311 replies to this topic

[80sGlamRockSensation David Bowie]

Zyllos, on 27 January 2014 - 07:56 PM, said:

You don't even need a rangefinder for the projectile. While it would be more realistic, the problem is how rangefinders work in games is they do some type of ray tracing to get distances (I think) and that is intensive in a real time environment, that is doing many, many other calculations.

Instead, they should just repurpose the CClaymore code for Crysis 3, which just iterates through a list of valid targets and checks to see if that valid target is within range and in it's current angle for detonation, if so, then do it's clustering explosion, if not, then continue flying.

Some work would have to go into making the angle and range checking is the right variables so that canister shots that fly close to it's target still explodes, dealing some damage to the target but that is just balancing/testing work that has to be done for any gameplay mechanics.

The only corner case is if the projectile was ran into, perpendicular from it's flight path thus not setting off the clustering round. I would then just make it deal 50% of it's normal damage onto the single spot it landed on. It would be a rare case but it does need to be at the determent of the LB AC user so that the user doesn't try to use the case as a poor man's AC of the same size.

My solution actually doesn't include ray tracing to find the distance. In MW4, the LBX did have ray trace to determine the distance and damage delivered by range, but with more simpler ranger finders you don't even need them. Its just a variable already presented by the HUD and then the value is swapped in to the detonation range -- doesn't even need to include ray tracing which would also include HSR involvement...

Ray tracing is a more elegant solution, but I agree, too resource intensive and unnecessary.

Edited by mwhighlander, 27 January 2014 - 08:25 PM.

[Roland]

Khobai, on 27 January 2014 - 08:24 PM, said:

Of course weapons should be balanced. But the reality is theyre not balanced. I dont build mechs based on how I think the game should be. I build mechs based on how the game is. And in the game I play, LB10Xs are an inferior weapons which serve no other purpose than making games more challenging.

I'd rather not contribute to PGI's misconceptions that weapons like the LBX are "fine".

Use good weapons and mechs, and make PGI fix the others.

[80sGlamRockSensation David Bowie]

Roland, on 27 January 2014 - 08:26 PM, said:

I'd rather not contribute to PGI's misconceptions that weapons like the LBX are "fine".

Use good weapons and mechs, and make PGI fix the others.

Well... what is actually happening is they are nerfing the "good" weapons and leaving the **** ones as be.

Why was the AC10 speed nerfed? Wasn't all that great of a weapon. Reason? It was as still a solid step above the garbage.

PGI seems to be unable to make the bad weapons good, so they are making the good weapons worse.

[Deathlike]

mwhighlander, on 27 January 2014 - 08:29 PM, said:

Well... what is actually happening is they are nerfing the "good" weapons and leaving the **** ones as be.

Why was the AC10 speed nerfed? Wasn't all that great of a weapon. Reason? It was as still a solid step above the garbage.

PGI seems to be unable to make the bad weapons good, so they are making the good weapons worse.

Oh LPL, why did PGI "normalize" thee?

[Roland]

mwhighlander, on 27 January 2014 - 08:29 PM, said:

Why was the AC10 speed nerfed? Wasn't all that great of a weapon. Reason? It was as still a solid step above the garbage.

The answer to this is pretty clear...
The AC10 was nerfed to make it harder to pair with PPC's... because that's what a lot of folks were doing.

And the reason why they were doing it was because convergence as it exists means that good mechs are ones which can pull the trigger once and dump a large chunk of damage on a single location.

Although really, the AC5's already paired better with the PPC's due to more similar speeds.. The AC10 was already pretty slow by comparison. The nerf just made it much worse.

[Khobai]

Quote

I'd rather not contribute to PGI's misconceptions that weapons like the LBX are "fine".

Im not to worried about it. I dont think player conceptions matter at all, lol. Every single balance decision PGI makes seems to defy what players actually want. 1.4 DHS, ECM, ghost heat, gauss chargeup, nerfed clan weapons, etc...

Quote

make PGI fix the others.

you cant make pgi fix anything. they still havent fixed srms.

[Bishop Steiner]

LastPaladin, on 27 January 2014 - 12:51 PM, said:

I could see how the LB could outperform in terms of damage. Even if you are good with the AC/10, you'll still be missing shots completely. Say you hit 75% of the time, and take 3 tons of ammo. That's .75 * 450 = 337.50 damage done with the AC/10. Now, if you have the same accuracy but use the LB-10X, then some of those 25% of shots that you would normally miss might hit with a couple pellets at least. So you still have the 337.50 damage from your hits, but maybe another 50-75 points from pellets hitting when most of the shot misses.

fallacious reasoning, as of that 337.5 damage form an ac10, the LBX is lower as many of those shots, 40-50% of the pellets miss the mech entirely. And even if they hit, the damage is spread so as to boost damage stats, but to no useful effect in actually killing the enemy unit.

[Roland]

Khobai, on 27 January 2014 - 08:38 PM, said:

Im not to worried about it. I dont think player conceptions matter at all, lol.

No, but they can at least look at stats.. They look at them and if some weapon is getting used a lot, then they think it's good.

That's why the AC10 got nerfed.. because it was a weapon a lot of players went to when the gauss got nerfed.

It clearly wasn't an overly strong weapon, but it showed up in the usage stats a lot, so it got the hammer.

[Khobai]

Quote

It clearly wasn't an overly strong weapon, but it showed up in the usage stats a lot, so it got the hammer.

That reasoning makes no sense. The AC/5 shows up in the usage stats a lot more than the AC/10. So why did PGI make the decision to nerf the AC/10 but not the AC/5?

Im more inclined to believe PGI doesnt know what theyre doing.

[Deathlike]

Khobai, on 27 January 2014 - 08:43 PM, said:

That reasoning makes no sense. The AC/5 shows up in the usage stats a lot more than the AC/10. So why did PGI make the decision to nerf the AC/10 but not the AC/5?

Im more inclined to believe PGI doesnt know what theyre doing.

TBH, it's a little of both. It just depends what is being argued.

[Roland]

Khobai, on 27 January 2014 - 08:43 PM, said:

That reasoning makes no sense. The AC/5 shows up in the usage stats a lot more than the AC/10. So why did PGI make the decision to nerf the AC/10 but not the AC/5?

Im more inclined to believe PGI doesnt know what theyre doing.

I actually suspect that for a while the AC10 was getting used more than the AC5's, since it's lighter than 2 5's.. and will deliver the same alpha.

We don't get to see the stats though, so who knows.

[Asmudius Heng]

I would say that surely usage stats would include looking at accuracy and damage and relative kills etc but I am worried at what the answer might be. ....

[Monky]

Damage /= useful

Damage applied to a kill component or a cripple component (ie hunch on hunchback) = useful

Hitting with 6 pellets on a useful component and spreading or missing the rest basically gives you an overweight, low dps AC5.

The only area LBX excel in is brawling with assaults who's armor is stripped, and even then good aim and an AC10 are still superior.

Edited by Monky, 27 January 2014 - 09:41 PM.

[El Bandito]

Not to be the party pooper but there were many people (me included) who offered the same exact solutions to all the ideas that are discussed here. PGI did nothing for a year.

So, why are we excited about this again?

Edited by El Bandito, 27 January 2014 - 11:45 PM.

[MustrumRidcully]

El Bandito, on 27 January 2014 - 11:41 PM, said:

Not to be the party pooper but there were many people (me included) who offered the same exact solutions to all the ideas that are discussed here. PGI did nothing for a year.

So, why are we excited about this again?

This time will be different!

They can now do nothing about it in the year 2014.

[Huntsman]

On paper the two weapons look balanced. In practice this is a game that favors mid to long range fighting for the lionshare of the match. Considering how much weight the LBX takes up in your build, and how little time you'll have the opportunity during that match to bring it's full capabilities to bear with most builds, the AC10 is certainly the better choice.

The suggestion that the AC20 is an overall better choice than either was mentioned, and at first glance one could understand that. Afterall the AC10 weighs almost as much as an AC20 and yet deals only half the damage per shot. This, of course, misses alot of other factors. The rate of fire alone give the AC10 almost the DPS potential of the AC20, and where this falls short is made up for by the far superior range of the AC10 (and again, this is largely a long range game), allowing it to deal more damage at longer ranges than the AC20, or damage at ranges where the AC20 could do nothing. Not only this, but its higher muzzle velocity of the AC10 may help you connect with a target easier,and the AC10 runs cooler whereas the DPS ratings on smurfy are in a vacuum. Also, the AC10 is actually even lighter than it appears because it needs fewer tons of ammo per weapon than the AC20.

This is not to say that the AC20 doesn't have certain builds where its the optimal choice, but for this to be so it needs to be a close range mech that focuses on use of cover and burst fire. A poptarting Blackjack is a good example. Again however, its possible that for a large portion of the match, such a mech may need to stay in the rear not accomplishing anything for its team until fighting has gotten into close range. There are matches where, by the time this has occurred, the outcome has already been more or less decided.

Edited by Huntsman, 28 January 2014 - 06:23 AM.

[Iacov]

i do enjoy the lbx10 on my thunderbolt-thor (lrm15/erppc/lbx10)
the erppc and lrm 15 are for picking at rang - and the erppc and lbx10 hit hard close up
i did also give the ac10 a shot...but close up it missed quite often - the lbx10 only needs vague aiming and still most of the bullets will at least hit the target...that's still better than hitting nothing with a single 10dmg bullet

it's the only mech i use the lbx10 on, though
it's a brawling weapon in my opinion

[Reitrix]

Wait, the LBX is a trash weapon? Someone forgot to tell my Muromets! brb, informing my LB Muro he needs to change to AC10s because the LBs are useless.

[Trauglodyte]

Reitrix, on 28 January 2014 - 07:32 AM, said:

Wait, the LBX is a trash weapon? Someone forgot to tell my Muromets! brb, informing my LB Muro he needs to change to AC10s because the LBs are useless.

People like you make getting balance done in this game extremely hard and near impossible. Stop getting all jazzed up about how much damage you did. Big damage numbers just means that you did a **** poor job of putting damage in the same spot. That, by the way, is the easiest and fastest way of killing a mech. So, get over yourself.

[Reitrix]

Trauglodyte, on 28 January 2014 - 08:06 AM, said:

People like you make getting balance done in this game extremely hard and near impossible. Stop getting all jazzed up about how much damage you did. Big damage numbers just means that you did a **** poor job of putting damage in the same spot. That, by the way, is the easiest and fastest way of killing a mech. So, get over yourself.

Ah, i see you looked right but not left. 7 kills 4 assists on less than 800 damage. I run 105 shells. I'd say my damage went exactly where it was supposed to.