46 replies to this topic

[Minamitsu]

So have tried using the King Crab as well as the Nightstars, and can't stand using them with anything except LBX ACs because of how aiming works.
When a target is moving you will need to lead them to get a hit, but your weapons focus on the point your crosshair is at. So if you try to lead a target with weapons so far apart, it's like you are shooting at two different targets.
Personally, I would love to see an option to where your weapons adjust to the distance of a locked target when you are aiming near it.

[MrMadguy]

+1 This is the real reason, why Lights are so invulnerable. Implement this change and they all will die as quick, as they should. Some people have an illusion, that hitreg is broken in this game, just because they unload their 2xGauss alpha into Light's CT, crosshair flashes, indicating hit, so they assume, that whole 30 dmg is done. But... It isn't the case, as one weapon missed and another hit Light's arm due to crappy convergence.

I've been asking for this change for a long time already, cuz it's just pointless crap, that we have weapons, that need leading, and for our TC it's easier to converge weapons on some arbitrary point on a ground, than on our real target.

Edited by MrMadguy, 10 January 2018 - 04:37 AM.

[Admiral-Dan]

So basically you want an aimbot?

[Bombast]

That would actually be kind of neat, and it may inspire more people to push R (Come on, people. I know some of you are just trying to spite LRM boats, but seriously, press R to know where to shoot, homing weapons or not).

That said, it really shouldn't be that much of an issue, especially for something that's almost certainly carrying short range ballistics. If you're having problems leading under the current system, adding 'auto-range' is not going to help you. Your shots are still going to go into the dirt.

The reason LB-Xs are working better for you is simply because they have greater velocity, so there's less leading to be done.

Edited by Bombast, 10 January 2018 - 04:29 AM.

[Bud Crue]

AlphaEtOmega, on 10 January 2018 - 04:19 AM, said:

So basically you want an aimbot?

No. The OP want's better convergence.

I totally get what you are saying OP. I've gotten used to it on a few mechs (IV-4 ya just sort of shimmy to one side and then the other and then alternate your AC fire to get both cannons on target) but on a lot of them ya just have to accept that you will lose a few shots to divergence of the mounts (AC2 BJ for example). Nothing for it.

[Curccu]

AlphaEtOmega, on 10 January 2018 - 04:19 AM, said:

So basically you want an aimbot?

No, he wants convergence distance adjusterbot.
And it would make sense specially if mech carries TC

[justcallme A S H]

Bud Crue, on 10 January 2018 - 04:25 AM, said:

No. The OP want's better convergence.

I totally get what you are saying OP. I've gotten used to it on a few mechs (IV-4 ya just sort of shimmy to one side and then the other and then alternate your AC fire to get both cannons on target) but on a lot of them ya just have to accept that you will lose a few shots to divergence of the mounts (AC2 BJ for example). Nothing for it.

Convergence is fine though?

If you fire weapons at the same time they WILL go to the same place your crosshair is on.

I have no issue at all landing shots, so it's just a skill / practice item. Either that or ingame mouse sensitivity is way too high. It should be no higher than 0.2 - Most have it far higher, turning it down makes all the difference.

[Burke IV]

The gap between the weapons on some mechs is so large you can step between slow moving projectiles like PPC shots

[StealthdragonB]

justcallme A S H, on 10 January 2018 - 04:34 AM, said:

Convergence is fine though?

If you fire weapons at the same time they WILL go to the same place your crosshair is on.

I have no issue at all landing shots, so it's just a skill / practice item. Either that or ingame mouse sensitivity is way too high. It should be no higher than 0.2 - Most have it far higher, turning it down makes all the difference.

Not really, the OP is talking about when you aren’t shooting directly at something, and trying to lead a shot, I had a similar issue when using the adder’s wide arms with ppcs, since the adder’s arms are like 10m away from eachother you can end up leading two separate shots 10m away from eachother, it’s more of an issue when the object you are shooting at behind them is distant relative to the target or there is no object, considering convergence is based on what your cross hair is pointed at and not your target.

[Curccu]

justcallme A S H, on 10 January 2018 - 04:34 AM, said:

Convergence is fine though?

If you fire weapons at the same time they WILL go to the same place your crosshair is on.

I have no issue at all landing shots, so it's just a skill / practice item. Either that or ingame mouse sensitivity is way too high. It should be no higher than 0.2 - Most have it far higher, turning it down makes all the difference.

Convergence is perfect and instant and that is the issue in this case.
lets say you have mech like IV-FOUR with 2xAC10, one in each hand, which are quite far apart from each others.
There is a locust 300meters away running on top of the hill, the locust is framed by sky.
To shoot that locust you have to lead your shot, when you lead the shot you have to more your reticle to sky which means your weapons convergence range is now 2500 meters (MWO maximum range (or was it 3500 cannot remember, irrelevant in this post anyway)).

Result: If you hit locust with both AC10 rounds those will not hit same component and it doesn't matter if your lead was perfect or not.

[BTGbullseye]

Convergence should be crosshair based, unless you have a target locked, then based on the lock distance.

[justcallme A S H]

StealthdragonB, on 10 January 2018 - 04:53 AM, said:

Not really, the OP is talking about when you aren’t shooting directly at something, and trying to lead a shot, I had a similar issue when using the adder’s wide arms with ppcs, since the adder’s arms are like 10m away from eachother you can end up leading two separate shots 10m away from eachother, it’s more of an issue when the object you are shooting at behind them is distant relative to the target or there is no object, considering convergence is based on what your cross hair is pointed at and not your target.

The only time I've really suffered from it is say firing Gauss or trying to hit a UAV with Dakka. The UAV you have to aim just slightly above to get the convergence to work otherwise it'll shoot god knows where.

On the Deathstrike that bullets actually cross over and go in other directions - but that is if I am aiming at something say 1200m away but slightly move off the target to something 3000m away. They have actually crossed over and gone around the target before. Pretty funny.

I can lead my dakka at a light in say a MCII-B, say 500m-700m away and hit it, you have to lead pretty hard but the trick there is to aim at the ground juuuuust past it or a wall/tree/hill a bit off in the distance. You can consistently hit the legs like that. Plus gotta account for the bullet drop as well a bit.

Yeah I get it's annoying and in some instances it missing... You do get used to it though. Just how the game is.

Curccu, on 10 January 2018 - 04:59 AM, said:

Convergence is perfect and instant and that is the issue in this case.
lets say you have mech like IV-FOUR with 2xAC10, one in each hand, which are quite far apart from each others.
There is a locust 300meters away running on top of the hill, the locust is framed by sky.
To shoot that locust you have to lead your shot, when you lead the shot you have to more your reticle to sky which means your weapons convergence range is now 2500 meters (MWO maximum range (or was it 3500 cannot remember, irrelevant in this post anyway)).

Yeah in the sky is the only time that happens though. And that isn't all the time (say a light on top of a peak/crest). It's never going to get fixed either way... We all know that.

[Sjorpha]

I kinda like it, it adds some meaningful differences to hardpoint placement nesides just the obvious high vs low. It's also good that it benefits lights.

[C E Dwyer]

There's no better teacher than experience and knowing how to compensate

[process]

A targeting convergence mechanism is the best way to implement some sort of RNG or reticle bloom without over-complicating the system and frustrating players.

By default, the targeting reticles should be locked at a long distance, theoretically infinite, but more practically maybe like 10 km, to make all weapons fire parallel to the mech. A target lock would then be required to set the convergence to the target, so no more wide shots as in the OP. This would also give greater purpose for targeting computers in helping to decrease the lock time.

Edited by process, 10 January 2018 - 06:43 AM.

[SilentScreamer]

BTGbullseye, on 10 January 2018 - 05:02 AM, said:

Convergence should be crosshair based, unless you have a target locked, then based on the lock distance.

Love this idea!

To those posting about having a aim-assist rather than convergence.... Do you really want to see 3 different recticles floating on the screen? Weapon fire travels at different velocities, so if you have a PPC, SRMs and an AC, each travels at a different velocity so unless your target is stationary your aim-assist would show 3 seperate lead indicators. Much too confusing to be of value in-game unless your mech only uses one or two specific weapons.

Edited by SilentScreamer, 10 January 2018 - 07:28 AM.

[Mole]

Something that often fixed this for me was to put the weapon group, say two ERPPCs, on chain fire. When I am shooting at a moving target I just double tap real quick. Better convergence since each projectile gets its own independent path and if you double tap fast enough you might as well have shot both of them at the same time.

[Curccu]

Mole, on 10 January 2018 - 07:32 AM, said:

Something that often fixed this for me was to put the weapon group, say two ERPPCs, on chain fire. When I am shooting at a moving target I just double tap real quick. Better convergence since each projectile gets its own independent path and if you double tap fast enough you might as well have shot both of them at the same time.

Convergency is still same and both weapons still have their own independent path (from weapon location to where your crosshair located at the time you pulled the trigger) but you have less chance to landing them into same component with chainfire, which is usually what everyone wants.

[Humpday]

I can get behind that, maybe add that feature to Targeting computers so people have more reason to take them, such that when you lock up, your weapons projectiles whos mounts are placed far apart will converge at the distance dictated by your your lock and not not your reticles range finder. But if you have no lock, or free fire, it goes by the range finder only.

Though personally I've never had major issues with convergence myself, rather, I don't get stuck on it and just take it as a missed shot, and move along.

[Asym]

Curccu, on 10 January 2018 - 04:31 AM, said:

No, he wants convergence distance adjusterbot.
And it would make sense specially if mech carries TC

No, he wants a firecontrol system that would have been fielded in this era: they have FTL space freaking travel, If the mech is in a stabilaztion platform, the weapons are in the same system. The TC is a freaking tageting computer for heaven sake ! Today's tanks have this technology and why in the heck wouldn't a civilization far advanced as they are, not????

They'll never do it though: PGI must reduce accuracy, precision fire control solutions and weapons effectiveness because of the arena FPS called: Solaris... Can you imagine "aimbot" in an enclosed areana with Alpha's well above 70 not missing in the first 15 seconds...... TTK = immediate: Game over man. Yep, that would last 3 days before there'd be a player revolt...... Russ's twitter account would freeze and his phone would melt..

Edited by Asym, 10 January 2018 - 07:50 AM.