81 replies to this topic

[Nemesis Duck]

[Mystere]

qS Sachiel, on 07 November 2017 - 01:29 AM, said:

Why do we have another thread for this within the week, if it's literally hashing over the same points verbatim (many of which flawed). Is convergence the eau de jour hmm? I preferred the whining about airstrikes and machineguns. Convergence whinging is just people with myopia who can't afford the requisite optical aides to play the game at their given distance to screen.

I'm sure your dislike of any convergence-based solution has nothing to do with preserving the current crutch also known as "automatic near instant pixel-perfect pinpoint convergence" instead of being required to individually time, aim, and shoot your weapons.

[Wolfways]

Phoolan Devi, on 07 November 2017 - 04:46 AM, said:

Excellent idea!

Heat should also take an effect.

Up to 25% treshold = no shake
25-50% = minor shake
50-75% = heavy shake (like jumping or masc now)
Over 75% = heavy shake and low signal (as under ecm or jammer)

That's just a clan nerf really, although ammo should have a chance of exploding depending on heat level. Of course pgi's heat system screws up any chance of that...

Edited by Wolfways, 07 November 2017 - 11:47 AM.

[Nemesis Duck]

Mystere, on 07 November 2017 - 10:54 AM, said:

I'm sure your dislike of any convergence-based solution has nothing to do with preserving the current crutch also known as "automatic near instant pixel-perfect pinpoint convergence" instead of being required to individually time, aim, and shoot your weapons.

Accuracy a crutch to skill?! You made a mistake in your opinion piece, there's no need to aim or time shots when a RNG determines what you hit. But more later from our fake news proponant. Push button lurms, rampant strikes, bad map design for a group shooter and weapons that are 'not hitting where I shoot'. Brilliant!

Edited by Nemesis Duck, 07 November 2017 - 01:26 PM.

[dwwolf]

Nemesis Duck, on 07 November 2017 - 01:25 PM, said:

Accuracy a crutch to skill?! You made a mistake in your opinion piece, there's no need to aim or time shots when a RNG determines what you hit. But more later from our fake news proponant. Push button lurms, rampant strikes, bad map design for a group shooter and weapons that are 'not hitting where I shoot'. Brilliant!

Nope, I never bother to aim in WoT or WT either you are completely right.

[Shifty McSwift]

Woops, that was meant for that other topic, IDK what to think about this idea as much, could be kind of interesting in some ways, hmm.

Edited by Shifty McSwift, 07 November 2017 - 04:46 PM.

[Mystere]

Nemesis Duck, on 07 November 2017 - 01:25 PM, said:

Accuracy a crutch to skill?! You made a mistake in your opinion piece, there's no need to aim or time shots when a RNG determines what you hit. But more later from our fake news proponant. Push button lurms, rampant strikes, bad map design for a group shooter and weapons that are 'not hitting where I shoot'. Brilliant!

Any convergence-based solution does not involve RNG.

Highlighted for emphasis.

[qS Sachiel]

Mystere, on 07 November 2017 - 05:47 PM, said:

Any convergence-based solution does not involve RNG.

Highlighted for emphasis.

COF and reticle bloom would generally encorporate RNG.
The weapon is pointing somewhere within the zone denoted by the abstract reticle, but unless the game tracks the vector line from the barrel at all times (also modelling any recoil/deviation from true bore) then it's generally easier to just code in a dispersion function as communicated by reticle.

Further, the player doesn't know where within the abstract reticle the barrels are facing, thus the element of RNG is experienced regardless, effectively making the reticle a 'zone of possible hit', denoting chance, denoting RNG.

TLDR: both COF and reticle bloom commonly employ RNG, except where fixed pattern spread is hardcoded into the weapon.

Edited by qS Sachiel, 07 November 2017 - 07:02 PM.

[Pariah Devalis]

qS Sachiel, on 07 November 2017 - 07:01 PM, said:

COF and reticle bloom would generally encorporate RNG.
The weapon is pointing somewhere within the zone denoted by the abstract reticle, but unless the game tracks the vector line from the barrel at all times (also modelling any recoil/deviation from true bore) then it's generally easier to just code in a dispersion function as communicated by reticle.

Further, the player doesn't know where within the abstract reticle the barrels are facing, thus the element of RNG is experienced regardless, effectively making the reticle a 'zone of possible hit', denoting chance, denoting RNG.

TLDR: both COF and reticle bloom commonly employ RNG, except where fixed pattern spread is hardcoded into the weapon.

And yet there is almost always silence, no pros or cons rooting for it, when someone suggests a fixed convergence system. Why is that?

[qS Sachiel]

Pariah Devalis, on 07 November 2017 - 08:21 PM, said:

And yet there is almost always silence, no pros or cons rooting for it, when someone suggests a fixed convergence system. Why is that?

I don't understand the question?

I was just refuting the statement that a convergence model "would not involve RNG", while in reality RNG is an expected element in such a system.

I was addressing dynamic convergence, why bring up fixed convergence? do you want me to list pros and cons? to stand in support or against?

Much confuse.

Edited by qS Sachiel, 07 November 2017 - 09:25 PM.

[Pariah Devalis]

qS Sachiel, on 07 November 2017 - 09:24 PM, said:

I don't understand the question?

I was just refuting the statement that a convergence model "would not involve RNG", while in reality RNG is an expected element in such a system.

I was addressing dynamic convergence, why bring up fixed convergence? do you want me to list pros and cons? to stand in support or against?

Much confuse.

I apologize. It wasn't directed at you, per say. However, when the alternative approach that does not involve RNG is brought up, very few people tend to respond to it. Case in point, I mentioned it in this thread early on. I don't think anyone put their two cents into it, and it wasn't the first time.

I mean, if people are whining about RNG, and if people want to increase TTK, then you'd think an option that myself and others have attempted to float past the denizens of these forums several times in the past that maintained skill and no RNG would get some discussion going on, right?

The basis of the idea is simple: torso weapons, and weapons in arms without lower arm actuators, do not have convergence based on the reticule. They either converge at infinity, or at their weapon's optimal ranges. Weapons on arms with upper and lower actuators can be pinpoint like the current system is. Suddenly, you know where your shots should fall relative to the reticule based on their physical location on your mech. In addition, there finally is also a really, really good reason to risk putting bigger guns in your arms.

Bam. Simple. Zero RNG. Predictable flight paths of weapons. Forces one to correct aim between "sides" which, in turn, forces a higher TTK. Secondary benefit is that LRM and SSRM become more viable in comparison to everything else.

Edited by Pariah Devalis, 07 November 2017 - 09:35 PM.

[qS Sachiel]

Ok i get your general response to the forum, only quoting me.
But the current system allows for fire control that converges at all range, i imagine, which is why we get the pinpoint damage on lasers (no reason why they do not converge at all ranges) and ballistics (again no real reason not to given fire control available). Rockets convergence is a bit moot as SRM tend to swarm, MRM tend to spread, and homing missiles converge on target via homing.

Ultimately i fail to see how the current system is a problem beyond people getting zapped in shoulders/CT in either mechs with weak armor or poor weapons to respond in kind. People are being punished for a bad play.
Current system involves little to no RNG, has accurate fire (read: high player control).

[Pariah Devalis]

qS Sachiel, on 07 November 2017 - 09:50 PM, said:

Ok i get your general response to the forum, only quoting me.
But the current system allows for fire control that converges at all range, i imagine, which is why we get the pinpoint damage on lasers (no reason why they do not converge at all ranges) and ballistics (again no real reason not to given fire control available). Rockets convergence is a bit moot as SRM tend to swarm, MRM tend to spread, and homing missiles converge on target via homing.

Ultimately i fail to see how the current system is a problem beyond people getting zapped in shoulders/CT in either mechs with weak armor or poor weapons to respond in kind. People are being punished for a bad play.
Current system involves little to no RNG, has accurate fire (read: high player control).

The problem with the current system as it stands, and why threads revolving around "spread" crop up often, is because at the base level the game was never actually meant to play like it does. In many ways, the game played more "true" before HSR was implemented. The way things are, with pixel perfect convergence, creates staggeringly low time to kill or, at the very least, staggeringly low time to disable. Lower than a significant portion of this community likes.

Battletech and Mechwarrior is not supposed to be a low TTK game, but one where damage accrues over time. Not an eternity, but long enough that you'd have armor breaches and system failures building up as you went along a fight. Mechs that would have firepower potentials of, say, 50 (just to pull a number out of my ***) were never intended to be able to reliably put all of that firepower into one specific location. It was expected that multiple weapons fired would likely hit multiple locations on a target. However, this is essentially an FPS, and players should have near complete control over where their shots go, but doesn't mean all their shots should converge at the same exact place 100% of the time.

Unfortunately, due to the nature of pinpoint convergence, we have a game where PGI has actually had to take the drastic step of actually doubling the armor and internal structure values of the mechs in the game. And even then, you can still take all the side torso armor off of a heavy mech with a typical alphastrike from many of the mechs in the game right now.

It causes problems, not just to TTK, but in weapon type viability. For example, if your weapons didn't converge cleanly at a specific point, guided munitions like LRM, ATM, or SSRM become a higher value item. Maybe not meta, but certainly not junk. They'd home in and seek, at least in the case of LRM and ATM, center mass. Something that may be harder to do with direct fire weapons, but direct fire weapons would have the edge on DPS and predictability of pathing, as well as fewer hard counters like ECM or AMS. Indeed, even LBX becomes more worthwhile. Now you can use a scatter weapon like that to properly exploit holes you might have made in an enemy mech easier. Just wave in the general direction of the target and profit.

The real joys of a fixed or semifixed (arms converge, torso does not) convergence system are that not only is there no need to create new UI elements from a developer standpoint, you as a pilot of any given mech should have a feel for the trajectory of your weapons relative to your reticule. For example, an AC20 in the Hunchback's right shoulder should fly a little high and to the right of the reticule. It's predictable, but based on the pilot's awareness and familiarity with their mech. It maintains the skill of aiming and, indeed, layers the benefit of experience with a given machine on top of that, deepening the gameplay. In addition, when it comes to mech building, people would no longer be so quick to strip out the arms if those provided a way to retain pixel perfect accuracy - but only for the weapons placed within those arms.

Depth of gameplay, depth of mechbuilding, quality of options, extended time to kill, and retention of the importance of player skill all follow the ideas of (semi)fixed convergence.

Edited by Pariah Devalis, 07 November 2017 - 11:09 PM.

[qS Sachiel]

MW2 legs flew off mechs (and then they fell over). Components were able to be stripped within seconds by the majority of mechs.

MW3 mechs lasted significantly longer - the game did however feature a component lock mechanism i believe, where a reticle would snap on the component. I can't remember if your aimsight would also snap to this point or if it just guided an aim point (eg: non-leading reticle). I believe PPD was still very much a thing, except TTK was much longer.

MW4 return to PPFLD - while certain mechs like the uziel (lol) could tank like a boss, and PPC seemed to be a lot more splash based than currently (at least for IS) you could load up the majority of mechs with LPL/MPL and just obliterate targets with very forgiving heat. Streaks also didn't require target lock, and would just home in on the point where aimsight was at time of firing, they'd then stream in 1 by 1 into the same spot.

Mechs seemed much tankier in MW4, but really once you exited the first operation, the hardpoints on most mechs allowed for you to cleave the majority of enemy torsos in a single volley.

MCG: I loved the hell out of this mechwarrior game, but damn was it frustrating (sometimes quite exciting i suppose) seeing my firestarters just turn the screen blue with PPC but they would continually fall short or fly high of target. HIT HIM YOU DOG! As the game progressed, hits came in thick and fast though, but damn.

SO: From my experience, being able to cleave mechs has been a pretty consistent experience of MechWarrior games to provide PPD and low TTK. Battletech/TT i have no experience in. 'Battletech' by HBS does appear to spread damage generously when the HBK walking around the corner doesn't 1hit HS the Atlas, but the two games are far enough removed and with enough previous history for me to accept this game as not far removed.

I'm sure the advantages you listed, and the disadvantages associated with current system are only really truly able to be appreciated when a working alternative is actually experienced, but I still see little issue with the current game, and then little need to bring in CoF/Bloom/Convergence/Assisted targeting.

Edited by qS Sachiel, 07 November 2017 - 11:51 PM.

[Sodoff Baldrick]

Khobai, on 06 November 2017 - 08:31 AM, said:

If you want CoD with mechs, that game exists, go play hawken.

Hawken ist getting shut down on January 2nd, 2018 BTW.

"peak concurrent player counts fell to below 200", see:

https://community.pl...nset-announced/

Edited by Sodoff Baldrick, 08 November 2017 - 03:38 AM.

[FupDup]

qS Sachiel, on 07 November 2017 - 11:49 PM, said:

MW3 mechs lasted significantly longer - the game did however feature a component lock mechanism i believe, where a reticle would snap on the component. I can't remember if your aimsight would also snap to this point or if it just guided an aim point (eg: non-leading reticle). I believe PPD was still very much a thing, except TTK was much longer.

What you're thinking of is the Targeting Computer. It let you highlight a specific hitbox to show you where to aim, but you still had to aim yourself.

Also, MW3 was hyper-lethal with its unrestricted mechlab, insta-death legging, instant-explosion Flamers, extremely powerful MGs (mount 16 for a literal oneshot kill on the CT of an Atlas), among other things. MW3 probably had the fastest kill times of any MW game if you built your mech for it.

[Tarl Cabot]

Quote

Unfortunately, due to the nature of pinpoint convergence, we have a game where PGI has actually had to take the drastic step of actually doubling the armor and internal structure values of the mechs in the game. And even then, you can still take all the side torso armor off of a heavy mech with a typical alphastrike from many of the mechs in the game right now.

Understand that when the armor/is was doubled it was 4vs4 iirc but first the F&F complained it was taking too long to fire weapons to kill a mech so cooldown timers were practically halved. Then mechs were dying too fast leading to the doubling the armor, and inadvertently doubling of the internal structure which the higher ups were not aware of until the players asked about it cause mechs were taking more damage before parts starting flying off. It was after that crits hits were enhanced, again iirc.

Edited by Tarl Cabot, 08 November 2017 - 04:30 AM.

[Phoolan Devi]

Wolfways, on 07 November 2017 - 11:45 AM, said:

That's just a clan nerf really, although ammo should have a chance of exploding depending on heat level. Of course pgi's heat system screws up any chance of that...

......as well as limited speed due to heat (except mechs with triple myomer, who need the heat to be fast^^)

[Brain Cancer]

Instadeath from high heat is a poor mechanism given MWO's realtime heatscale.

Ammo damage is fine, though. But MWO's literally vestigial (as in barely changed since beta, other than removing ammoboom) heat system is one of those examples of how crudely polished parts of the game were on the way out of beta.

So is the current perfect-convergence system. It's not in there because it was how they wanted MWO designed. It's in there because it's the only thing PGI was able to make functional, hacking a chunk of the original, more elegant system out to do so.

Hooking something simpler than the old dynamic convergence but more complex than the current perfect convergence would be a change back towards the better.

[Mystere]

qS Sachiel, on 07 November 2017 - 07:01 PM, said:

COF and reticle bloom would generally encorporate RNG.
The weapon is pointing somewhere within the zone denoted by the abstract reticle, but unless the game tracks the vector line from the barrel at all times (also modelling any recoil/deviation from true bore) then it's generally easier to just code in a dispersion function as communicated by reticle.

Further, the player doesn't know where within the abstract reticle the barrels are facing, thus the element of RNG is experienced regardless, effectively making the reticle a 'zone of possible hit', denoting chance, denoting RNG.

TLDR: both COF and reticle bloom commonly employ RNG, except where fixed pattern spread is hardcoded into the weapon.

I really need to ask: Which part of:

Mystere, on 07 November 2017 - 05:47 PM, said:

Any convergence-based solution does not involve RNG.

do you not understand?

Also, just because a user cannot figure this one out:

qS Sachiel, on 07 November 2017 - 07:01 PM, said:

Further, the player doesn't know where within the abstract reticle the barrels are facing ...

does not imply RNG is involved at all.

It can be reasonable argued that saying so is a gross misrepresentation, which by the way a whole lot of people have done with regards to the subject. Whether they did so out of sheer ignorance or just outright malice I cannot really say. However, I do recall some nasty fire-breathing posts being purged once said posters were called out.

Several people, some already long gone, have shown how each weapon can be visually represented via the reticle(s). I leave searching for the relevant posts to you.

qS Sachiel, on 07 November 2017 - 09:24 PM, said:

I was just refuting the statement that a convergence model "would not involve RNG", while in reality RNG is an expected element in such a system.

You refuted no such thing. See above.

Edited by Mystere, 08 November 2017 - 08:51 AM.