124 replies to this topic

[sokitumi]

Straylight, on 12 November 2012 - 09:35 PM, said:

Two points:

1. Light ACs and Gauss Rifles are not brawling weapons to begin with, and their convergence issues are irrelevant when being used in their intended role where targets are distant and have low transverse velocity. Big ACs are meant to be used at short ranges where time-to-impact values are effectively zero and leading targets becomes unnecessary anyway (and if your target is 55m away and you DO need to lead it, you probably shouldn't be firing an autocannon at it in the first place. This is what lasers and SSRMs are for), meaning that if you are finding convergence and leading to be an issue, you're probably using the weapon incorrectly. In other words; use the right gun for the right situation, and learn to aim better.

2. This is 3049. The Inner Sphere is just crawling out of a muck of the succession wars and is only now beginning to rediscover technologies that we here on the Aquarian Cusp would consider "advanced". Remember, for most of the last hundred years of BT timeline, the technology level of most of the IS is late 20th century at best. Advanced electronics, in particular, have been hit hard through the destruction of manufacturing infrastructure during the constant fighting and ComStar's jealous, cult-like guardianship of what remains. Given that, it makes sense for targeting computers for not be very "smart". Considering that what passes for sensor packages in the game is cripplingly short-ranged and wholly dependent on direct LOS (nevermind MRI, thermal, radar, lidar, satnav and the dozen other remote sensing technologies we've had for forty years now) it's a stunning technological achievement that our LRMs can successfully track a moving target. Expecting better out of an FCS trying to successfully [a] figure out what you're aiming at, [b] calculate range and elevation to target, [c] calculate target radial velocity, [d] predict intercept point based on previous data and weapon ballistics and [e] successfully engage the target within an acceptable window of time with an unguided projectile is really a bit much to ask.

LOL backing up bad programming with lore. Srsly uninstall windows.

[NoRoo]

JustPyro, on 14 November 2012 - 11:25 PM, said:

It is an assist system, because it adjusts the point of convergence automatically. Modern weapon systems generally have either a single, set convergence point (WW2 fighter planes were around 300 yards out). Convergence does have to be in the game, but it doesn't have to be automatically set. A simple system would be a couple choices:
A: Set convergence to auto (what we have)
B: Set convergence to current target distance
C: Set convergence to what reticle is currently at.
D: Manually set distance to X (like a knob)

C is my favorite. It allows you to shoot multiple targets. I do this a lot as a light - leaving 1 targeted for the team, the other for my weapons. You can simply have middle mouse or whatever, set the convergence. Launch your missiles middle click, then left click. Very rapid way to set the convergence, and then you can set it to what you're currently shooting at, and begin leading as you would need, but allow you to have different things targeted.

D would work well in an ACTUAL cockpit, where it would be a simple knob or dial. But I think it wouldn't translate to most keyboards/mice/single joysticks well. It would allow you just leave it at your preferred combat range, and leave it if you want. It's like putting your rifle sights above the target because your rifle is zeroed at 100 yards, and you're making a 300 yard shot.

But you can just have a key set to cycle through the convergence modes. This would satisfy most everyone, because there's always someone that doesn't like parts of the game.

We currently have C, weapons converge on the distance to whatever is in the reticle. The problem with C is explained in the picture I posted, It creates large blind spots for arm mounted weapons against close targets with modest transversal velocity.

[JustPyro]

NoRoo, on 15 November 2012 - 12:01 AM, said:

We currently have C, weapons converge on the distance to whatever is in the reticle. The problem with C is explained in the picture I posted, It creates large blind spots for arm mounted weapons against close targets with modest transversal velocity.

NoRoo, on 15 November 2012 - 12:01 AM, said:

We currently have C, weapons converge on the distance to whatever is in the reticle. The problem with C is explained in the picture I posted, It creates large blind spots for arm mounted weapons against close targets with modest transversal velocity.

I'm sorry, by C I meant, click a button, it sets convergence, and then stays there. So you can lead that target, regardless of what you have targeted and it stays. Those pesky strafers generally stay around that same distance while they run circles. Right now, you have to put your circle on the target, then quickly jerk out to before the convergence changes.

My idea of C allows you to lead the target, while keep convergence.

[Slanski]

JustPyro, on 14 November 2012 - 11:25 PM, said:

It is an assist system, because it adjusts the point of convergence automatically. Modern weapon systems generally have either a single, set convergence point (WW2 fighter planes were around 300 yards out). Convergence does have to be in the game, but it doesn't have to be automatically set. A simple system would be a couple choices:
A: Set convergence to auto (what we have)
B: Set convergence to current target distance
C: Set convergence to what reticle is currently at.
D: Manually set distance to X (like a knob)

C is my favorite. It allows you to shoot multiple targets. I do this a lot as a light - leaving 1 targeted for the team, the other for my weapons. You can simply have middle mouse or whatever, set the convergence. Launch your missiles middle click, then left click. Very rapid way to set the convergence, and then you can set it to what you're currently shooting at, and begin leading as you would need, but allow you to have different things targeted.

D would work well in an ACTUAL cockpit, where it would be a simple knob or dial. But I think it wouldn't translate to most keyboards/mice/single joysticks well. It would allow you just leave it at your preferred combat range, and leave it if you want. It's like putting your rifle sights above the target because your rifle is zeroed at 100 yards, and you're making a 300 yard shot.

But you can just have a key set to cycle through the convergence modes. This would satisfy most everyone, because there's always someone that doesn't like parts of the game.

I like this.

A combination of A, C and D (with mouse wheel mappable as convergence slider) would be my favorite.

MWO is catering to the more hardcore BT and MW crowd. Give us complexity in our mechs. The youngsters are going to play the next generation of CoD anyways in a month. Like CCP (of EVE online fame) understand who your customers are and develope a complex game for them and they will love you and reward you with a solid income and fan base.

The diagrams, explanations and possible solutions in this thread are great.

[MustrumRidcully]

Asmosis, on 14 November 2012 - 05:25 PM, said:

convergence on target is a horrible idea. You know there are times when your not shooting at the thing you have locked right?

I find it more likely that I am shooting at the target I am currently selecting than at the ground 50m to the side and 623m further away. So I think even if it'S not perfect, it's still about a trillion times better.

But I am not opposed to having the 3 options:
- Target under Crosshair
- Target Selected
- Fixed distance (variable or converge at "normal range of weapon")

Quote

Also do we still need to lead with lasers? or did they change that so what your hitting on screen is what your actually hitting?

Because the server authorization is taking too long. Which is of course also an issue for ballistics.

Edited by MustrumRidcully, 15 November 2012 - 05:50 AM.

[MustrumRidcully]

JustPyro, on 14 November 2012 - 11:25 PM, said:

It is an assist system, because it adjusts the point of convergence automatically. Modern weapon systems generally have either a single, set convergence point (WW2 fighter planes were around 300 yards out). Convergence does have to be in the game, but it doesn't have to be automatically set. A simple system would be a couple choices:
A: Set convergence to auto (what we have)
B: Set convergence to current target distance
C: Set convergence to what reticle is currently at.
D: Manually set distance to X (like a knob)

You're making one mistake here:

A is C. The convergence is set automatically to what the reticle is currently at. That works just fine if you have a self-homing weapon or instant-hit weapons, but doesn't work for weapons that you need to lead.

[Slanski]

Mustrum, if you would read him correctly, he means you click and the convergence is LOCKED at where cross hairs are currently until you reperform that action, not dynamically.

Aka: Target the mech you want to fight, click, lock in distance, lead and fire. Reset to auto or lock to new range as desired.

[MustrumRidcully]

Slanski, on 15 November 2012 - 06:28 AM, said:

Mustrum, if you would read him correctly, he means you click and the convergence is LOCKED at where cross hairs are currently until you reperform that action, not dynamically.

Aka: Target the mech you want to fight, click, lock in distance, lead and fire. Reset to auto or lock to new range as desired.

Hmm. You may be right and it's my reading comprehension error. Continue then.

[Chou Senwan]

What about the illogic of torso-mounted weapons ever converging at all?

If I have a cluster of lasers in my hunchback's shoulder, they all point forward, so they should fire parallel. Arms adjusting to converge makes sense, but torso-mounted weapons should never converge.

If you have a gauss cat, aim at the center torso of a light mech, and fire both at once, your left gauss should hit its right torso, and your right gauss should hit its left torso. Or you could stagger fire by juking a bit back and forth to try to have each one hit the center torso independently.

Likewise, Jenners with 3 small lasers in a single arm shouldn't be able to have those lasers converge on the same point. Two lasers in different arms could converge, but if you fire the whole arm at once, the lasers should hit three different points, right?

[Sawa963]

I edited my original post to take into consideration something I did indeed overlook: trying to hit non-targeted enemies.

I actually had a nicely worded addendum written up, but then I dropped my mouse and apparently one of the buttons causes my browser to navigate backwards. I don't feel like rewriting it at the moment.

Time to finish drinking and play MechWarrior

[Adrian Steel]

Slanski, on 13 November 2012 - 09:26 AM, said:

The fact remains that the game randomly adjusts the angle of intersection (even with a delay that is improvable with a pilot skill) in a dynamic fashion, which means that depending on where my reticle is in depth over random terrain I have to lead my shots differently in a non predictable fashion. A constant convergence override would give me a predictable fire arc so I can use my hand eye coordination to lead as the game obviously intends me to.

MWO tells me:
1. Slow ballistic projectiles, you have to lead them, because we want this element of skill in game.
2. Consequence: Target is not under reticle, I lead it.
3. Fooled ya! You cannot lead, because I will jinx the angle based on the depth of terrain under reticle.

This is how I understand it. Clearly put.

[MustrumRidcully]

Adrian Steel, on 17 November 2012 - 01:35 PM, said:

This is how I understand it. Clearly put.

You understand it, the OP understands it, I understand it, probably most people understand it.

The question I am wondering about constantly is - are the devs aware and planning to do somethnig about it?

I heard that these problems were known and discussed even before I joined Closed Beta, and nothing has happened since then, and the Dev feedback on feedback was weak then as well... Sure, the game has tons of problems and features that need to be implemented, but at least seeing it recognized by the development team could help.

[Evgeny Bear]

I dont know if it was already posted here, but I suffer under the same crap in my dual PPC hunchback =(
so not only balistic users are screwed...

[BlackSquirrel]

Pretty much any projectile... Though SRM dont really seem to have this problem (I dont use them a lot though)

[Felicitatem Parco]

Garth Erlam, on 19 November 2012 - 02:51 PM, said:

Here you go guys, sorry it's not as much as usual but I'm preparing for that whole 'kill me, Paul, Russ, and Bryan' event we're doing

So anyway, enjoy!
...

Q: Are there/have there been internal tests comparing the differences in combat performance characteristics of Projectile Weapons when weapons converge to the reticule at a distance determined by the rangefinder (current system), and when weapons converge on the reticule as a function of actual distance-to-target as determined by the targeting system? [Prosperity Park]
A: Yes, Thomas is often looking at things like that. Mostly when I bug him after people bug me. The circle of life and all. [Garth]

Let's Bug Him More!!!

Edited by Prosperity Park, 19 November 2012 - 05:11 PM.

[Budor]

Bump for fix because it is broken (arm mounted ballistic weapons suck because of this)

[Felicitatem Parco]

It's not just arms, it's also any time you want to fire projectile weapons from more than 1 bodypart at a time

[Trauglodyte]

Card, on 13 November 2012 - 07:51 AM, said:

Ha! You think that's something? Try asking why we don't have a rear-view camera in the cockpit.

Why don't we have a rear view camera in the cockpit? There were plenty of assault mechs in TT that had rear firing weapons - gotta be able to target them somehow.

[scgt1]

I'm with the OP in regards to our shells needing to impact what the reticle is on at time of fire. You can argue that there is a firing delay with weapons now. That's fine but we are talking future war tech with 100 ton robots. The trigger is pulled it needs to fire where the reticle is not 30 feet to the left or right of said target.

Having to lead your target to ensure your shells impact is a joke all to have to realign your reticle on the target to fire your laser volley.

It needs to be fixed to hit where the reticle was at the time of firing. Where the delay is taken out or something else is done. But to be less then 100m with something as big and slow as an atlas for your target and to have your shells hit the dirt 30 feet away when they fire is a joke.

[HC Harlequin]

See ma sig..