124 replies to this topic

[Sibs]

After reading the entire thread I have to agree with Khobai. The current convergence system is perfectly fine. A 3-mode toggle like what has been suggested would be a (minor) improvement.

I think what most of the people expect who seem so upset about the convergence (and are claiming that it causes them to miss wildly) is that all weapons would be fired directly from the cockpit in a straight line at their reticle regardless of where the weapons are mounted.

If you want to ignore the geometry involved, and not be firing weapons from your cockpit, and not have convergence, then all your weapons would fire in the same shape they are mounted on your mech in a straight line, which would mean you would hardly ever hit anyone with anything.

[Signal27]

+1 to OP. I agree wholeheartedly: Convergence needs to be on the currently targeted mech and not what the crosshair is pointed at.

That said, I have read this entire thread and I do understand that some players will often target one mech while firing at another. So, I'd suggest to the developers that convergence be something you can toggle either in the options menu or while you're in the middle of a fight with a hot key. That way, the individual pilot can choose between weapon convergence being set to what is targeted or what is underneath the reticle. Everybody wins.

[MustrumRidcully]

Khobai, on 13 November 2012 - 10:03 AM, said:

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.

No, it also affects when you just shoot one weapon. It still has to calculate the angle that you need to shoot at so the line from your cross hair to the object under the crosshair and the line of the weapon you are firing meet at the object under your crosshair.

Convergence always affects your aim. The only way to not have this would be to have all weapons fire in parallel lines. But even that can only really work for torso mounted weapons and non-moving arms. Once your arms can move, things get really complicated. But even if your arms cannot move, things get complicated, because you need to calculate leads for weapons mounted on the left and the right arm (or torso even) and they will be seperately, so you can never shoot two weapons together unless they ar emounted extremely close together.

[Kommisar]

^ Exactly.

Even firing my AC/5, all by itself from my right torso, is affected by convergence. It adjusts slightly as to what distance X from the barrel it will cross the point of my reticle. The advantage of having co-axial weapons (ie. 2 AC/5s in my right torso) is that they will both adjust at the same rate in the same direction. Meaning, both shells will be "off" by the same amount as the convergence changes/adjusts. Whereas with, say a gauss-cat, the torso mounts are adjusting differently as they converge. This is what happens when you see your shots criss-cross. This is well known by any pilots that have put PPCs in their Atlas arm mounts.

The only way convergence would not matter is if you had a "bore-hole" sight. Even sighting off a rifle with iron sights there is convergence. Hence why you have to adjust your sights on a rifle. And most will have their sights set to a range they know and use "Kentucky Windage" from there.

And that is the key. A good marksman knows how his rifle is ranged. It is his constant that he plugs into his instinctual, subconsious targeting computer when he fires his rifle.

What we have now is a variable. A variable that is never set and always in flux. I get by this by doing my snap shots; getting in a shot before my convergence adjusts to much.

I'm not asking for an "easy button" or a Battlefield Heroes style game. The weapon mount locations need to apply when firing weapons. But the convergence set up now adds a random element to using balistics in a moving fire fight where you have to lead a target. Especially with the rise of the fast attack mechs since Open Beta. You are having to traverse your weapon quickly to keep up with a fast target. And the whole time you are doing that, trying to get the lead right, your weapon mounts are constantly adjusting to the new convergence range as your reticle sweeps over various terrain. Even if using just one weapon.

[aspect]

A toggle switch would be great, but I would still prefer the "converge on target" system if we only had one choice. Keep in mind that if it was changed to "converge on target", in most fights you would still be dealing with the same system we have now (weapon convergence on non-target distance).

[Asmudius Heng]

OK, can someone explain to me in big simple easy words how convergeance currently works.

I think i understand but then a read a post about it and get confused. I understand the firing delay but convergeance eludes me as to its mechanics.

Help a mathematically challenged Mechwarrior out?

[Kommisar]

Okay, let me try.

Convergence, as used in this discussion, is the range at which your weapon or weapons will intersect with the center of your aiming reticle. This occurs because your weapon(s) and your reticle (sight) originate from different positions on your mech.

Simple experiment. Take your hands and hold them out to your sides. No, keeping your hands out wide, point both of them at your mouse. Now look at your mouse. The distance between your eyes and the mouse is the range of convergence; or just convergence for short.

Move your fingers out, away from from your head and the range of convergence increases. Point them in towards your head, and the range of convergence decreases.


What we are assuming the game does right now is change the convergence constantly as your reticle moves. Your reticle is pointing at a tree on a hill, your guns will line up such that they will converge on that tree. Move over to the Atlas that is about to crush you at 30 meters and your weapons will all start pointing inward to the new, closer convergence.

What many are arguing for is the ability to set a static (unchanging) range of convergence. Meaning, no matter how they move or what they aim at, their weapon mounts will be aimed and set to converge at the same distance. This was how fighter planes in WWII that had wing guns would be set up; typically with the pilots determining their convergence distance. This set up has the disadvantage of being less dynamic; but more predictable.

I hope that helped.

[Asmudius Heng]

Thanks man i think i get it.

So basically having convergence on your currently targeted mech would set the convergence point to the exact distance that mech is is form your mech instead of the terrain piece you are targeting due to firing delay and shell speed to lead the target.

If no mech selected then current system applies i guess.

Makes sense to me.

[Fuzzy462]

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.

One Flaw to this theory ... Have you ever seen late 20Th century targeting systems? I know our main line battle tanks in 1991 during Desert Storm could hit enemy tanks at over a mile while moving full speed and kill the target everytime with a 120mm main gun so the fact that you think in 3049 they would have lost that tech your a fool. If they lost that basic concept of targeting then you technically shouldnt be able to hit as often with missles as you can/do, cause the targeting systems should degrade on that aswell. I propose that once you target a mech the computer should give you an "approximate" area to aim your reticule if using a ballistic weapon by showing a small circle infront/behind the target. ( I did say approximate as to give the target mech a fair chance of a possible miss )

[Slanski]

Thank you Kommisar, great analysis and in plainer words what I want to say.

MWO:
1. Projectiles are slow and targetting computers are lost, leading targets is a skill based effort of the player.
2. Constant reconvergence on random target depth under cross hairs sabotages my attempt at leading, by making the constant (for "Kentucky Wind") variable.

The game forces my cross hairs off target, because I have to lead and then punishes me randomly for the depth the target under the reticle happens to be.

Solution: Let me introduce a constant for convergence when I choose to (auto convergence off, set convergence at fixed distance).

[F lan Ker]

S!

I have thrown out any thoughts of realism while playing MWO Makes it easier to just learn the game mechanics. There are so many contradictions in the 3049 tech being whatever. Many things just contradict eachother like Guardian ECM suite having a system that can analyze, detect and compose data for the pilot and on top of that do ECM stuff but again the targeting system of a Mech is archaic. WTF would one say, ECM is much harder to make than a targeting system. Many military innovations are not that new. But have to understand the lore of BT when it was made, in the 1980's. If made today it would be totally different, better or not is debatable.

The reticule system just is stupid because with lasers you need no lead at all and thus no funny effects while shooting. While using ballistics there are some WTF moments when you miss at close range because the reticule decided you wanted to shoot a leaf some 900m away or an invisible corner makes your aimed shot go up and left. Easiest solution would be that we have a rough convergence automatically set on a TARGETED Mech, but still would need to SELF do the lead and elevation required, that still requires skill if you want to hit critical areas. Otherwise the reticule could be in the goofy mode. Lasers have an edge of always hitting compared to ballistics so a small help would be welcome without ruining the game play balance. Just my .02€..

[Khobai]

Quote

No, it also affects when you just shoot one weapon.

Not really. Because its easy to compensate for the difference if youre only firing one weapon at a time. And another thing people need to do is look at where their weapons are going instead of where the reticle is pointed. Adjust your aim based on where your weapons hit... not based on the reticle. It takes some practice to ignore the reticle but after a while it becomes second nature.

Quote

The reticule system just is stupid because with lasers you need no lead at all and thus no funny effects while shooting.

Thats why lasers have always been the preferred weapons in mechwarrior games. Ballistic weapons have had issues in every single mechwarrior game to date. Ballistics are actually more useful in MWO than any other version of mechwarrior though.

Edited by Khobai, 14 November 2012 - 05:09 AM.

[Kommisar]

Oh, I do watch where my round flies and adjust my aim accordingly. This is why I can, from time to time, plug a jenner at over 400 meters with my AC/5s. It helps a LOT if he is moving along the slope of a hill and my reticle will set my sight to the ground just a few meters behind where he will be. If he is ridgetopping (or something similar), and my reticle is over open sky or terrain further away it is iffy. It is easy to compensate for as long as my weapon remains ranged at roughly the same distance between shots. If my weapon is making big auto adjustments, however, (say, switching between convergence of 300m and 1250m as my target is manuevering around the top of a ridge on Caustic Valley), then it really becomes random.

I was simply pointing out that it does affect one weapon fire. I did agree that the effect is more noticable with multiple weapons.


What I am seeing, with the way things are set up now is that Autocannons are becoming big mech weapons. They are most effective against slower, bigger targets. The ones that have big areas for the reticle to stay on and are moving slow enough that a big lead is not needed. If you want to really threaten a fast mech, you need lasers or Streaks.

Okay, I can live with different weapons having different roles. The problem is, lasers are just as effective against big and little mechs. The AC weaponry do not hold an advantage over lasers, save in less heat. So, having an energy weapon loadout is more versitile than mounting ACs right now. The AC/2 is the current execption to this; but only because it is a griefer weapon with it's massive knock-back per round and rapid rate of fire. It has become the Assault killer over the other ACs.

I mostly play assault mechs. I have an Atlas D and an Awesome 9M. While I started out as a big AC user, I have been gravitating more and more to large lasers. My Atlas now mounts 3 after I dropped my second AC/5. My Awesome mounts 4 large lasers (which is no surprise, it can not mount ACs). A big part of this change has been the vast increase in light mechs I have to contend with each round. The ACs are simply to unreliable in close against light mechs. And my large lasers are just as effective against Heavy and Assault mechs as my ACs at typical engagment ranges. They ultra AC/5's had an edge for a while, but, once implimented fully, they were jamming on me way to much.

The gauss has a role as a sniper weapon. Fifteen damage for one heat is a great ratio. But still not a great weapon for consistantly detering light mech packs. Or even packs of fast hunchbacks with AC/2s; something I am starting to see in well over half my matches. But, that gauss rifle goes BOOM very easily. And I take out a lot of Atlases that way.

Balistics are a skill weapon. My worry is that there is not an advantage that makes having and using that skill set worthwhile. And the convergence system, as it is, just makes it more difficult for ballistic weapons.

[Khobai]

Quote

What I am seeing, with the way things are set up now is that Autocannons are becoming big mech weapons. They are most effective against slower, bigger targets.

Autocannons are great at killing other assault mechs. Especially the AC/2 because it does massive DPS if you can land all the shots in the same location (which is entirely possible against assault mechs).

The problem is theres nothing thats really good at killing lights anymore. And with no collisions, lag shielding, and the overall nerf to missile weapons, along with the addition of ES/FF/DHS, light mechs are completely dominant right now. So im a little reluctant to pile on the ballistics when theyre so useless against light mechs.

Large lasers and streaks are my preferred weapons at the moment. I have an Atlas-RS with x4 large lasers and x2 SSRM2s that absolutely murders light mechs.

Edited by Khobai, 14 November 2012 - 06:55 AM.

[Percival Hasek]

Thsi is ridiculous. I'm runnign a twin Ac/20 catapult..and its pathetic, even against medium speed mechs. Fast mechs..forget it. I'm almost to the point of just shutting down when a light mech comes by to speed up the inevitable. May as well not waste the ammo. A fat motionless assault mech is about the only possible target, and given the Age of the Jenner, there are fewer and fewer of them out there.

[Kommisar]

Which is where we completely agree. My Awesome 9M has that exact same build, but with one additional SSRM2. And I am seeing that build cropping up more and more with the guys that are still piloting the big mechs. In less than 3 weeks, the players are distilling down the effective build for the current enviornment.

Assaults - Large Lasers, Medium Pulse Lasers, Streaks; some AC/2s with the Atlases
Heavys - Streakcats and AC/2 Dragons
Mediums - AC/2 & Streaks
Lights - Medium Pulse Lasers and Streaks

We have basically distilled the game down to those weapons. Without any changes (patches) we will see the distilling continue on mech selection. Most of my unit are moving towards medium pulse Cicadas. Being in a fast mech is the counter for the AC/2 griefing and destruction wrought by this poorly coded and balanced weapon. As the big mechs dry out, the AC/2 will lose it's popularity.

Oh well, I'm wandering WAY off topic now.

The current convergence system is the developers way of limiting the pinpoint accuracy of weapons fire on selected locations from destroying the balance of the game derived from the Table Top rules system. This has been the single biggest issue that has plauged all MW games in the past. The ability of a real player in a FPS enviornment to target and hit specific locations on a mech. Just throws everything out of whack compared to the random hit location system of the board game.

[NoRoo]

I love autocannons, and am concerned about the way convergence is working against them in close range combat (where frankly they should be at their strongest)
Here is a basic graphic of convergence and the problem we're currently having for people that are having issues visualizing it.

If you want to experience the issue for your self, Hop into a mech with an autocannon or ERPPC in an arm (arm mounted weapons are much more at the mercy of convergence) and get into a close range fight. At 80 meters with 60kph of transversal velocity, the current weapon convergence mechanism creates a 30-40 degree dead zone that you are incappable of hitting. This is more than enough "missing" space to fit most battlemechs.

Edited by NoRoo, 14 November 2012 - 07:51 AM.

[bobthebomb]

Bam problem solved !

[Elepole]

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

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

Best thing i ever read in this forum. We need this, ASAP.

[Rogue Phoenix]

Props to NoRoo for the graphic I was about to make

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

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

The current convergence system is completely unnecessary and adds absolutely nothing to the game. It does not raise the skill cap by requiring players to keep their targets focused during fights -- energy weapon users do that anyways. All it does is introduce unacceptable, game-altering issues for the projectile users that need to lead their targets.

If I'm overlooking something, please let me know.

That breaks something else: being able to shoot at an untargeted enemy.
There are many situations where you don't have time to adjust your selected target. Or more pertently, unable to "select" the enemy mech at 1200m because they're too far away (for some strange reason) for your targeting system to pick them up, but your thermal image shows you very clearly where the target is, and they're still in weapons range. The current system -- which feeds convergence data based on LoS from the reticule -- works GREAT in this siutation. Let's not break that (completely) please.

This is why a 3 choice selector is important. As a pilot, I want to know how my weapons are going to act, and preferably be able to control that depending on the situation at hand. Which will change in the heat of battle. And I'm ok with that.

cheers
Rogue Phoenix

Edited by Rogue Phoenix, 14 November 2012 - 10:39 AM.