17 replies to this topic

[Kaldor]

Ballistic Weapon Convergence

Anyone have any ideas on what they plan on doing with convergence issues with ballistics? The ballistic speed increase helped a great deal, but it still less than ideal.

For those not understanding this: Target is 200m away, but you have to lead to hit. You lead a length, but your targeting reticule is at 500mm pointing at a hill/ground/whatever, which tells the computer to converge at 500m.

I dont know if this idea has ever been presented, but what if they set it so that if you "R" lock a target it sets the weapon convergence to whatever the range on that target is even if you have to lead 3-4 lengths which is the case with ballistics vs. fast mover at short ranges.

Would help even up the weapons and make them work better.

Edited by Kaldor, 23 January 2013 - 01:59 PM.

[madMAx666]

good idea but what about ecm? cant lock onto ecm mechs...

[Jasen]

Not a bad option... good idea.

madMAx666, on 23 January 2013 - 02:12 PM, said:

good idea but what about ecm? cant lock onto ecm mechs...

I guess we'd end up where we currently are but the other scenarios would see improvement...

Edited by Jasen, 23 January 2013 - 02:16 PM.

[Alexandrix]

I made this same suggestions way back in cb.garth as much as said it's not gonna happen in the most recent ask the devs post.

[Team Leader]

I thought they directly said in ask the devs "no" to that?

[Kaldor]

I probably missed the Ask the Devs where they answered that. Anyone have a link?

[Kunae]

http://mwomercs.com/...evs-30-answers/

Bryan Ekman, on 22 January 2013 - 01:09 PM, said:

11. The option for weapon convergence on targeted enemy, rather than reticle location? No

[IceSerpent]

Kaldor, on 23 January 2013 - 01:59 PM, said:

Ballistic Weapon Convergence

Anyone have any ideas on what they plan on doing with convergence issues with ballistics? The ballistic speed increase helped a great deal, but it still less than ideal.

No idea, sorry - this has been brought up numerous times, but PGI is yet to even acknowledge that it's a problem.

Quote

I dont know if this idea has ever been presented, but what if they set it so that if you "R" lock a target it sets the weapon convergence to whatever the range on that target is even if you have to lead 3-4 lengths which is the case with ballistics vs. fast mover at short ranges.

It has been presented. The idea of seting convergence distance manually also has been presented. The idea of leaving mechanics as-is, but implementing some sort of feedback telling the player the current convergence point (possibly in realtion to the mech being targeted) also has been presented.

madMAx666, on 23 January 2013 - 02:12 PM, said:

good idea but what about ecm? cant lock onto ecm mechs...

Simple solution - allow players to "target" mechs under ECM without getting targeting info (in other words, red box only - no red "carrot", no damage indicator, etc.)

[Solis Obscuri]

Think it was the most recent, #30.

[TheFlyingScotsman]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the ballistics convergence issues seem to stem from the momentum physics. I only recently realized that the "crosseyed guns" problem where your shots go towards the upper corners of the screen and cross are due to firing at the exact moment you step up a small but drastic incline.

The only way I can think of to fix this is removing vertical momentum effects from projectile physics, and leaving the horizontal intact.

Just what I've observed.

[Gallowglas]

TheFlyingScotsman, on 23 January 2013 - 03:00 PM, said:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the ballistics convergence issues seem to stem from the momentum physics. I only recently realized that the "crosseyed guns" problem where your shots go towards the upper corners of the screen and cross are due to firing at the exact moment you step up a small but drastic incline.

The only way I can think of to fix this is removing vertical momentum effects from projectile physics, and leaving the horizontal intact.

Just what I've observed.

That's actually a different issue, but I've seen that too.

The issue they're talking about, for instance, is that if you're firing from both arms the shots from both arms will "converge" to whatever spot you're aiming at. So, if your reticle is on a hillside 500m out (presumably because you have to lead the target) and you're shooting at a target 100m in front of you, the "convergence" point can make hitting with both guns problematic. In effect, the game doesn't know you're leading the target. It just knows (and adjust for) whatever your reticle is on top of.

Edited by Gallowglas, 23 January 2013 - 03:18 PM.

[GODzillaGSPB]

It should definitely be tweaked. I cannot cound how often I overshot my ballistic weapon in the Centurion arm while aiming at an enemy above me. While the reticle (the circle) was right on his CT, the bullet flew right over his head.

Maybe the game calculates a bullet trajectory taking bullet drop into account. So a projectile would always fly a bit up, then gravity pulls it down and when a certain distance is reached, it hits where the reticle was pointing. Not a good idea though. I'd like to manually adjust for bullet drop, the game should not do it for me!

[Rizzelbizzeg]

Disclaimer: THIS MAY ALL BE FALSE, PLEASE CORRECT ME.

Assumption: convergence is basically a distance value that is set based on the distance of the object under your reticule. Setting this value takes some amount of time. Unlocking 'Pinpoint' decreases the time it takes to set the convergence.

Proposed strategy to get a hit: Hold your mouse directly on your target for the time it takes to set the convergence. When convergence is set to mech distance, move your mouse to the lead location and fire before the convergence is re-set to where your lead reticule is placed. Rinse, repeat for each shot to ensure correct convergence.

Unfortunately with this strategy unlocking Pinpoint is now a nerf to hitting moving targets unless you can still get to your lead shot location without having your convergence change due to the shorter timer of when it changes.


Proposed code fix without automatically setting convergence to your locked target (which devs said NO to):
you would need a smart system that knows whether you're pointing at a mech or at terrain. This system would also need a delay amount for when you start acquiring convergence value. The system then becomes if your mouse is on a mech, start acquiring convergence value. Then when it's set, if you move from mouse over mech to mouse over terrain, the delay would kick in and you wouldn't start trying to converge on the terrain for whatever amount of time. This delay gives you time to lead your shot without losing convergence on the mech. After so long off the mech, you'd go past the delay timer and start to acquire convergence on the terrain again.

With this in place, then make 'Pinpoint' either increase the delay time when going from mech to terrain (more time to lead), decrease the convergence set time (after delay of course), or both (faster snapping to a new target and more time to lead). Then it's not a nerf whether you're hitting non-moving or moving targets.

Of course all this is borked if the distance between you and the target increases between setting convergence and shooting.

OR MAYBE this is how the current system is setup (no idea is original, dev had it first etc) in which case I can be ignored.

[HC Harlequin]

crossthread...
http://mwomercs.com/...ing-ballistics/

[Kaldor]

Rizzelbizzeg, on 23 January 2013 - 03:37 PM, said:

Proposed strategy to get a hit: Hold your mouse directly on your target for the time it takes to set the convergence. When convergence is set to mech distance, move your mouse to the lead location and fire before the convergence is re-set to where your lead reticule is placed. Rinse, repeat for each shot to ensure correct convergence.

Unfortunately with this strategy unlocking Pinpoint is now a nerf to hitting moving targets unless you can still get to your lead shot location without having your convergence change due to the shorter timer of when it changes.

Not a horrible idea, but added difficulty for no reason. The convergence adjusts as soon as you come off target and even if they made your change, I still think it would be a PITA.

@HC
I brought this up because I tend to favor mixed loadout builds, and I am a little tired of missing the broadside of a mech because the mechanics of the game favor lasers. Setting convergence manually would be a PITA, and you would think by 3050 targeting computers would be able to do this on the fly. This is why I made the suggestion of R locking a target which in turn sets convergence to that distance.

@whoever asked about ECM
ECM does effect this system that I proposed as you cannot lock on someone outside of 180m, but honestly this problem is really at it worst inside of that range where you can at least target them.

Right now ballistics are better than they were before but still under perform in alot of cases compared to lasers. The speed increase was part of the fix. The second thing that needs to be fixed is convergence. You will still have to lead your AC/gauss/PPC, but at least you know where the shot is going. Its not quite as bad with torso mounted ballistics, but arm ballistics really need this fix because of the wider angle for convergence.

In all the QQ and negative threads on this forum, all the good ideas and small problems have a tendency to get over looked and buried.

[Apoc1138]

Kaldor, on 23 January 2013 - 01:59 PM, said:

I dont know if this idea has ever been presented, but what if they set it so that if you "R" lock a target it sets the weapon convergence to whatever the range on that target is even if you have to lead 3-4 lengths which is the case with ballistics vs. fast mover at short ranges.

this idea has been presented lots of times and the dev response is "no" (see ask the devs 30 answers)

[MustrumRidcully]

Kunae, on 23 January 2013 - 02:28 PM, said:

http://mwomercs.com/...evs-30-answers/

The answer puzzles me. Don't they intentionally screw ballistics over with this decision? Or do they have a better plan?

[Kaldor]

Apoc1138, on 24 January 2013 - 06:22 AM, said:

this idea has been presented lots of times and the dev response is "no" (see ask the devs 30 answers)

All you can do is keep asking for changes on it. Its obviously not working right....

MustrumRidcully, on 24 January 2013 - 06:41 AM, said:

The answer puzzles me. Don't they intentionally screw ballistics over with this decision? Or do they have a better plan?

One can only hope.