23 replies to this topic

[OnLashoc]

I was contemplating buying advanced seismic yesterday but I decided to hold off until after patch...

Thank goodness I did. As was it gave you an additional 200 meters range, but now it only gives you 50 meters range for the same price...

This makes no sense. I just recently started using seismic and hadn't thought about spending more XP on it, as of now, no friggin way. 50 meters additional range is not worth it in my opinion. Why does PGI go to extremes rather than using common sense and find a happy medium? Why reduce it by 75% when rationale would say at the most 50%?

I understand being under staffed, but lack of good sense is baffling. Considering I am a Legendary Founder, and Overlord Phoenix supporter, my faith is wavering a little bit here ***** by ***** from my armor.

Again this is someone who doesn't even have Advanced Seismic.

As to the rest of the patch, I really like.

[Team Leader]

I think they should have just changed it so its not pinpoint through-everything-always-on radar wallhacks. Shortened range still means urban shock tactics are invalidated by seismic. Ill try to find a pic of what a better concept would be.

edit: im working on a MS paint graphic lol this will take a few

Edited by Team Leader, 30 July 2013 - 02:18 PM.

[xCico]

PGI thanks for nerf!

[Braggart]

because the original 400 meters was absolutely absurd, even 300 is absurd. 250 is still absurd, but better than what it was.

Its not a nerf when the piece of equipment was absurdly overpowered and broke the gameplay in many ways.

Edited by Braggart, 30 July 2013 - 01:53 PM.

[Rascula]

Braggart is dead right, it was crazy and totally screwing with light mechs main role; scouting. Its been damn hard to scout and sneak when anyone with the gxp to spare can see you through 400 metres of solid rock!

[OnLashoc]

Team Leader, on 30 July 2013 - 01:50 PM, said:

I think they should have just changed it so its not pinpoint through-everything-always-on radar wallhacks. Shortened range still means urban shock tactics are invalidated by seismic. Ill try to find a pic of what a better concept would be.

I agree, I was a bit late to the Seismic-legal-wallhack-module not getting it until about a month and a half ago. Even still I rarely pay attention to it rather than my own good instincts and senses of playing Mech games.

But there is no way in hell I would pay the same price for something that has been hit hard by the nerf hammer, 75% is ridiculous. I feel sorry for those that spent the time and XP on unlocking it.

I think Seismic if used correctly can be good counter to the "shock" tactic, also known as noob rushing with the smallest fastest mech possible to take advantage of a not-so-great-maybe-up-until-now-netcoding. Trust me I have been a master at it, and my Jenner is as nasty as anyone elses out there.

[Unbound Inferno]

Isn't it 180 and 250? That's +70.

Either way, its a good change. Back to thinking before you move at least.

[OnLashoc]

Unbound Inferno, on 30 July 2013 - 01:57 PM, said:

Isn't it 180 and 250? That's +70.

Either way, its a good change. Back to thinking before you move at least.

Ahh I didn't catch that part! Good eye

[Frisk]

Siesmic is still lord (even @ < 250 m).

[Stoicblitzer]

tl;dr. remove seismic from the game. current nerf is 2nd best thing.

[JingleHell]

Braggart, on 30 July 2013 - 01:52 PM, said:

because the original 400 meters was absolutely absurd, even 300 is absurd. 250 is still absurd, but better than what it was.

Its not a nerf when the piece of equipment was absurdly overpowered and broke the gameplay in many ways.

Pretty much.

To be good (and even halfway realistic) the best you should be able to get off of a seismic sensor would be a cone in the direction of a moving mech. The cone would represent a general direction the mech is in, as well as, roughly a cross between how close and how big it is. An Atlas, for example, moving 400 meters away should return roughly the same strength as a commando at 100 meters. So, the cone would give you a direction to look, but no indication of distance, because unless you actually have it locked (knowing what size it is) you'd never have a clue whether it was big and far or close and small.

[Screech]

I have 2 currently and I applaud the change. I would buy a 3rd right now in solidarity if they nerfed it further, or got rid of it.

[Raptor2442]

Rascula, on 30 July 2013 - 01:55 PM, said:

Braggart is dead right, it was crazy and totally screwing with light mechs main role; scouting. Its been damn hard to scout and sneak when anyone with the gxp to spare can see you through 400 metres of solid rock!

I don't agree. If anything this makes lights even more useful. You can send one light to stand just outside a tunnel and scout to see how many contacts are coming. Think of it like the radar in the Aliens series. Put it on a light and they can increase their survivability and usefulness exponentially. I think it should be 300 adv/200 normal. Or at min for advance 270 to coincide with weapon arcs.

[Master Q]

JingleHell, on 30 July 2013 - 02:00 PM, said:

[color=#959595]Pretty much.[/color]

[color=#959595]To be good (and even halfway realistic) the best you should be able to get off of a seismic sensor would be a cone in the direction of a moving mech. The cone would represent a general direction the mech is in, as well as, roughly a cross between how close and how big it is. An Atlas, for example, moving 400 meters away should return roughly the same strength as a commando at 100 meters. So, the cone would give you a direction to look, but no indication of distance, because unless you actually have it locked (knowing what size it is) you'd never have a clue whether it was big and far or close and small. [/color]

So, you don't know what you are talking about.
All you need for distance readings is 2 points of contact, and then you can triangulate.

Each mech has 2 points of contact. They're called FEET.

Heck, one sensor in the toe and one in the heel of a single foot would be good enough, then you have 4 points of contact for even better measurement, with redundancy for error correction. Or you could put 4 sensors in each foot: front and back corners. Now you have 8 sensors to calculate with, or 4 if one foot is temporarily picked up off the ground.

This ain't rocket science, it's basic geometry.
http://en.wikipedia....wo_fixed_angles

Edited by Master Q, 31 July 2013 - 09:41 AM.

[Mechteric]

Master Q, on 31 July 2013 - 09:40 AM, said:

So, you don't know what you are talking about.
All you need for distance readings is 2 points of contact, and then you can triangulate.

Each mech has 2 points of contact. They're called FEET.

You need 3, thats why its called TRIangulate. The only thing you can do with 2 is determine direction and intensity. But a 100 ton mech at 200 meters might be about as intense as a 50 ton mech at 125m for instance (depending of course on many other factors such as their speed and the material of the surface transmitting the vibrations)

[Roland]

Master Q, on 31 July 2013 - 09:40 AM, said:

So, you don't know what you are talking about.
All you need for distance readings is 2 points of contact, and then you can triangulate.

Each mech has 2 points of contact. They're called FEET.

Heck, one sensor in the toe and one in the heel of a single foot would be good enough, then you have 4 points of contact for even better measurement, with redundancy for error correction. Or you could put 4 sensors in each foot: front and back corners. Now you have 8 sensors to calculate with, or 4 if one foot is temporarily picked up off the ground.

This ain't rocket science, it's basic geometry.
http://en.wikipedia....wo_fixed_angles

While your statements here would be correct in a perfect world, in reality you don't get triangulation from two arbitarilly placed points.

For instance, you don't magically get triangulation from two passive sonar arrays placed right next to each other, because the differnce in angle for the two detections isn't enough to account for the error... that is, from something like a seismic signal, you wouldn't get a perfect bearing. You'd get a range of bearings. And if you put two seismic sensors right next to each other, you wouldn't get any real triangulation from the contact, because they'd basically both be giving you the same range of bearings, and any difference would be within the error tolerance of the sensors.

All of that discounting the fact that the idea of using your feet as seismic sensors, WHILE YOU ARE RUNNING, is idiotic and would never work. It'd be like putting your head to the ground like indians to listen for horses running, but instead of just putting your head to the ground, you banged your head against the ground. "Hey guys, it sounds like someone's really close, and their footsteps are perfectly in time with my own!"

And then, of course, all of this is moot because the best reason to remove or nerf seismic is because it was terrible for the game's balance.

[-Natural Selection-]

A single point can give you distance and direction ref. Objects behind closest would be masked however, unless the closer had a weaker impact the the farther.

Edited by Dozier, 31 July 2013 - 10:06 AM.

[JingleHell]

Master Q, on 31 July 2013 - 09:40 AM, said:

So, you don't know what you are talking about.
All you need for distance readings is 2 points of contact, and then you can triangulate.

Each mech has 2 points of contact. They're called FEET.

Heck, one sensor in the toe and one in the heel of a single foot would be good enough, then you have 4 points of contact for even better measurement, with redundancy for error correction. Or you could put 4 sensors in each foot: front and back corners. Now you have 8 sensors to calculate with, or 4 if one foot is temporarily picked up off the ground.

This ain't rocket science, it's basic geometry.
http://en.wikipedia....wo_fixed_angles

Yes, 4 sensors within a dozen meters of each other are spaced properly to triangulate on something several hundred meters away at angles with 1-2 degrees of distance. With high precision. Clearly. Especially when only 2 of those sensors could, while moving, actually be in contact with the ground at once. With interference from multiple other sources.

That's actually utterly stupid. See, you think I don't know what I'm talking about, because I assume that our giant stompy robots are operating in conditions with more variables than 14 year olds deal with in school.

Dozier, on 31 July 2013 - 10:04 AM, said:

A single point can give you distance and direction ref.

Not precise direction or distance, without knowing other variables. For simplicity's sake, let's say you have a 25 ton mech and a 100 ton mech stomping away at the same distance, and you can see neither. Which signal is stronger?

The 25 ton mech needs to be closer to give the same intensity signal, hence, a cone. Direction would be inaccurate because without an accurate and precise physical model of the ground underneath you, including density of the earth, rocks, and whatever else, the tremors won't automatically have travelled in a straight line. Also, with just one sensor, you can only get intensity, because you would need a second sensor to know which sensor was reached first, to provide direction. Unless our sensor is extended into the ground, which seems like it would hurt the sensor unless we stopped first.

Edited by JingleHell, 31 July 2013 - 10:10 AM.

[Bors Mistral]

The change is definitely an improvement.

What was the max speed you could run before popping up on seismic? Tweaking that and making it weight-class specific would be the next step in improving the module.

[Roland]

Dozier, on 31 July 2013 - 10:04 AM, said:

A single point can give you distance and direction ref. Objects behind closest would be masked however, unless the closer had a weaker impact the the farther.

No, a single sensor can only give you distance and direction if you are running an active ping.
For a passive seismic sensor, you would need at least two sensors, spaced quite far apart relative to the distance of the contact.