124 replies to this topic

[Sawa963]

(Note: This is from the perspective of a fast, close-range brawler. Snipers may not experience this issue)


The automatic convergence system currently in place introduces unacceptable, game-altering issues for projectile users. When coupled with various latency-related issues, hitting targets with ballistic weapons becomes a complete crapshoot.

• First and foremost: you have to lead your target, which means your crosshair will always be ahead of your target, which means your weapons will never actually converge on your target. Instead, they are going to converge at one of the varying distances that violently spin in the background during a circle strafe fight
  
• When you click fire, there is a long, inconsistent delay before the projectile actually leaves your weapon
  
• The delay isn't too bad, except that when the projectile does finally leave the weapon, it heads towards the location that you originally clicked on, not where you are currently aiming (most of the time, anyways)
  
• Between that Click->Fire delay, your target, mech, arms, crosshairs, convergence point, and everything else in the world (relative to you) will have moved -- all the angles will be different

If I knew where my bullets were going to go each time I pulled the trigger, I would never miss a shot. Right now it's a guess, on top of a guess, on top of a guess. People are too focused on the firing delay to notice the real issue at hand. Even if the projectiles fired instantly, the current convergence implementation would remain a significant problem.


This issue needs to be acknowledged and convergence needs to lock to the distance of your currently selected target.
*Edited 11/16/2012*


We need an extra button used to:


Toggle between two convergence modes

• Free Mode: The automatic system currently in place
  
• Lock Mode: Convergence locked to the distance of your selected target

Bam! Problem solved and everybody is happy.




Miscellaneous Notes

• Sweet diagrams
  
• New and casual players won't even need to know the toggle exists. They can happily play with the current automatic system until they are ready to advance.
  
• This issue seems to have gotten worse with the Nov 6 patch. I may be mistaken, though.
  
• Ballistic travel speeds are fine where they're at.
  
• If the devs truly didn't plan ahead and now have no way to eliminate the firing delay, so be it. We can all pretend it was by design and adjust to it. They could even add a fixed delay to mask the lag (consistency > speed).

Edited by Sawa963, 16 November 2012 - 09:24 PM.

[p00k]

you're overlooking that when you do hit, you do full damage to one spot, rather than raking for a fraction of damage spread over 3+ components

[Sawa963]

p00k, on 12 November 2012 - 08:29 PM, said:

you're overlooking that when you do hit, you do full damage to one spot, rather than raking for a fraction of damage spread over 3+ components

This has nothing to do with ballistics vs lasers. I'll remove:

• Finally, the mech you are aiming at may or may not actually be where you see the model -- and you get one chance to hit it, as opposed to 2 seconds of sustained damage

To keep the thread from being derailed. Thanks for making me aware of the possibility, though

[Anubis6]

I completely agree, you have hit the "nail right on the head". Even I have been wrapped up in the fire delay and hadn't even thought of this +1 to you sir. I hope PGI looks into and fixes this issue, or I will continue to ignore Ballistic weapons in favor of ones I can actually hit with.

Edited by Anubis6, 12 November 2012 - 08:40 PM.

[Tuku]

All hit box detection and lag shield issues aside ...since the last hotfix I have noticed a lag between the time I hit the button to fire and my weapon actually letting the round loose....This lag can be anywhere from 1 second to 3 in one case with an AC20. I know that this lag did not exist before.

Also when it happens the OP is correct, the round will fire at the place that you clicked....not where your targeting reticule actually is, witch is very annoying. If this could be fixed id have no problems with ballistics.

[Joe Luck]

I just started using ballistics again. I hadn't used them since before Open beta. My quick snap to right were making my ballistics come out of the side.

[xenoglyph]

Convergence tied to currently targeted mech is a great, common sense idea. I would add one qualifier to it though...obviously the "automatic" or "assumed" convergence should only kick in if you're aiming in the general direction of the targeted mech.

I would take it one step further and say that if you have nothing targeted, that we should have a "smart convergence" that assumes you're trying to hit the mech nearest your reticle and NOT the hillside next to it.

It would be hard to justify such a system based on lore, fluff, realism, etc., but it would remove a source of frustration and add more fun to the game. It wouldn't even need to be advertised to the player how it worked, it should be behind the scenes in the game client.

We've had MANY lengthy, complex and very well thought out arguments on convergence in the past, so many that they were once in the "not this again!" category of topics. The bottom line though is that we all want to have fun and shoot where we're aiming.

Edited by xenoglyph, 12 November 2012 - 09:03 PM.

[Scorm]

Agree with op, have convergence automatically go to range of the locked target.

BTW, why is there convergence for arm mounted weapons on the centurion? Should just shoot where the stupid circle is.

[Bill Shakespear]

Converging on the selected target is a really good idea. Either that, or making it so weapons converge on mechs only. Perhaps giving us the option to disable convergence completely?

One issue I've run into a lot (especially on River City) is that my weapons sometime want to converge on random terrain details, causing shots to go wide. Invisible edges of buildings / terrain, and traffic signals, etc. Stuff that you would normally consider shooting through.

As for the firing delay, it is A LOT better than it was a couple months ago, and it will probably get better as the net code improves.

[Prophet of Entropy]

yea convergence is a problem specialy with ac20s (long delay and slow ROF)

the biggest problem i have is when i see my ac20 rounds hit a light but do no damage, happens all the time with lights so much so that i dont even bother shooting them unless theve stopped.

[Konflict]

Scorm, on 12 November 2012 - 08:53 PM, said:

Agree with op, have convergence automatically go to range of the locked target.

BTW, why is there convergence for arm mounted weapons on the centurion? Should just shoot where the stupid circle is.

I put two AC/2's on the YLW arm, trying to hit something further out then 300m while moving is next to impossible. Shots go wayyy to the left of the aiming circle. Why is that ?

[Straylight]

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.

Edited by Straylight, 12 November 2012 - 09:38 PM.

[80Bit]

I agree with this idea. And I agree that shooting ballistics is tricky. Hitting a moving target, when you are moving, and tracking, is way more art then science.

[xenoglyph]

re: Straylight: That's great and all, but the masses of people we need to make this game successful don't care about the lore. They just want to hit what they're aiming at.

Convergence fixes aren't a giant "I WIN!" button, skill will still be required.

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

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.

Are you suggesting that in the future they forgot how to do simple math? Those are among the simplest technical problems to solve in the BT universe I would expect.

Edited by xenoglyph, 12 November 2012 - 09:56 PM.

[Card]

Arm-mounted gauss and AC10 brawler (Dragon pilot) checking in.

The only thing that works consistently is to keep your reticle on your target while your weapon reloads. This keeps the convergence at target distance. Once you're ready to fire, you snap the reticle to the left or right (whichever direction you need for 'lead') then quickly fire before the arm weapon convergence changes to whatever distant object you happen to be pointing at now.

It's a clumsy work-around, a royal pain in the ***, and I like your suggestion much better, but it works (sometimes) for now.

[Konflict]

xenoglyph, on 12 November 2012 - 09:54 PM, said:

re: Straylight: That's great and all, but the masses of people we need to make this game successful don't care about the lore. They just want to hit what they're aiming at.

Agreed. When I have the aiming circle on target and fire and I see my round go way to the left I go WTF

[HugeGuns]

You should see the fraps footage of my Gauss Cat played on Wireless broadband from Western Australia.

I can't even explain where some of the shots go.

Because of a massive lead I need on the target, shots sometimes just go through the target without damage applied (if I ever manage to lead far enough) due to convergence

Edited by HugeGuns, 12 November 2012 - 10:03 PM.

[aspect]

Convergence on target distance is a fantastic idea. Bump bump bump.

[Wolfways]

Sawa963, on 12 November 2012 - 08:28 PM, said:

(Note: This is from the perspective of a fast, close-range brawler. Snipers do not experience this issue)

What makes you think being further away from the target makes any difference?

[xenoglyph]

Wolfways, on 12 November 2012 - 10:15 PM, said:

What makes you think being further away from the target makes any difference?

Math mostly. Your comment adds a lot to the discussion, btw. Good work.