62 replies to this topic

[Vincent Quatermain]

Gamuray, on 21 August 2016 - 02:25 PM, said:

Another person that needs to learn to read. This is ZERO convergence. If you read through I literally say "weapons shoot where the barrels are pointing". There is no randomness to NO convergence.

I did read, and your idea is actually a particularly bonkers version of the various flavors of Ghost Aim. You are proposing that the sighting reticle in the game is not actually where all, or even any, of your weapons will hit. This will be extraordarily frustrating for new players and will only widen the gap in performance between skilled and unskilled players. (Not to mention, that turning an electronic HUD into the equivalent of mid-19th century iron sights is laughable even for Mechwarrior's wacky tech.)

Gamuray, on 21 August 2016 - 02:25 PM, said:

ZERO convergence means the weapons DON'T converge. They just shoot where they point.

The only visual indicator of where the weapons point is the targeting reticle. If you turn the reticle into a lie, no one will know where their weapons are pointed.

Gamuray, on 21 August 2016 - 02:25 PM, said:

Here, I'll give you a visual . . . In this example, if the king crab alpha striked, the weapon would fire down range in exactly the pattern shown (assuming arms not pointing higher than torso). So if he shoots everything with the locust in the middle... well, he'll probably miss everything unless the travel time causes the locust to run into the projectiles. Whereas the locust will be firing it's smaller weapon pattern down range, as shown, and IT will hit with everything, because the crab is larger than the locust's widest point between weapons.

Thanks for illustrating exactly how dumb this idea is. Assume for a moment that this was implemented. Well, your scenario would be irrelevant because there wouldn't be anyone driving King Crabs anymore. Anyone with two brain cells to rub together would drive a light mech, because at least then my targeting reticle would actually be close to accurate -- and with the added bonus that anyone in a bigger mech can't take advantage of their superior firepower to take me down.

Welcome to LocustWarrior Online.

Edited by Vincent Quatermain, 21 August 2016 - 04:37 PM.

[Appuagab]

Gamuray, on 21 August 2016 - 10:48 AM, said:

1. Each projectile weapon already has different projectile speeds, and non-ppc, non-srm projectiles have bullet drop (gauss is hard to notice due to extreme speed)

Well, I was suspecting that, but it's so small and unnoticeable that I've decided it doesn't exist at all. I was implying something closer to Tribes' thumpers and bolt launchers. Parabolic powah. This may even open a way to some pro plays like landing AC shot over the hill.
But clan ACs with their nerfy volley mechanics should stay the way they are now anyway.

Gamuray, on 21 August 2016 - 10:48 AM, said:

2. Adding convergence time gives a small amount of randomness, which many people seem to be against. Even if it's just lasers. I myself want my weapons to fire predictably...

Yep, you are right. So there should be a way to decrease/remove convergence time by smarter usage of lasers. Like instant/faster convergence for using target lock (hello, informational warfare, where are you?) or increasing convergence time for each laser fired simultaneously. So you play dumber — you get more random result. And of course some convergence quirks for some specific mechs which may suffer to much from that.

Oh, and one more thing. PGI PLEASE ADD A BULLET TRAIL TO GAUSS. One of the reasons Gauss stays in meta even after tons of nerfs is that it's too stealthy allowing people to play MWO the Camper-Strike way. And people love Quake's railgun with fancy spiral trail.

Edited by Appuagab, 21 August 2016 - 04:38 PM.

[Mystere]

Vincent Quatermain, on 21 August 2016 - 04:35 PM, said:

I did read, and your idea is actually a particularly bonkers version of the various flavors of Ghost Aim. You are proposing that the sighting reticle in the game is not actually where all, or even any, of your weapons will hit. This will be extraordarily frustrating for new players and will only widen the gap in performance between skilled and unskilled players.

I guess geometry and trigonometry are just too hard for many players these days.

[Gamuray]

Vincent Quatermain, on 21 August 2016 - 04:35 PM, said:

I did read, and your idea is actually a particularly bonkers version of the various flavors of Ghost Aim. You are proposing that the sighting reticle in the game is not actually where all, or even any, of your weapons will hit. This will be extraordarily frustrating for new players and will only widen the gap in performance between skilled and unskilled players. (Not to mention, that turning an electronic HUD into the equivalent of mid-19th century iron sights is laughable even for Mechwarrior's wacky tech.)



The only visual indicator of where the weapons point is the targeting reticle. If you turn the reticle into a lie, no one will know where their weapons are pointed.



Thanks for illustrating exactly how dumb this idea is. Assume for a moment that this was implemented. Well, your scenario would be irrelevant because there wouldn't be anyone driving King Crabs anymore. Anyone with two brain cells to rub together would drive a light mech, because at least then my targeting reticle would actually be close to accurate -- and with the added bonus that anyone in a bigger mech can't take advantage of their superior firepower to take me down.

Welcome to LocustWarrior Online.

First of all, the cross hairs wouldn't be lying about where your shooting. Ever have to lead a target that was skylined? Was the cross hair lying just because your weapons fired at the farther convergence point? Leading a target you already have your weapons landing different places on the enemy mech, so you have to take into account your mech weapon locations... it's not actually difficult. Generally you have to lead lights with ballistics anyways, so there won't be a difference unless they're standing still, in which case you can take more careful aim anyways.

And sure, light mechs get a combat buff... so what? They've barely got armor, and almost every one has agility quirks. If they become op just take away the agility quirks so they die a bit faster. Go ahead and look at light que without an event... single digits. I think they can use the help anyways.

[Kynesis]

I dunno... the idea seems like it could be

pretty hit & miss.


I'll see myself out.

More seriously though, I like the idea in principle - it is incredibly convenient that all weapons always (except at point-blank and as mentioned, leading a target) strike the centre of the reticle.

A feature like this though would need to be tested very carefully, both on a technical level but also on a player reception level. New players particularly (or anyone with less than 20/20 vision) might find this a significant barrier.

There may be additional technical issues with implementing such a system, constantly raycasting every weapon for every mech might affect performance for example or might affect players with high latency much more than others.

Edited by Kynesis, 21 August 2016 - 06:51 PM.

[Vincent Quatermain]

Mystere, on 21 August 2016 - 05:01 PM, said:

I guess geometry and trigonometry are just too hard for many players these days.

You would be doing said trigonometry by "feel" in a split second. So, yeah, it does make things complicated. Also, from an accessibility standpoint, are there any multiplayer FPS where your targeting reticle straight up lies to you? I can't think of one.

Gamuray, on 21 August 2016 - 05:49 PM, said:

First of all, the cross hairs wouldn't be lying about where your shooting.

Look at your own damn picture! That King Crab aiming its reticle at the Locust would have none of its weapons actually aimed at the Locust. That is utterly useless.

Gamuray, on 21 August 2016 - 05:49 PM, said:

Generally you have to lead lights with ballistics anyways, so there won't be a difference unless they're standing still, in which case you can take more careful aim anyways.

OMG, no. The optimal time to shoot is when a light is heading directly toward or away from you, that way you don't have to lead them. But under Ghost Aim, my shot would likely miss because my AC would fire a meter to the right of my reticle, unless I also aimed slightly to the left. But how much? It varies with the distance from me to the light mech. The further away the light, the less I need to hook the shot. In other words the shot gets harder the closer the light mech gets. An Artic Cheetah with small pulse will eat assault mechs for breakfast.

[Mystere]

Vincent Quatermain, on 21 August 2016 - 06:46 PM, said:

You would be doing said trigonometry by "feel" in a split second. So, yeah, it does make things complicated. Also, from an accessibility standpoint, are there any multiplayer FPS where your targeting reticle straight up lies to you? I can't think of one.

Lying? Hilarious. It's called "aiming relative to the reticle center".

And more importantly, just because no one has done something does not mean it should not be done. Or should humanity not seek to travel to the stars because no human has done it before? Should humanity stop seeking a cure for cancer? No one has done that either.

Vincent Quatermain, on 21 August 2016 - 06:46 PM, said:

OMG, no. The optimal time to shoot is when a light is heading directly toward or away from you, that way you don't have to lead them. But under Ghost Aim, my shot would likely miss because my AC would fire a meter to the right of my reticle, unless I also aimed slightly to the left. But how much? It varies with the distance from me to the light mech. The further away the light, the less I need to hook the shot. In other words the shot gets harder the closer the light mech gets. An Artic Cheetah with small pulse will eat assault mechs for breakfast.

OMFG!

Hey everyone! Whenever you see VQ on the other team, make sure you're running perpendicular to his LOS. It looks like he will not even attempt to shoot you.

Edited by Mystere, 21 August 2016 - 06:53 PM.

[Wildstorm]

I'd love to see zero-convergence. It is "realistic" for a mech simulation game and it spreads the damage a bit so TTK would go down. Sure, elite pilots would learn what shoots where and be able to move the crosshairs to hit the same spot on an enemy, but they couldn't do it all at once. It would take a fraction of a second to launch a direct fire weapon, move the cursor, and then launch another weapon system.

Alternatively, a mech's targeting system could be like missile locks. Just like LRM's or Streaks, if you wait for a "weapon lock" then let the weapons converge as they do now. It would add some variety and make people wait a few seconds before their alpha could do pinpoint damage. That few seconds usually means face time so would be a risk. Without waiting you could just blast away but it would spread the damage depending upon your hardpoint layout.

Even with a "weapon lock" system, I'd like to see a minimum range that it would work. If I'm hugging a larger mech then it's arm weapons probably shouldn't be able to hit my CT. I'm sure this would add more maths to the code, but comps are getting faster everyday. Calc away.

Edited by Wildstorm, 21 August 2016 - 06:56 PM.

[Vincent Quatermain]

Mystere, on 21 August 2016 - 06:50 PM, said:

Lying? Hilarious. It's called "aiming relative to the reticle center".

When you lead a target you are aiming at the spot where the target will be when the round arrives. But your sights are still telling you, correctly, where that spot is. With Ghost Aim, I need to take into account the distance between the cockpit and the hardpoint my weapon is firing from. Those positions vary widely by mech design, meaning that switching mechs will destroy your entire sense of aim.

So, in a sense Ghost Aim will punish you for having a large mechlab. I'm sure PGI will leap at the opportunity to discourage people from buying new mechs. /sarc

Mystere, on 21 August 2016 - 06:50 PM, said:

And more importantly, just because no one has done something does not mean it should not be done. Or should humanity not seek to travel to the stars because no human has done it before? Should humanity stop seeking a cure for cancer? No one has done that either.

It's true, it could be amazing to have an FPS game where your reticle points at somewhere other than where any of your weapons point. This could be the breakthrough that makes MWO played by millions worldwide!

Pfft.

[Mystere]

Wildstorm, on 21 August 2016 - 06:54 PM, said:

I'd love to see zero-convergence. It is "realistic" for a mech simulation game and it spreads the damage a bit so TTK would go down. Sure, elite pilots would learn what shoots where and be able to move the crosshairs to hit the same spot on an enemy, but they couldn't do it all at once. It would take a fraction of a second to launch a direct fire weapon, move the cursor, and then launch another weapon system.

Alternatively, a mech's targeting system could be like missile locks. Just like LRM's or Streaks, if you wait for a "weapon lock" then let the weapons converge as they do now. It would add some variety and make people wait a few seconds before their alpha could do pinpoint damage. That few seconds usually means face time so would be a risk. Without waiting you could just blast away but it would spread the damage depending upon your hardpoint layout.

Even with a "weapon lock" system, I'd like to see a minimum range that it would work. If I'm hugging a larger mech then it's arm weapons probably shouldn't be able to hit my CT. I'm sure this would add more maths to the code, but comps are getting faster everyday. Calc away.

You're not alone in wanting a system such "convergence on lock" system.

[Mystere]

Vincent Quatermain, on 21 August 2016 - 07:04 PM, said:

When you lead a target you are aiming at the spot where the target will be when the round arrives. But your sights are still telling you, correctly, where that spot is. With Ghost Aim, I need to take into account the distance between the cockpit and the hardpoint my weapon is firing from. Those positions vary widely by mech design, meaning that switching mechs will destroy your entire sense of aim.

So, in a sense Ghost Aim will punish you for having a large mechlab. I'm sure PGI will leap at the opportunity to discourage people from buying new mechs. /sarc

Translation: Yes, seat-of-the-pants geometry/trigonometry is not easy. One will need to know where weapons are mounted and understand the implications of said mounting.

Of course, if a "thinking person's shooter" is not really what one wants, but instead "point and click adventures" ...

[Vincent Quatermain]

Mystere, on 21 August 2016 - 06:50 PM, said:

Hey everyone! Whenever you see VQ on the other team, make sure you're running perpendicular to his LOS. It looks like he will not even attempt to shoot you.

You missed the word "optimal" in that paragraph. But based on your Ghost Aim idea, you must really like missing things.

Edited by Vincent Quatermain, 21 August 2016 - 07:38 PM.

[Mystere]

Gamuray, on 21 August 2016 - 05:49 PM, said:

First of all, the cross hairs wouldn't be lying about where your shooting. Ever have to lead a target that was skylined? Was the cross hair lying just because your weapons fired at the farther convergence point? Leading a target you already have your weapons landing different places on the enemy mech, so you have to take into account your mech weapon locations... it's not actually difficult. Generally you have to lead lights with ballistics anyways, so there won't be a difference unless they're standing still, in which case you can take more careful aim anyways.

Precisely.

[cazidin]

Gamuray, on 21 August 2016 - 10:48 AM, said:

Can you even read? Even the TITLE says zero-convergence. ZERO-CONVERGENCE. Meaning a LACK of convergence. My gosh man, this entire thread is about getting rid of weapon convergence to eliminate precise alpha-striking.

In the unlikely event that you're serious... what I'm telling you is that PGI either cannot due to programming/literal technical difficulties or will not due to laziness and cost-to-benefit alter convergence from anything other than what it currently is. That is to say, enjoy pixel perfect convergence. We'll be using Energy Draw to limit alpha striking.

[Mystere]

Vincent Quatermain, on 21 August 2016 - 07:22 PM, said:

You missed the word "optimal" in that paragraph.

Many times, it is best to take action even if conditions are not "optimal".

Vincent Quatermain, on 21 August 2016 - 07:22 PM, said:

But based on your daft Ghost Aim idea, you must really like missing things.

Ahem. I like seat-of-the-pants geometry/trigonometry. Math has never been a problem for me.

cazidin, on 21 August 2016 - 07:24 PM, said:

In the unlikely event that you're serious... what I'm telling you is that PGI either cannot due to programming/literal technical difficulties or will not due to laziness and cost-to-benefit alter convergence from anything other than what it currently is. That is to say, enjoy pixel perfect convergence. We'll be using Energy Draw to limit alpha striking.

Sadly, that is the greatest hindrance to this. I'm just left wondering what would have happened if the time they have spent on ED and GH was instead spent on a convergence-based solution instead.

Edited by Mystere, 21 August 2016 - 07:30 PM.

[Vincent Quatermain]

Mystere, on 21 August 2016 - 07:09 PM, said:

Translation: Yes, seat-of-the-pants geometry/trigonometry is not easy. One will need to know where weapons are mounted and understand the implications of said mounting.

Of course, if a "thinking person's shooter" is not really what one wants, but instead "point and click adventures" ...

So, given that MWO already relies more on positioning than twitch ability, and that weapon mountings are already important enough to matter in the meta, I would say that MWO already is a thinking person's shooter and will become slightly more so with a properly tuned energy draw system. Do you think it is currently "point and click"?

[Andi Nagasia]

Gamuray, on 21 August 2016 - 02:25 PM, said:

Another person that needs to learn to read. This is ZERO convergence. If you read through I literally say "weapons shoot where the barrels are pointing". There is no randomness to NO convergence. You are thinking of delayed or dynamic convergence, where you have an area that the weapon can hit in. ZERO convergence means the weapons DON'T converge. They just shoot where they point.

Here, I'll give you a visual.


In this example, if the king crab alpha striked, the weapon would fire down range in exactly the pattern shown (assuming arms not pointing higher than torso). So if he shoots everything with the locust in the middle... well, he'll probably miss everything unless the travel time causes the locust to run into the projectiles. Whereas the locust will be firing it's smaller weapon pattern down range, as shown, and IT will hit with everything, because the crab is larger than the locust's widest point between weapons.

Now, if the crab wants to hit the locust, then he can aim down and left for lasers, down and right for missiles, or to either side to get a ballistic to hit.

Everything is PERFECTLY PREDICTABLE. Things just shoot where they are pointing instead of magically turning when they leave their weapon barrel.

the problem with this type of Ridicule Spread, is what about mechs that have weapons spread all over,
this would be a huge nerf to mechs like the King Crab, but mechs like the HBK would be unaffected,
also take into consideration mechs like the WHK, who have all its direct fire weapons in the arms,
would this mean if someone running 2UAC10s would have to separate their fire to hit enemies?
wail also a KDK with the same 2UAC10s would be much more efficient,
as its mechs with Clustered weapons arnt penalized like others,

[1453 R]

Unfortunately Andi, these folks don't really care about any of that.

They mostly just want to ensure that nothing ever hits anything else ever again in MWO because being able to hit your target (with gunfire rather than a punch, mind) is just not the way their A BattleTech Game™ is supposed to work.

I mean, good Lahd. Gamuray thinks it's perfectly fine for a King Krab to be literally incapable of hitting targets by pointing their reticle at said targets. That's really all that needs to be said, innit?

[Kuaron]

Tbh, I am a friend of a significantly slowed down conversion, for obvious benefits.
But OP’s zero convergence doesn’t appear to me realistic, but rather annoying. I would be curious to be able to test any of this approaches, though, if PGI would start thinking in this direction.
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.

[Mystere]

Andi Nagasia, on 21 August 2016 - 07:52 PM, said:

the problem with this type of Ridicule Spread, is what about mechs that have weapons spread all over,
this would be a huge nerf to mechs like the King Crab, but mechs like the HBK would be unaffected,
also take into consideration mechs like the WHK, who have all its direct fire weapons in the arms,
would this mean if someone running 2UAC10s would have to separate their fire to hit enemies?
wail also a KDK with the same 2UAC10s would be much more efficient,
as its mechs with Clustered weapons arnt penalized like others,

I see it as a risk/reward thing. Sure, Mechs with clustered weapons have an advantage -- until someone shoots off the cluster anyway (e.g. Nova, Hunchback).

Unfortunately, a zero convergence system is proving to be too controversial. Just look at the rabidly exaggerated post beneath yours () to see why. A fixed convergence system (either set at Mechlab and/or via a "dial" in game) is better.

Having said that, I myself am more of the "pinpoint convergence on lock, zero/fixed convergence in the absence of a lock" camp. It's not perfect. But, it's a good compromise between the delayed convergence we originally had -- before HSR and hit registration reared their ugly heads -- and the automatic near-instant pinpoint convergence used as the replacement and which we now have. It also ties in nicely with information warfare (if and when that thing even arrives).

Many find the original delayed convergence system of closed beta ideal. As such, there are those who want to bring some of the features of that back.