62 replies to this topic

[Mystere]

Kuaron, on 21 August 2016 - 08:56 PM, said:

Also, reducing accuracy would in any case lead to increased TTK, but I don’t see how it is supposed to repair the builds’ preference for boating. I only can be part of a complex solution.

Contrary to misconceptions -- and the exaggerations being spouted by some -- it does not reduce accuracy. Your hit pattern at a certain range^(*) will always be the same. But, it does lose precision. I hope the picture below explains to you why:



(Of course the above diagram assumes your weapons follow the same hit pattern as the target second from the left.)

(*) I included the phrase "at a certain range" to account for ballistic drop.

[Kuaron]

By accuracy I mean: How often a Mech actually hits another where he wants to.
Also, your embedded pictures tells that you are confusing it with precision.

[Lehmund]

I like this idea from the OP. I like it a lot. Read a few replies already just adding my 2 cents, sorry if it repeats:

• Keep torso/head mounted weapons "straight shots" with NO convergence. They shoot where you are facing. They shoot at the hard torso crossharis where the middle of the crosshair is the middle of the mech,s chest. Pilots need to understand their mechs and realize where their individual weapons will hit on the enemy.
  
• Arm-mounted weapons aim at the small reticle as per normal. Both arms converge on the same spot, the center, and can either converge to a single point, or be like the torso weapons and not converge weapon to weapon i.e. a Nova's 6 LA lasers will generally aim at your small reticle accordinly, but each small laser will hit at a slightly different location based on their setup on the arm (straight line).

Now does this resolve issues around boating and alpha striking? I think it would help greatly due to the spread effects. It would also increase TTK significantly.

Pilots would build their mechs to try to minimize the effects of non-convergence by choosing hardpoints that are more on the arms or clustered, making some mechs more popular than others (Hunchbacks or Novas = more popular, while Ebon Jags = less popular, for example). It would also make self-guided missiles more powerful but that can be adjusted much more easily through the spread stat.

Would make for very interesting builds, and aiming would certainly be much more of a challenge!

The current Energy Draw system can help replace Ghost Heat if tweaked properly, but the proposed system of non-convergence, I believe, would be a much nicer addition to the game!!!

[Gamuray]

Lehmund, on 22 August 2016 - 03:25 AM, said:

I like this idea from the OP. I like it a lot. Read a few replies already just adding my 2 cents, sorry if it repeats:

• Keep torso/head mounted weapons "straight shots" with NO convergence. They shoot where you are facing. They shoot at the hard torso crossharis where the middle of the crosshair is the middle of the mech,s chest. Pilots need to understand their mechs and realize where their individual weapons will hit on the enemy.
  
• Arm-mounted weapons aim at the small reticle as per normal. Both arms converge on the same spot, the center, and can either converge to a single point, or be like the torso weapons and not converge weapon to weapon i.e. a Nova's 6 LA lasers will generally aim at your small reticle accordinly, but each small laser will hit at a slightly different location based on their setup on the arm (straight line).

Now does this resolve issues around boating and alpha striking? I think it would help greatly due to the spread effects. It would also increase TTK significantly.

Pilots would build their mechs to try to minimize the effects of non-convergence by choosing hardpoints that are more on the arms or clustered, making some mechs more popular than others (Hunchbacks or Novas = more popular, while Ebon Jags = less popular, for example). It would also make self-guided missiles more powerful but that can be adjusted much more easily through the spread stat.

Would make for very interesting builds, and aiming would certainly be much more of a challenge!

The current Energy Draw system can help replace Ghost Heat if tweaked properly, but the proposed system of non-convergence, I believe, would be a much nicer addition to the game!!!

What I think would help the would be "unpopular" mechs is:
A. Things like hunchback, nova, etc already have durability increases to those spots because they fell off easy. Removing those immediately makes it more of a trade off.
B. Something wide like the Ebon Jaguar also has a shorter profile for long range.
C. Something like a warhawk, wide, no sniper profile... It's designed for pairs of BIG weapons... which minimizes the effects if this system. Long range also helps, and it's generally used for that too. It does solidify mech roles pretty well, as their shape plays a role in the kind of load out they want to have.

It almost gives inherent quirks to mechs.
Hunchback: +accuracy -weapon location durability
Blackjack: ~accuracy ~weapon loc. Durability
Enforcer: -accuracy ++weapon loc. Durability
Nova: ++accuracy --weapon loc. Durability

These would just be inherent from the shape and hardpoints of the mechs.

[cazidin]

Hold on, Gamuray. I'm curious. Were you being serious earlier or do you owe me an apology?

[Kynesis]

While "Zero Convergence" is a very catchy title I think the concept needs some refinement - essentially that it might work better if it isn't binary.

It's reasonable to suggest that a mech's computers (particularly targeting computers) should help aim its weapons, perhaps over a short duration (maybe depending on the weight of a weapon & the number of servos available) weapons should 'naturally' track more closely and quickly to the circular reticle while a target is detected there (or has been within say, the past second or so).

As such, taking 'snap shots' or alpha strikes becomes more challenging while aiming (and at least thematically, working with the mech & it's computers) is rewarded.
Doing so would mean that players who want to boat a bunch of the big guns wouldn't necessarily need to be completely restricted or harshly penalised because the chance of them actually landing all / enough of the shots to wreck-a-mech (if not destroy it outright, render it pretty useless) should be pretty slim but still possible - boating that many big guns is a huge risk, their long cooldown and high energy requirement / heat output necessarily mean that they should only be fired in unison fairly infrequently and leave the mech quite vulnerable in the mean time (particularly if heat scaling gets around to agility penalties for maintaining high heat).

Not to diminish energy draw at all, I think both are very reasonable iterations along a path of improvement for the game to follow.

Additional modules might contribute to convergence accuracy and or speed, as might weapon lock or perhaps C3 consoles might allow a pilot to benefit from a team mates weapon lock.

I'm not saying that the suggestions I've come up with just now while writing this are ideal, just to point out that the concept has merit and many avenues to both improve it and add depth to the game.

Having said that, I'd still reserve too much optimism because testing might prove that such a feature really is too much for new or vision impiared players to cope with. The other negative to consider is as already stated, without mech-by-mech analysis it could leave those with wide-spaced hard points at significant disadvantage; There's no reason that couldn't be balanced by simply granting them accelerated convergence as a quirk.

I'm still on the fence about multiple indicators to show weapon paths, I think it could work quite well but really come down to technical limitations; In a system where weapons converge, it makes sense that players need to see exactly how they're tracking at all times.

It may also potentially play into the info-warfare side of the game - say for example through ECM (or some other device) also becoming non-binary, it's field might have an affect on nearby friendly / enemy mech's weapon convergence - it could be the kind of thing that the Cyclops might have as a perk of some kind.

No feature is perfect though, especially right out of the gate, I'd like to see PGI give this some serious consideration.

Edited by Kynesis, 22 August 2016 - 07:47 PM.

[Gamuray]

cazidin, on 22 August 2016 - 06:17 PM, said:

Hold on, Gamuray. I'm curious. Were you being serious earlier or do you owe me an apology?

Perhaps both. I grew rather annoyed at the guy calling it ghost aim (which is completely different from what this is) and it remained when responding to your post.

Given I am in fact serious with my suggesting of removing weapon convergence (but not lower arm actuator movement, for limited convergence with low mounted, vulnerable drawbacks).

And if you read the spoiler in the original post, I literally had already addressed your comment that they would have any sort of technical limitations. We already can manually force the game to do a simulation of my suggestion, which shows that it is perfectly possible to implement with a fairly small amount of effort (relative to the energy draw system anyways). And there aren't any more calculations to do so long as convergence is a set (but far) range. Heck, probably not even if it isn't set at all. Srms are all separate flight paths, bullets have drop and lead time.. only thing is lasers.. but they're on separate paths too.. so... no new calculations are really needed.. at least, very few if there are.

[Gamuray]

Kynesis, on 22 August 2016 - 07:22 PM, said:

While "Zero Convergence" is a very catchy title I think the concept needs some refinement - essentially that it might work better if it isn't binary.

It's reasonable to suggest that a mech's computers (particularly targeting computers) should help aim its weapons, perhaps over a short duration (maybe depending on the weight of a weapon & the number of servos available) weapons should 'naturally' track more closely and quickly to the circular reticle while a target is detected there (or has been within say, the past second or so).

As such, taking 'snap shots' or alpha strikes becomes more challenging while aiming (and at least thematically, working with the mech & it's computers) is rewarded.

Additional modules might contribute to convergence accuracy and or speed, as might weapon lock or perhaps C3 consoles might allow a pilot to benefit from a team mates weapon lock.

I'm not saying that the suggestions I've come up with just now while writing this are ideal, just to point out that the concept has merit and many avenues to both improve it and add depth to the game.

Having said that, I'd still reserve too much optimism because testing might prove that such a feature really is too much for new or vision impiared players to cope with. No feature is perfect though, especially right out of the gate, I'd like to see PGI give this some serious consideration.

Well, part of the reason for my suggestion is because it really doesn't make sense for weapons to fire diagonally out of their barrels anyways. So making that more realistic was a beneficial byproduct while removing pinpoint alphas (alphas remain, boating is allowed, but the ability to get everything in one spot all at once is gone without any kind of randomness).

Besides, arms do still aim and converge with lower actuators. The weapons themselves don't converge though (and I don't see any mechanisms that would allow them to. Especially not fire more than a few degrees for lasers.. ballistics... I see nothing that would enable any kind of adjustment whatsoever.. they aren't on swivel mounts or anything..

Given, no system is perfect. But I feel removing the ability for weapons to shoot at angles from their facing direction is a strong foundation for better balance and longer ttk. Allowing any build, removing pinpoint alphas without removing alphas themselves as an option, and providing real reasons and drawbacks to take cretain mechs or others.

[cazidin]

Gamuray, on 22 August 2016 - 07:27 PM, said:

Perhaps both. I grew rather annoyed at the guy calling it ghost aim (which is completely different from what this is) and it remained when responding to your post.

Given I am in fact serious with my suggesting of removing weapon convergence (but not lower arm actuator movement, for limited convergence with low mounted, vulnerable drawbacks).

And if you read the spoiler in the original post, I literally had already addressed your comment that they would have any sort of technical limitations. We already can manually force the game to do a simulation of my suggestion, which shows that it is perfectly possible to implement with a fairly small amount of effort (relative to the energy draw system anyways). And there aren't any more calculations to do so long as convergence is a set (but far) range. Heck, probably not even if it isn't set at all. Srms are all separate flight paths, bullets have drop and lead time.. only thing is lasers.. but they're on separate paths too.. so... no new calculations are really needed.. at least, very few if there are.

Ghost Aim? Hahaha! No. We already have that on the PTS but under a different name. Sorry, Gamuray, but no matter what we may want PGI cannot and will not remove pixel perfect convergence. This is a DOA proposal even if we had a team of veteran programmers offering their services for free to implement and maintain this system, PGI would send them away.

[Gamuray]

cazidin, on 22 August 2016 - 07:41 PM, said:

Ghost Aim? Hahaha! No. We already have that on the PTS but under a different name. Sorry, Gamuray, but no matter what we may want PGI cannot and will not remove pixel perfect convergence. This is a DOA proposal even if we had a team of veteran programmers offering their services for free to implement and maintain this system, PGI would send them away.

I'm sure nobody expected them to test energy draw either and figured that was a DOA suggestion too... but... they do occasionally surprise us. Whether or not the surprises are good is subject to debate of course

[cazidin]

Gamuray, on 22 August 2016 - 07:46 PM, said:

I'm sure nobody expected them to test energy draw either and figured that was a DOA suggestion too... but... they do occasionally surprise us. Whether or not the surprises are good is subject to debate of course

True. So, let me address your proposal now under the assumption that PGI were both capable and inclined to implement it. Why do you think altering convergence will be better both in reception and mechanics than the present system and how would you address some of its problems?

First. Let's use an Assault mech as an example, a rather wide one - the Awesome. How do we deal with the inner mechanics to allow weapons from different parts of the mech to fire and hit multiple separate areas AND adjust the targeting reticle in an efficient, intelligent and simple to understand way? To my understanding, bullets from say, an Autocannon or lightning from a PPC will fire straight forward and not arc towards the center reticle.

Second. Assuming you could find a clever way to deal with this without a new convoluted mechanic, which would probably get you a job at PGI, how would you explain this to new and veteran players and get them interested? Energy Draw is a much more streamlined alternative to your proposal and changes the game in a way that seems more like a natural progression, rather than a regression.

[Gamuray]

cazidin, on 23 August 2016 - 07:21 AM, said:

True. So, let me address your proposal now under the assumption that PGI were both capable and inclined to implement it. Why do you think altering convergence will be better both in reception and mechanics than the present system and how would you address some of its problems?

First. Let's use an Assault mech as an example, a rather wide one - the Awesome. How do we deal with the inner mechanics to allow weapons from different parts of the mech to fire and hit multiple separate areas AND adjust the targeting reticle in an efficient, intelligent and simple to understand way? To my understanding, bullets from say, an Autocannon or lightning from a PPC will fire straight forward and not arc towards the center reticle.

Second. Assuming you could find a clever way to deal with this without a new convoluted mechanic, which would probably get you a job at PGI, how would you explain this to new and veteran players and get them interested? Energy Draw is a much more streamlined alternative to your proposal and changes the game in a way that seems more like a natural progression, rather than a regression.

First point: You don't change the crosshair at all. The crosshair is where head weapons will be hitting, knowledge of your mech's proportions will allow you to drop damage accurately when aiming individual locations. For instance, when sighting a gun you adjust crosshair to show where the bullet hits, not adjust gun for where crosshair points. HOWEVER, what if you had multiple, fixed mounted guns (unrealistic in real life, but on a mech this is an accurate representation of our weapon mounts). Then you either just aim to counter the offsets, or you pick a gun and adjust, then pick another and adjust. Aiming to counter offset is faster mid battle. Even with computers, because you could suddenly change your mind on which weapon, and then your offset isn't the same as normal.

So just leave the reticle as a head mount shot and aim to counter offset. It won't take long to counter, a calibration shot prior to battle should enable fair accuracy.

Second point: Well, kind of already got this handled, since there literally isn't a complex new reticle system. Counter aiming for non-head weapons is something that one can get the feel of without too much issue.

Given, I have experience from makeshift slingshot arrows, rifles, and bows. Not to mention playing with each mech class and style to get leads down, since your width plays into leading as well.

It'd be more of an experience thing... so... "mastering" your mech, not just skill tree, but knowing it's shapes, where weapons will hit, etc.

[cazidin]

Gamuray, on 23 August 2016 - 01:36 PM, said:

First point: You don't change the crosshair at all. The crosshair is where head weapons will be hitting, knowledge of your mech's proportions will allow you to drop damage accurately when aiming individual locations. For instance, when sighting a gun you adjust crosshair to show where the bullet hits, not adjust gun for where crosshair points. HOWEVER, what if you had multiple, fixed mounted guns (unrealistic in real life, but on a mech this is an accurate representation of our weapon mounts). Then you either just aim to counter the offsets, or you pick a gun and adjust, then pick another and adjust. Aiming to counter offset is faster mid battle. Even with computers, because you could suddenly change your mind on which weapon, and then your offset isn't the same as normal.

So just leave the reticle as a head mount shot and aim to counter offset. It won't take long to counter, a calibration shot prior to battle should enable fair accuracy.

Second point: Well, kind of already got this handled, since there literally isn't a complex new reticle system. Counter aiming for non-head weapons is something that one can get the feel of without too much issue.

Given, I have experience from makeshift slingshot arrows, rifles, and bows. Not to mention playing with each mech class and style to get leads down, since your width plays into leading as well.

It'd be more of an experience thing... so... "mastering" your mech, not just skill tree, but knowing it's shapes, where weapons will hit, etc.

Alright. So we keep the crosshair we have now, but bullets don't travel to the center of it. This is very counter intuitive and will confuse new and veteran players. Some may adapt, many will not and this would prove much more confusing than Ghost Heat ever was or is.

You are severely underestimating how much this change to convergence would affect gameplay. Also, please refrain from real life examples to strengthen your argument. Every single FPS has had the bullet go where the crosshair is.

Try to sell this to me like you're PGI and I'm the average MechWarrior. You seem like a nice guy, despite how you started off, but this system... needs a lot of work or it simply will be worse than anything PGI could think of or has implemented. I appreciate what you're trying to do, really, I do, but I just don't think it will work as well as you think as it's stated now.

Edited by cazidin, 23 August 2016 - 01:58 PM.

[Solis Obscuri]

I don't think that forcing torso weapons to be locked in position is going to do anything but punish mechs that have more torso hardpoints and reward ones with better arm hardpoints.

However, I do think that instant pinpoint convergence remains the biggest balance problem with "boating" and high-alpha meta.

[Gamuray]

Your right, it's counter to intuition (or counter to what instincts would say). Will it, for the first couple shots, confuse people? Yes. But what would you do for aim if you realize your weapon hits to the right of the crosshair? Aim left, and start hitting again. Now, will those addicted to alpha striking adapt? Maybe not, but we don't want alpha striking all day without drawback... so.. they seem to have the short end of the stick there regardless. (I love them, I do, but their alphas aren't healthy. We need some interventions here.)

Oh, I know it'll be a very large affect on gameplay. What I don't believe though is that it'll be some super difficult thing that takes forever to get used to. Will it take longer than just going "Oh, don't fire 6 ppc's and I won't overheat"? Yes, it'll be a skill or experience based adaption rather than a knowledge based adaption. At least for the most part. Energy draw is kind of that way too at the moment, what with learning timings and such.

ED-skill adaption for timed shots (or just don't have an alpha over x damage)
ZC-adaption based on offset shot, experience with a particular mech leads to unconcious corrections.

"Every single FPS has the bullet go where the crosshair goes" Ok, sure. I'll accept that and ignore delayed/random trajectories, because those are silly. But the difference is that they normally carry all weapons in the arms or on rotating turrets. And usually only have one weapon in addition to that. Mechs have numerous weapons in many different locations, and often have them hard mounted to a position, with exception to arm mounts (and even then, numerous, parallel mounted weapons, unlike most FPS).

Also, the reason I used real life examples is more to suggest that it's not as difficult to adapt to offset aiming as one would believe, so long as a few practice shots are taken to get the feel of it. Yes, ranges and such. But getting a new mech should come with time required to get the feel of it, learn how it works. Currently, I can jump in a thunderbolt, warhammer, jester, after being in a black knight or something. Sure they move a bit different and mounts are a bit higher on some (which won't feel any different now, except weapons higher than your cockpit that are torso mounted will be able to shoot people even if your reticle is not quite clear yet... don't panic, no use if you can't see), but jumping from one to the other takes very little adaption (maybe a bit with jester for drastic shape difference). ZC would certainly give advantage to those who stick with it in a mech long enough to naturally correct for weapon locations.. and I don't see how that can be a bad thing, as it's a natural reward of just being better with a mech.

I don't believe it'll take extreme adaption for players. After a few matches I do believe they'll have enough feel for it (assuming they don't act like it doesn't exist... and that can't be help in ANY system) to use it reasonably well. And Tiers, flawed currently as they are, could help mitigate effects of elitists who've mastered it conquering new players who still need to get the feel for it.


Cazidin, your input has been great, in fact, very useful for me to dig into the ins and outs of this. I appreciate that you have continued discussing this with me, I do hope that my attitude originally can be excused, you certainly are making a good analysis of where this idea could falter. Which is a needed thing!

[davoodoo]

Solis Obscuri, on 23 August 2016 - 03:17 PM, said:

I don't think that forcing torso weapons to be locked in position is going to do anything but punish mechs that have more torso hardpoints and reward ones with better arm hardpoints.

However, I do think that instant pinpoint convergence remains the biggest balance problem with "boating" and high-alpha meta.

And whats the actual downside to having high mounted torso hardpoints??

thats 1 of the reasons kdk3 is so good.
4 ballistics hardpoints at cockpit height.

Marauder which was supposed to be a sniper mech with ppc is more fit for brawl in mwo because low slung arms or ballistic sniping because high mounted hardpoints for those.

[Gamuray]

Solis Obscuri, on 23 August 2016 - 03:17 PM, said:

I don't think that forcing torso weapons to be locked in position is going to do anything but punish mechs that have more torso hardpoints and reward ones with better arm hardpoints.

However, I do think that instant pinpoint convergence remains the biggest balance problem with "boating" and high-alpha meta.

That would definately be the case with the current durability quirks. Wolverines, Novas, Warhawks (some), Phoenix Hawk, panther etc. Mechs with all weapons in one spot or all in the arms almost*** invariably have durability quirks for those locations... because they fall off too quickly otherwise. Without those quirks and with ZC, they get that combat advantage with the risk of outright losing all their firepower early on (and arms are lower mounts, some torsos are too, but arms always are).

Combat advantage of arms or single weapon location is not without risks.

HBK, most firepower in RT, so it has big durability increase there. ZC would give the HBK big combat advantages, but without quirks it can fall apart easily as a trade off.

[1453 R]

Gamuray, on 22 August 2016 - 07:37 PM, said:

Well, part of the reason for my suggestion is because it really doesn't make sense for weapons to fire diagonally out of their barrels anyways.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gimbal

Can we get off this "In the ideal MWO, nobody can ever hit anything ever again!" kick now, please?

[Solis Obscuri]

@davoodoo I think the way arms penalize you (as if they were leg mounted weapons for partial cover purposes in TT) is a problem in and of itself. And it's one I'd like to see addressed, give us some way to move those actuators and fire over things.

But not all mechs areas blessed with their torso hardpoint locations as the Kodiak. Look at an Awesome or an Atlas.

And meanwhile other designs like the Jagermech and Stalker have presented balance issues in the past due to their very high arm mount locations.

Any design solution needs to comprehensively address all mount lotions, not just penalize some to reward others.

[Gamuray]

1453 R, on 23 August 2016 - 03:53 PM, said:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gimbal

Can we get off this "In the ideal MWO, nobody can ever hit anything ever again!" kick now, please?

I know about Gimbals. I don't see any on our weapons.. that'd be visible on the model. Besides, Gimbals on weapons that aren't turrets have strict limits due to requiring space to move the whole weapon system (multi-ton in mwo, requires a lot of room). So angles end up limited (an example would be tank destroyers. Quite a limit in weapon angling... Except worse in mwo because the whole mech internal isn't built around the weapon... usually)