157 replies to this topic

[brroleg]

This will make that you will need separately aim each group of weapon mounts. Boom! Fixed high alpha problem. Boom! Fixed pinpoint damage problem. Boom! Fixed time to kill problem. Etc.

Edited by brroleg, 25 July 2018 - 04:50 PM.

[FupDup]

For convergeance alteration proposals, I've never understood why people cling so hard to the idea of making non-arm guns always fire parallel. The issues that can be immediately seen are:

1. Mechs with mostly arm hardpoints like the already decent Nova, Jager, Rifleman, Snova, etc. get a huge boost relative to everything else.

2. Mechs with hardpoints spread across multiple body parts become exponentially crappier.

3. Mechs with tightly clustered torso hardpoints, like the Hunch IIC and Loki feel this change far less than the aforementioned spread-out hardpoint mechs.

Edited by FupDup, 25 July 2018 - 04:52 PM.

[brroleg]

FupDup, on 25 July 2018 - 04:51 PM, said:

For convergeance alteration proposals, I've never understood why people cling so hard to the idea of making non-arm guns always fire parallel.

Also other variant is that only arms with lower arm actuator(arms that can move left and right) can convergence weapons mounted on them.

Quote

1. Mechs with mostly arm hardpoints like the already decent Nova, Jager, Rifleman, Snova, etc. get a huge boost relative to everything else.

And listed mechs kinda need this buff, no?

[FupDup]

brroleg, on 25 July 2018 - 04:57 PM, said:

Also other variant is that only arms with lower arm actuator(arms that can move left and right) can convergence weapons mounted on them.

That doesn't change much other than pooping on mechs like the Jager, BJ, and Rifleman instead of buffing them.

brroleg, on 25 July 2018 - 04:57 PM, said:

And listed mechs kinda need this buff, no?

Not really. Certainly not this drastic of one.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Nothing is a silver bullet, and this is a particularly problematic change.

[Prototelis]

No.

[Tetatae Squawkins]

No sir, I don't like it.

[brroleg]

Tetatae Squawkins, on 25 July 2018 - 05:09 PM, said:

No sir, I don't like it.

Like it or not. Its the only solution that can reliably solve problems like high alpha without creating more problems than it solves. Opposite to how its now when just plain nerfs directly to weapons itself to fix problem of high alpha creates more problems(for example of weapons becoming garbage etc) than it solves.

[SFC174]

I kinda like it. I mean, it has a real world vibe to it (yes, I know, sci-fi non-reality game here). However, parallel firing would not occur for the torso weapons if the mech designers and mechanics had any sort of clue. You'd have the guns zero'd on a certain target distance. That distance could be the optimum range of the weapon, or you could have all guns zero'd at the same distance.

I kind of like the idea that you could choose your convergence point in the mech lab. For example, if I were using a Clan lasvomit setup (say, a HBR), I'd probably choose my zero range to be about 550-600m. Anything from 450-650m would be nearly pinpoint. However, at longer ranges you'd spread a lot and up close you'd be painting all sorts of places besides your aim point. Would add some fun and even more customizing to the game.

That said, I don't think it'll ever happen, particularly not with cryengine.

[Tetatae Squawkins]

How does drastically changing the effectiveness of various mechs and builds not cause any problems?

[brroleg]

SFC174, on 25 July 2018 - 05:15 PM, said:

I kind of like the idea that you could choose your convergence point in the mech lab. For example, if I were using a Clan lasvomit setup (say, a HBR), I'd probably choose my zero range to be about 550-600m. Anything from 450-650m would be nearly pinpoint. However, at longer ranges you'd spread a lot and up close you'd be painting all sorts of places besides your aim point. Would add some fun and even more customizing to the game.

Sounds awesome.

[evilauthor]

brroleg, on 25 July 2018 - 05:19 PM, said:

Sounds awesome.

The best part is that this change wouldn't even be hard to implement. The only thing the programmers change is the input range value when making weapons fire convergence calculations; instead of taking it from the range crosshairs, you use a fixed value determined in the mechlab.

Hell, using a pre-determined fixed value arguably decreases the work load on the game engine!

Edit:
Also, I'd tie convergence distance to weapons group. That way, if a player really wanted to, they could have the same set of weapons converge at different ranges just by binding the weapons to different Weapons Groups and then define a different convergence range for each group.

Edited by evilauthor, 25 July 2018 - 05:51 PM.

[Mystere]

FupDup, on 25 July 2018 - 04:51 PM, said:

For convergeance alteration proposals, I've never understood why people cling so hard to the idea of making non-arm guns always fire parallel. The issues that can be immediately seen are:

1. Mechs with mostly arm hardpoints like the already decent Nova, Jager, Rifleman, Snova, etc. get a huge boost relative to everything else.

2. Mechs with hardpoints spread across multiple body parts become exponentially crappier.

3. Mechs with tightly clustered torso hardpoints, like the Hunch IIC and Loki feel this change far less than the aforementioned spread-out hardpoint mechs.

Let players dial in their desired default convergence, whether in the Mech Lab or in-battle. Done.

[A Headless Chicken]

Mystere, on 25 July 2018 - 07:09 PM, said:

Let players dial in their desired default convergence, whether in the Mech Lab or in-battle. Done.

given how most players shoot themselves in the foot in the mechlab, doesn't hurt to have another bullet right?

[pbiggz]

How a game feels is important. If you aim at something and your shot doesn't go there, it doesn't feel good. Never mind balance, totally removing convergence is a terrible idea. You'd be better off slightly loosening convergence (i.e. not pixel perfect accuracy), but only barely. Also increasing cooldowns, slowing down heat dissipation, and increasing penalties for constantly redlining can lower DPS across the board but these tools must be used carefully or again it will just feel hamfisted. I am not confident in PGI's capacity to make those changes.

[Y E O N N E]

brroleg, on 25 July 2018 - 05:14 PM, said:

Like it or not. Its the only solution that can reliably solve problems like high alpha without creating more problems than it solves.

It really isn't.

Also, this assumes high alphas are even accepted as a problem.

[Mystere]

pbiggz, on 25 July 2018 - 07:31 PM, said:

How a game feels is important. If you aim at something and your shot doesn't go there, it doesn't feel good. Never mind balance, totally removing convergence is a terrible idea. You'd be better off slightly loosening convergence (i.e. not pixel perfect accuracy), but only barely. Also increasing cooldowns, slowing down heat dissipation, and increasing penalties for constantly redlining can lower DPS across the board but these tools must be used carefully or again it will just feel hamfisted. I am not confident in PGI's capacity to make those changes.

Who said your shot will not go where you "aimed"?

[IIXxXII]

It amazes me how a certain demographics "solution" to every issue is pervasive mediocrity.

North Korea's solution to kids paying too many video games is their entire country not having access to electricity & dwelling in the stone age.

Thoroughly sanctioned mediocrity "fixes" things eh.

[IIXxXII]

SFC174, on 25 July 2018 - 05:15 PM, said:

I kind of like the idea that you could choose your convergence point in the mech lab. For example, if I were using a Clan lasvomit setup (say, a HBR), I'd probably choose my zero range to be about 550-600m.

Zeroing your range @ 550-600 m.

That would make it SO MUCH EASIER to converge weapons on those pesky light mechs hugging your face @ 10 meters.

[mike29tw]

All this will do is randomly buffing half of all mechs while nerfing the other half. That's not going to solve anything, to be honest.