31 replies to this topic

[Halfinax]

So you think that automatic convergence is less accurate than manual convergence?

[wwiiogre]

the more we allow players to change what the devs have worked so hard to balance the more likely we will get to the over powered sniping and jump sniping of mw4 etc.

lets play this first and see how it actually works first before we make them change it

chris

[VYCanis]

either this thread is filled with an uncanny percentage of people of professional grade super duper elite skills, or a bunch of dudes are considerably overestimating their own abilities.

we have arms tracking faster that torso, arm/torso/eg directions to deal with, heat management, ammo management, damage tracking/management, moving, potentially multiple opponents facing you, role warfare stuff, opponents that are likely moving, managing weapon groups that may contain different types of uniquely behaving weapons, receiving kinetic knock, and above all else, combat that up close, if the gameplay video is anything to go by, is brutal, fast, and decisive

how in all of that, does dialing in weapon convergence manually fit in, and with what extra third arm you are going to do it?

because i honestly don't see how fiddling around with the rangefinder and a convergence adjuster every single time i want to aim at anything, especially moving targets, is fun.

i think that your arms and torso guns no longer being perfectly able to blast apart singular locations as easily, lasers being DOT style spreading around damage, and weapons taking a short amount of time to converge (automatically) solves the problem of constant alpha strikes being the fast track to victory. Adding in additional difficulty and/or variables is just going overboard and doesn't add to gameplay other than to make everyone almost impossible to hit

Edited by VYCanis, 09 March 2012 - 01:01 AM.

[Halfinax]

Did you read the OP VYCanis? I acknowledge the fact that it would be significantly more difficult. I don't think I'm super elite, but if you read my posts I wanted it for one simple reason. Choosing my initial engagement range. I'm asking for the option to choose a manual convergence range. Not asking for the current implemented system to be changed to manual. A simple check box "Would you like to use manual convergence?"

Why do so many come in here being insulting because I made a benign request for an option to use an alternative convergence system?

[CoffiNail]

Halfinax, on 08 March 2012 - 07:14 PM, said:

This is not for arguing TT vs VIdeo Game mechanics. This thread is suggesting an alternative to the already announced weapons convergence system.

No I am saying it is degrading to it.

[TheRulesLawyer]

VYCanis, on 09 March 2012 - 12:59 AM, said:

how in all of that, does dialing in weapon convergence manually fit in, and with what extra third arm you are going to do it?

because i honestly don't see how fiddling around with the rangefinder and a convergence adjuster every single time i want to aim at anything, especially moving targets, is fun.

i think that your arms and torso guns no longer being perfectly able to blast apart singular locations as easily, lasers being DOT style spreading around damage, and weapons taking a short amount of time to converge (automatically) solves the problem of constant alpha strikes being the fast track to victory. Adding in additional difficulty and/or variables is just going overboard and doesn't add to gameplay other than to make everyone almost impossible to hit

Its easy enough to do. Bind it to the mouse scroll wheel. This isn't a hard control in implement or control.

The issue is it gets around the built in inaccuracy that the convergence time adds. Want to poptart? Set your convergence to where you think your target will be and jump. Want to play peek a boo around buildings and hills? Now you don't have to deal with convergence time when you go from a really close target (the wall) to a far target- the mech you want to shoot. Its not like mechs change distance really quickly. Its things like walls and slipping off target that will throw off the convergence. Allowing manual means you are throwing out a pretty major balance mechanism.

Edited by TheRulesLawyer, 10 March 2012 - 11:02 AM.

[3Xtr3m3]

Here is my 2 cents, If you don't like what the Devs came up with, go invent your own game.

PGI seems to know what they are doing, they have waaaay more invested in this than any of us.

I like what they came up with, I loved things I saw in the video. Like the LRM strike that put damage across all the enemies armor. etc etc.

If it is not to your taste, save your time and words and move on to World of Tanks or MWLL or whoever has aiming like you want. I am hoping a lot of people like what they are seeing and want it, and don't want it to change.

I say this as much to the devs, as I do to anyone NOT working at PGI.
With all due respect, even if my words do not accurtely portray the respect, the respect is there for you. Please have it for me,
Thank you,
3Xtr3m3

[Halfinax]

3Xtr3m3, on 09 March 2012 - 03:55 PM, said:

Here is my 2 cents, If you don't like what the Devs came up with, go invent your own game.

PGI seems to know what they are doing, they have waaaay more invested in this than any of us.

I like what they came up with, I loved things I saw in the video. Like the LRM strike that put damage across all the enemies armor. etc etc.

If it is not to your taste, save your time and words and move on to World of Tanks or MWLL or whoever has aiming like you want. I am hoping a lot of people like what they are seeing and want it, and don't want it to change.

I say this as much to the devs, as I do to anyone NOT working at PGI.
With all due respect, even if my words do not accurtely portray the respect, the respect is there for you. Please have it for me,
Thank you,
3Xtr3m3

Then at least show enough respect to actually read my words. I didn't ask for a replacement to the current mechanic, nor did I ever suggest I know what would work better than the the devs.

What I did do in the SUGGESTIONS forum was SUGGEST the option (as in addition to the current system) of using manual convergence at the players option. You know like using inverted Y axis instead of standard Y axis. That kind of thing.

You did not make that post with any respect as you entirely disregarded anything I said. I in fact said I liked the system they came up with, but would like the option to use manual convergence instead if I so choose.

[3Xtr3m3]

I disagree with you. As before, with all due respect.

I did read the entire two pages of post and repost.
And as I understand it, you want the option to not use the Developers Automatic Convergence System.
You want to have the option of turning it off and using a manual range setting for convergence.
So, you like it, but you want to be able to turn it off.
In support of your logic, Each Mech manufacturer probably has a default convergence point, or range, that the weapons focus on, when there is nothing under the reticle(s). Example, My Dragons default convergence range is (I don't know) meters, and that is what the weapons aim toward/converge on when I point the reticle(s) at the sky. What that range is... I don't know. Probably have to check the owners manual. I am assuming they have one.


I made the post I did with respect, but not a lot of time to get the words properly respectful, and address your logic point for point. Hence, the brief explanation of "with respect" at the end of my last post.
I do not wish to list and counter argue point for point on your logic. There is no interest on my part in doing so. So to say "I disregarded", disrespectfully, your suggestion is not accurate. I just had not time to properly debate the points you so eloquently made.

I respectfully disagree with the suggestion of adding a "Manually Set Range Convergence System"
3Xr3m3

P.S. Out of respect for you and your opinion, and the right of anyone to freely express their thoughts and feelings I will not post here against your proposal any further.
If I post here further it will only be in defense of myself, not my opinion.
Let there be peace, between us, on this issue.
3Xtr3m3

[Anvil Dragon]

Not a big fan of the alpha strike myself, I would prefer preset corrections on convergence/parallax. Even willing to accept setting them within the mech bay before the mission.

I do see both camps though. Some want something more simulator like where the pilot is a key part of the control loop and others are more comfortable with the computer effectively rolling dice and determining where they shot. For most I'm fairly certain there wouldn't be too much to notice either way, the angle of convergence is fairly small beyond 100 meters.

[Liam]

I like the idea of manual convergence option.

I suggested something similar to laser mechanics, where a laser has a focusing delay with possibility to adjust manual focusing range allowing no delay firing.
The question is will be in manual mode torso reticles and arm reticles in one reticle? As noted by Dev's torso reticles moves always towards arm reticles with some delay. Does it mean automatic convergence try to compensate focusing range or also movement of torso weapon slots?
From what I read I understand the automatic convergence is only responsible for range setting and not for torso weapons reticles compliance with reticles of the arms.

In this case I don't see a problem with manual convergence.

[Nik Van Rhijn]

from what the dev's said i got the impression that not all torso weapons will converge totally, may have been in one of the threads.

Quote

Will there be a manual override to set weapon convergence to a set range and is there an interface indicator for current weapon convergence (current convergence range or Time-To-Converge-On-Target)? –Iron_Wardog
[DAVID] It’s unlikely that there will be a manual override in the game upon release, but the idea is still on the table. And there will be a HUD element to indicate the current state of your convergence, but its exact form is still being worked on.

From this it seems that nothing is set yet. Given the nature of the game they can re-balance things very easily at any point if necessary. It certainly hasn't been ruled out.