124 replies to this topic

[Roadbuster]

I find it amusing that we can use AMS, a projectile weapon that shoots flying missiles from the top of a moving mech, automatic.
But it's not possible to tell where a shot from an AC will go.

[aspect]

Stay on first page, you.

[Khobai]

Quote

This issue needs to be acknowledged and convergence needs to lock to the distance of your currently selected target.

I dont like this solution. All this does is punish people like me who are so skilled at this game that they can fire their weapons at multiple targets at once. It's not uncommon for me to fire LRMs at my selected target in the distance while hitting a closer target with my medium lasers and gauss.

A better solution would just be to add a module that gives you a lead indicator.

[MustrumRidcully]

I agree that the way ballistic works is a big problem. The only thing that would need to be fixed on that particular aspect is
1) Either let us set the convergence range, we will do the correct leading based on experience.
2) Automatically set the convergence range at the selected target, not the point my cursor is accidentally aiming at while I am trying to lead a shot.

Khobai, on 13 November 2012 - 06:24 AM, said:

I dont like this solution. All this does is punish people like me who are so skilled at this game that they can fire their weapons at multiple targets at once. It's not uncommon for me to fire LRMs at my selected target in the distance while hitting a closer target with my medium lasers and gauss.

A better solution would just be to add a module that gives you a lead indicator.

A lead indicator cannot really work if your leading leads to the convergence being recalculated, and thus the indicator also recalculating. Every time you move your cursor and have a different object at a different distance, the lead position would have to c hange - but as you adjust your aim for the new lead position, you also alter the distance, and so the convergence is reset, requiring a new lead position, and as you adjust your aim...

You get the picture.

[Khobai]

Quote

A lead indicator cannot really work if your leading leads to the convergence being recalculated, and thus the indicator also recalculating.

A lead indicator obviously would have use the currently selected target. The whole reason I suggested it being a module is so its optional though.

I dont think an amazingly skilled player such as myself who can shoot at multiple targets simultaneously should have to be punished because a bunch of noobs cant aim at one target. If you want to use up a precious module slot for an aim assistance module, thats perfectly fine by me though.

Forcing everyone's weapons to converge on the currently selected target just unfairly punishes anyone who fires at targets other than the selected target. As I said before, I do this quite frequently, where ill shoot streaks or lrms at one target, then fire my lasers/gauss at something else, then fire streaks or lrms at the other target again before losing the lock.

Edited by Khobai, 13 November 2012 - 06:45 AM.

[Cleverbird]

I've also noticed this on my AWS-9M, with my PPC's... It's sometimes so difficult to hit my target when I have to lead them from medium range.

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

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.

I like how some people are covering up glaring gameplay issues with lore

[John Norad]

MustrumRidcully, on 13 November 2012 - 06:27 AM, said:

I agree that the way ballistic works is a big problem. The only thing that would need to be fixed on that particular aspect is
1) Either let us set the convergence range, we will do the correct leading based on experience.
2) Automatically set the convergence range at the selected target, not the point my cursor is accidentally aiming at while I am trying to lead a shot.

There is a possible third option:
3) Automatically set the convergence range at the last target under your crosshair. So you could move your cursor over your target, then aim ahead, Move back and forth between target and lead point to update the convergence range.

[xenoglyph]

Khobai, on 13 November 2012 - 06:24 AM, said:

I dont like this solution. All this does is punish people like me who are so skilled at this game that they can fire their weapons at multiple targets at once. It's not uncommon for me to fire LRMs at my selected target in the distance while hitting a closer target with my medium lasers and gauss.

A better solution would just be to add a module that gives you a lead indicator.

Lead indicator is useless if your weapons are converging on the terrain behind or in front of your intended target. For the lead indicator to work convergence would have to be set for the selected target, the exact thing you just said you disliked. With the system we have now a lead indicator isn't even possible.

Convergence on targeted mech doesn't mean you can't shoot at other things. Obviously we expect the game client to be intelligent enough to realize when we're not aiming at our targeted mech. In which case convergence should be set for the mech it thinks we're aiming for.

Edited by xenoglyph, 13 November 2012 - 07:44 AM.

[Khobai]

Quote

You don't understand the problem. Lead indicator is useless if your weapons are converging on the hillside behind your intended target. For the lead indicator to work convergence would have to be set for the selected target, the exact thing you just said you disliked.

Again I do understand that, but it should be a module, it shouldnt be forced on everyone. I happen to like the fact the weapons dont converge on the selected target. Because it means I can fire my lock-on weapons at one target which is selected and fire everything else at another target thats not selected.

So what I suggested was having a module that not only adds a lead indicator but also makes all your weapons converge at the distance of the selected target. So if you need to use that module you can and those of us who are good enough to not need it arnt punished.

Edited by Khobai, 13 November 2012 - 07:45 AM.

[xenoglyph]

I'm for options too. I think many people would like to be able to configure how convergence works.

With my idea however you'd still be able to do exactly what you stated: Fire your lock-on weapons at target and fire everything else at another target that's not selected.

[Card]

Cleverbird, on 13 November 2012 - 06:39 AM, said:

I like how some people are covering up glaring gameplay issues with lore.

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

[Slanski]

Automatic convergence is an assist system. Permit us to turn it off! The convergence computer is interferring in my shots and denying me the possibility to reliably lead my shots. The game attempts to be smarter for me than I want it to be.

Projectiles move unrealistically slowly to create a game environment which requires the leading of shots. At the same time the devs put in an automatic assist system that denies the use of this skill. This is a conflict of design goals.

More power to the MechWarrior!

Edited by Slanski, 13 November 2012 - 08:49 AM.

[Khobai]

Quote

Automatic convergence is an assist system

no its not. its not an assist system at all. its how the game figures out where shots are going to intersect. convergence has to be in the game whether you like it or not; otherwise it would be completely impossible to aim because weapons wouldnt converge on your reticle at all.

the problem people are having isnt that convergence is in the game, its that when you lead a moving target, the shots converge at a farther distance than the target so weapons fired from seperate locations on your mech often miss.

the easiest way to fix it is just with a module, because modules are optional to use, and you dont punish anyone whos already good at aiming with the current convergence system. The module could just use the selected target's distance from you as the distance for convergence, and it could even give you a lead indicator showing you where to shoot.



In the example picture a mech is firing weapons from both its left and right arms and leading the target, but because the convergence point is in the distance, only the weapons in one arm can hit the target. One workaround is to have your left and right weapons on different weapon groups if youre doing any kind of leading of your targets. Gaussapults do this frequently.

Edited by Khobai, 13 November 2012 - 09:25 AM.

[buckX]

Not sure that I could add anything here. OP nailed it. I guess I would prefer seeing convergence on target vs. background be a toggle that defaults to target distance. I can see reasons to override that, and I am never opposed to additional complexity and skill cap to separate the boys from the men.

[Mister Blastman]

Card, on 12 November 2012 - 09:56 PM, said:

Arm-mounted gauss and AC10 brawler (Dragon pilot) checking in.
It's a clumsy work-around, a royal pain in the ***, and I like your suggestion much better, but it works (sometimes) for now.

Only sometimes... I had multiple instances last night where I was point blank in my Dragon, dead on target and we both were nearly stationary. I fired. The AC 10 projectile should have slammed into their face, however, it didn't. It went off into the sky at a 45 degree angle in some random direction like a bottle rocket!

[0rca]

Hope PGI can implement convergence modes:

1. Auto (current one)
2. Disabled (completely)
3. Current target

Or at least let us disable it completely.

[Slanski]

Khobai, on 13 November 2012 - 08:51 AM, said:

no its not. its not an assist system at all. its how the game figures out where shots are going to intersect. convergence has to be in the game whether you like it or not; otherwise it would be completely impossible to aim because weapons wouldnt converge on your reticle at all.

the problem people are having isnt that convergence is in the game, its that when you lead a moving target, the shots converge at a farther distance than the target so weapons fired from seperate locations on your mech often miss.

the easiest way to fix it is just with a module, because modules are optional to use, and you dont punish anyone whos already good at aiming with the current convergence system.

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.

[Khobai]

Quote

The fact remains that the game randomly adjusts the angle of intersection

its not random. Imagine an invisible line of infinite length coming out of your reticle, the intersection point will be wherever that line collides with the first object it comes in contact with... whether its another mech, terrain, or the skybox.

Quote

Fooled ya! You cannot lead, because I will jinx the angle based on the depth of terrain under reticle.

You can still lead targets. the current convergence system doesnt stop you from leading. All it does is make it more difficult to simultaneously hit with weapons that are located on different sides of your mech.

[Kommisar]

I suppose what I want is an official statement as to what convergence is doing. Like many of you, I have my ideas. And as my play style has revolved around my ability to place big hits in selected locations (even when brawling), it is something I have been paying attention to. But, all I have are ideas. Guesses. I, like all of us players, don't know what is going on under the hood. For what it is worth, my gut tells me this is something that has been changing from time to time in some of the patches.

If the weapons are converging based on what is under your reticle at any given time (which it may be doing right now), then that makes placing leading shots very difficult. As you lead the target, your reticle will be over a changing background and, as such, always adjusting. Making your lead shot a real crap shot.

What I have been doing, to some success with my ACs, is keeping my reticule on the target until I am ready to fire. Then, I push the reticle out ahead to compensate for both of our movements and fire before the system has much time to adjust the convergence. Typically, I'm firing my large laser during the waiting, then snap out for the AC shot. Then let my target walk back in for lasers.... rinse repeat. It can be tough; especially for faster, smaller targets; or if they get in real close so I don't have the extra turn/torso twist to spare.

If I had the capability to set my own, static convergence, however, I would do it.

But, I know the devs have convergence speed set up as an XP unlock. Haven't gotten that unlock yet (3 Atlases are expensive purchases... especially when I had to get a new shiny Awesome); so I have no idea how that effects matters.

Best advice I can give is the same advice I received in real life. Take you time to place your shot before you pull the trigger. Even just a half second of additional time over target can make a difference. Yes, I'm sure you can give me loads of scenerios where that half second could be the difference between life and death! But I will say that actually hitting your target effectively on the first volley can make a much larger difference in a fight.


I'll finish how I started. I would like to see an official statement as to how convergence is working.

[Khobai]

Quote

If the weapons are converging based on what is under your reticle at any given time (which it may be doing right now), then that makes placing leading shots very difficult. As you lead the target, your reticle will be over a changing background and, as such, always adjusting. Making your lead shot a real crap shot.

That is how convergence works.

However, like I said it before, doesnt affect leading if youre only firing one weapon at a time. The only time it affects leading is if youre firing more than one weapon, and those weapons are on different sides of your mech. Thats why when you fire gauss rifles on a gaussapult, sometimes one can hit, and one can miss. Its also why its a good idea to put each gauss rifle in their own weapon gruop.