It doesn't convey even remotely the same information. Reticle bloom is "your fire will land somewhere within this Cone of Failure painted on your screen. You have no idea where and no control over where. May the Schwartz be with you."
You really just
cannot tolerate the thought of weapons fire going where it's supposed to, can you?
Edited by 1453 R, 16 June 2016 - 04:27 PM.
11
