180 replies to this topic

[stjobe]

Mystere, on 07 April 2014 - 08:48 AM, said:

we are playing a game set in a future dystopian universe constantly waging brutal war using giant waking machines of death.

This bears repeating.

The setting really is grim: "During the next 250 years, civilization was hammered from its 28th Century peak down to 21st Century technology on many worlds and to more primitive states on others - and hundreds of worlds had their populations exterminated altogether." (http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Inner_Sphere)

[Daggett]

Mystere, on 07 April 2014 - 08:48 AM, said:

I only PUG, have not used premium time for a while, and run around in a light packing both artillery, air strikes. And still, I make a c-bill profit on the long term. As such, I don't think the freeloaders ... ahem ... I mean ... the people playing for free should have much of a problem.

Also, I think you are incorrectly using the term "pay to win", especially because everything is c-bill based.

Indeed, it's cbill based. But by spending MCs one can buy himself unlimited extra cbills for consumables.
Therefore he can spam consumables and still progress great in terms of cbills. He do not need to think about how longer the grind will be when firing two strikes a game. A free player cannot afford this if he only has limited time to play and still wants to buy a new mech in a reasonable time. He will automatically use less consumables than the paying one.

And when the paying player has no disadvantage in using consumables compared to the free player (who needs to increase his grind for using them), then it's P2W in my small world. Consumables are the most battle-influencing modules and free players are nudged to not use them when they want to buy mechs and equipment faster.

I'm pretty sure PGIs data would totally reflect this and clearly show that consumables are used more often by payers than by non-payers.

However although it's P2W i'm okay with it as long as it stays the only money sink preferring paying players because the influence is small enough to not deny me from having fun.

But add RnR and free players would have no way to run expensive builds AND use consumables without stagnating their progress while payers can have everything. And how can this not be total P2W when payers can afford more things which will increase their winning chances?

BTW, while you are skilled enough to still net a nice profit while using consumables, what about the new or less skilled players?
They can be glad to make 80K a match, often its less, especially when losing. Take away 40K for a strike/uav and they have 40K left. Add a hypothetical 20K for RnR and they will have a LOOONG time grinding that Atlas. Let them use a second strike/uav and they will never get any new stuff. Do you think he will use an expensive build or consumables again? For sure not, but the paying player can use all the good stuff without sacrificing most of his progress.

Mystere, on 07 April 2014 - 08:48 AM, said:

Finally, we are playing a game set in a future dystopian universe constantly waging brutal war using giant waking machines of death. Fairness is one of the last things on my mind.

So i must assume it would be great for you when the enemy team starts with fully upgraded Mechs piloted by veteran players while your team mostly consist of stock mechs piloted by new guys?
This would be totally realistic because many real battles or even entire wars (like the latest one in iraq) are just a big roflstomp. Matchmaking is for ******...

Edited by Daggett, 07 April 2014 - 10:32 AM.

[Solis Obscuri]

kapusta11, on 05 April 2014 - 10:38 AM, said:

What's wrong with ballistic weapons in the first place?

They aren't worse then lasers in every way, which makes energy boats sad.

[stjobe]

Solis Obscuri, on 07 April 2014 - 10:34 AM, said:

They aren't worse then lasers in every way, which makes energy boats sad.

Instead they're better than lasers* in every way, which makes some people reluctant to even discuss changing them in any way.

*and missiles, too.

[Mystere]

Daggett, on 07 April 2014 - 10:32 AM, said:

BTW, while you are skilled enough to still net a nice profit while using consumables, what about the new or less skilled players?

People will always have to start from somewhere. But, with experience comes the promise of more c-bills, and adversity builds character.

Besides, a nitwit in a fully tricked out (i.e. expensive) Atlas is nothing more than prey for a stock JR7-D (i.e. cheaper) hotshot.

Daggett, on 07 April 2014 - 10:32 AM, said:

Matchmaking is for ******...

You are correct, matchmaking is for the birds.

[Trauglodyte]

Big Grimm, on 04 April 2014 - 08:33 PM, said:

I know there have been many suggestion on how to balance ballistic weapons, but I have not seen this idea. (if it has been suggested then sorry)

What if you can only carry a maximum of 2 tons per ballistic weapon. Then balance how much shots per ton each type of weapon can have.

You still could have the unique feel of ballistics but would need to carry back up lasers as you would run out of ammo fast!

Without increasing the chance to get an ammo explosion, this doesn't do much.

FupDup, on 04 April 2014 - 08:46 PM, said:

Arbitrary, and pretty much cripples non-MG ballistics (and maybe Gauss, because its slow RoF makes it fairly ammo efficient). No support.

On the contrary, SRMs and LRMs are still restricted to TT values. ACs got both a much unneeded range buff and an ammunition increase. It is so bad that people just fire at anything they want when they want cause they know that they've got the ammo to do it. Combined with a lack of ammo explosions, there is nothing preventing people from putting ammo all over the place without CASE. This is yet another area of the game where the mean parent figure is lacking. Who cares that you'd be limited in firing your ACs - that is the point.

[FupDup]

Trauglodyte, on 07 April 2014 - 12:06 PM, said:

On the contrary, SRMs and LRMs are still restricted to TT values. ACs got both a much unneeded range buff and an ammunition increase. It is so bad that people just fire at anything they want when they want cause they know that they've got the ammo to do it. Combined with a lack of ammo explosions, there is nothing preventing people from putting ammo all over the place without CASE. This is yet another area of the game where the mean parent figure is lacking. Who cares that you'd be limited in firing your ACs - that is the point.

Yeah, and the LRM ammo being so low makes it so by the time you have enough ammo to last for a while, you might as well just boat the missiles and only have a few MLas for backup weapons. People who want to toss on a few Lurms as part of a mixed loadout get boned by the TT ammo values.

SRMs don't get hurt by it very much, though, because their range is so short (they don't get used throughout the whole fight) and the base tonnage per launcher is a lot lower (Lurms are heavier).

Edited by FupDup, 07 April 2014 - 12:13 PM.

[Trauglodyte]

FupDup, on 07 April 2014 - 12:13 PM, said:

Yeah, and the LRM ammo being so low makes it so by the time you have enough ammo to last for a while, you might as well just boat the missiles and only have a few MLas for backup weapons. People who want to toss on a few Lurms as part of a mixed loadout get boned by the TT ammo values.

SRMs don't get hurt by it very much, though, because their range is so short (they don't get used throughout the whole fight) and the base tonnage per launcher is a lot lower (Lurms are heavier).

The funny thing is that the one system that really needed the extra ammo was the LRMs because the arcing, terrain, lock on mechanic, and counters make it to the point where you hardly ever hit with them. ACs, on the other hand, have the speed to at least hit something short of the user being horrendous or the target being especially good at evasion. The downside to ACs has always been their size and weight but this was always offset, and even more so in MWO, by recycle time, heat efficiency, and damage or range (AC dependent). When the game first released and ACs all had velocities of sub-1200m/s, it made sense to boost the ammo. But, in today's environment, the only drawback of the AC is the investment, which is offset by the bonuses, and the ability of the user. No counters exist and ammo explosions are rare so where is the necessity of the extra ammo?

[FupDup]

Trauglodyte, on 07 April 2014 - 12:19 PM, said:

The funny thing is that the one system that really needed the extra ammo was the LRMs because the arcing, terrain, lock on mechanic, and counters make it to the point where you hardly ever hit with them. ACs, on the other hand, have the speed to at least hit something short of the user being horrendous or the target being especially good at evasion. The downside to ACs has always been their size and weight but this was always offset, and even more so in MWO, by recycle time, heat efficiency, and damage or range (AC dependent). When the game first released and ACs all had velocities of sub-1200m/s, it made sense to boost the ammo. But, in today's environment, the only drawback of the AC is the investment, which is offset by the bonuses, and the ability of the user. No counters exist and ammo explosions are rare so where is the necessity of the extra ammo?

If you do the maths, a good amount of the time the investment is still higher than most other weapon systems even after things like heatsinks (for energy) are factored in.


Let's look at the typical FoTM Victor loadout. It's got 2 PPC and 2 AC/5. They tend to have roughly 14 DHS, and I'd estimate 5-6 tons of ammo (I personally ran with 5 when I tried out the build). So, if we break it down...
2 PPCs + 4 DHS = 7 + 7 + 4 = 18 tons, 3 + 3 + 3 (3 of those dubs are in the engine, so they occupy no extra space) = 9 critslots.

2 AC/5 + 5 tons of ammo = 8 + 8 + 5 = 21 tons, 4 + 4 + 5 = 13 critslots.

They're slightly heavier and bulkier, so it makes sense that the pair of AC/5 is comparable to the pair of PPCs -- especially considering the burst damage on PPCs being double (10 versus 5).

---------------------------------------------------------

That being aside, our matches lasting a heckuva lot longer than TT and our stronger armor/internals mean that TT values for ammo aren't always gonna work in an environment like this. And on a side note, this ties in with the biggest problem energy weapons are facing in MWO. We're using dissipation rates calibrated for 10-second turns in a real time environment where shooting only once every 10 seconds can be a bad idea barring poptart wars. Which, is why our sinks should actually be somewhat stronger than their turn-based equivalents (i.e. 0.15-0.2 dissipation per SHS, double that for DHS?) to cope with the new environment, just like ammo.

You could, for example, keep as many as 4 AC/2 going for a whole match in TT with just a single ton of ammo, and even then you still might have slightly too much! An AC/5 would last for quite a while with just 1 ton of ammo, and the AC/10 did okay with just 1. The AC/20 was so short ranged that 1-2 is all you'd generally need. Something around ~10 or so turns was considered a respectable ammo load. But here, we need roughly 3 tons for each individual AC excluding the AC/20 (which you should probably have 4 tons for) and I guess you can get away with 2 tons for a lone AC/5.

And, to tie back to the heat system mentions above, you could also design your robot to be nearly heat neutral if you wanted to. The most drastic example is a certain 95 ton Clan assault mech (Hellstar) that carries 4 CERPPCs, and its 30 DHS let it generate literally zero heat in TT unless it's walking or running (or damaged). In MWO, you can pack on 20 DHS and barely manage 2 ERPPCs...or even regular PPCs. You can literally take a Stalker here in MWO, load it up with an upwards of 59 SHS, and overheat yourself to death with a single Flamer (takes like a minute and a half but it can be done). I don't know if that's more hilarious than it is sad.

Edited by FupDup, 07 April 2014 - 12:58 PM.

[Ordellus]

101011, on 05 April 2014 - 02:57 PM, said:

Yes to the burst-fire idea, no to the missiles. The thing is, there is a physical explanation for why lasers/ballistics have increased extreme range. Laser slowly lose focus over distance, ballistics lose momentum. Missiles, however, do not rely on their momentum to deal damage, but a fixed payload.

Bullets can't shoot forever b/c of gravity.... it has literally nothing to do with the energy put into the projectile.

If you shoot a bullet across a flat plane, and drop a bullet from the same height at the same time..... they both hit the ground in the same amount of time.

A laser on the other hand will continue unless it's energy is diffused by matter (air / water/ a mech).

Therefore having ballistics with longer ranges than lasers is just ********, and obviously based on the devs simply being biased towards those weapons.

Ballistics need their range cut in half, and LRMs need their range doubled...

Ballistics should be better sub 500 meters (based solely on their pin point damage)

I can't stress this enough
THAT'S THE BENEFIT TO BALLISTICS,
the weight,
the ammo,
IT'S ALL A TRADE OFF FOR BEING ABLE TO DO INSTANT DAMAGE (you can shoot and then go right back to hiding, aka very little skill involved)

Lasers (do spread damage)
the lesser weight
the no ammo
the increased heat
IT'S ALL A TRADE FOR HAVING TO BE A BETTER SHOT (you must hold on the area while getting shot, and usually compensating for the ballistics massive cockpit shake to do full damage)

Edited by Ordellus, 07 April 2014 - 01:05 PM.

[AztecD]

- AC convergence { make it slower}
- Cook ammo { increased ammo explosion % when running hot }
- Adjust heatsinks, { awesome 8q, 3 ppc + 1 sml + 19 normal neatsinks whas the standard for several centuries and now it craps itself when using even double heatsinks}

- AC Ammo should balance out the AC gun with little or no heat generated.

tldr
Fix the heat scale in the game, it balances out everything in MW

[Trauglodyte]

Well, Fup, I run my Victor 9S with 2 PPCs and an AC20. I run 16 DHSs with 4 tons of 20 ammo. In that case:

7+7+6 = 20 tons

vs.

14+4 = 18 tons

So, which case is correct?

My point is simply this: AC users, because of their extended volume of ammo, tend to spray more than smart LRM users (had to put that caveat in there) and general SRM users. As long as someone is in range, thanks to the +2x range modifier, people will squeeze off rounds EVEN if they only end up doing like 0.1 points of damage. If you reduced ammo to TT levels, this would go away and, quite frankly, it should. If people still want to take idiotic shots, they're then going to be forced to take more ammo at the expense of DHSs, armor, secondary weapons, etc and they're going to be forced to put that ammo in locations that will be problematic. Hell, they might be forced to take CASE - wouldn't that be nice?

My only real dog in this arguement is that the community needs to get reigned in on this and a lot of other subjects. We've been left to run amock and it has done nothing good for the game. If reducing ammo is on the list of means by which ACs are toned down, then I'm more than ok with that. If they go in another direction, I'll be fine with that as well because I'm disciplined in when I use my ACs - I don't take shots unless I know for certain that they're going to land and I never take more ammo than I'll use wisely.

[kapusta11]

stjobe, on 07 April 2014 - 10:50 AM, said:

Instead they're better than lasers* in every way, which makes some people reluctant to even discuss changing them in any way.

*and missiles, too.

Its the lasers that was over nerfed because PGI had no Idea how to deal with people exploiting broken heat system. Huge heat capacity + light weight energy weapons + heatsink's uselessness lead to a simplest outcome - people placing as many lasers/ppcs as they could.

[Whatzituyah]

Techorse, on 04 April 2014 - 08:45 PM, said:

Putting limits on customization freedom like that tends to get Mechwarrior players angry.

A better way is to impose a psychological "cap" on the ammo count by making the chance of ammo exploding when critted out much more likely.

Like the hardpoint limits we have? I mean I would have prefered a system of Hardpoints like MW4 if you ever played it you would know about it the sections where you could put Certain stuff is colored a Certain way in this case Green is Missle, Yellow is Ballistic, and Red is Energy if theres a mix between the two in one spot I guess they could split it up into two colors or merge them like MW4. But the thing is the slots that are left over after those slots are filled up would be empty slots for components if theres a equipment that can only be placed on a certain part of the mech you can put it there just by placing it in there like how we have it now. If theres left over slots that weapons arn't using those can be used like the empty slots they would be used for EndoSteel, FF, Ammo, Bap, Case, etc.

Edited by Whatzituyah, 07 April 2014 - 03:14 PM.

[FupDup]

Trauglodyte, on 07 April 2014 - 01:10 PM, said:

Well, Fup, I run my Victor 9S with 2 PPCs and an AC20. I run 16 DHSs with 4 tons of 20 ammo. In that case:

7+7+6 = 20 tons

vs.

14+4 = 18 tons

So, which case is correct?

In that case, your AC/20 has "hidden" costs of being shorter ranged and being a lot harder to aim (slower projectile). The AC/20 has the benefit of relatively low heat compared to the PPCs (both fire at the same rate of 4 seconds). The PPCs have the benefits of longer range and easier aiming (plus, infinite ammo if the match lasts longer than usual) at the downside of much higher heat. It actually seems fairly closely balanced in that situation.

Trauglodyte, on 07 April 2014 - 01:10 PM, said:

My point is simply this: AC users, because of their extended volume of ammo, tend to spray more than smart LRM users (had to put that caveat in there) and general SRM users. As long as someone is in range, thanks to the +2x range modifier, people will squeeze off rounds EVEN if they only end up doing like 0.1 points of damage. If you reduced ammo to TT levels, this would go away and, quite frankly, it should. If people still want to take idiotic shots, they're then going to be forced to take more ammo at the expense of DHSs, armor, secondary weapons, etc and they're going to be forced to put that ammo in locations that will be problematic. Hell, they might be forced to take CASE - wouldn't that be nice?

My only real dog in this arguement is that the community needs to get reigned in on this and a lot of other subjects. We've been left to run amock and it has done nothing good for the game. If reducing ammo is on the list of means by which ACs are toned down, then I'm more than ok with that. If they go in another direction, I'll be fine with that as well because I'm disciplined in when I use my ACs - I don't take shots unless I know for certain that they're going to land and I never take more ammo than I'll use wisely.

People taking shots with ammo-based weapons that only do 0.1 damage are just being stupid and giving away their position. That's an issue with the player doing something dumb, not the weapon system being imbalanced in any way. And at times, those wasted shots can come to matter quite a bit, like my 2 AC/2 + LL "Suppressor" Shadow Hawk with 6 tons of ammo. It runs dry more often than any of my other loadouts by a good margin (which is mostly due to the RoF), so that kind of stuff doesn't fly with my Shad.



In all honesty, I don't feel the "AC superiority" is nearly as large as rumor has it. Yes, they have nice damage for their low heat. That's what they're supposed to do, that's why they have their weight/slot/etc stats the way they are. In Battletech, the only ballistics that really had any damage advantage over energy were the AC/20 and Gauss, and the former was so short ranged that it was mostly a one-trick pony (the latter was kinda broken in TT). More often than not, you could literally swap out any AC/2/5/10 for a PPC and some heat sinks, and end up with some tonnage to spare and a good heat ratio. Even with just plain old SHS in 3025, the mid-small ACs were meh at best.

And even with the so-called "AC meta," I see nearly every mech on the field carrying some kind of energy weapon or multiple. There are obviously some which don't, primarily being mechs that don't have energy hardpoints at all (i.e. Cat A1 and Oxide) or ones that are seriously packed to the gills with dakka (i.e. Cataphract 4X or 3 UAC/5 Jagermech). Energy weapons give better burst damage for their tonnage (but at the downsides of heat, RoF, and in the case of lasers they have a duration). Combine the advantages of energy and the advantages of ballistic and you get a great combination...which isn't entirely a bad thing because it promotes mixed loadouts. The only issue is that pure energy boats tend to be heavily outclassed once you get out of the light class, which can/should be fixed by making our heatsinks be able to keep up with a real-time game pace (just like why using TT ammo is a bad idea in MWO, because matches lasting 10 turns (100 seconds) were common there but basically impossible in this game no matter how horribly mismatched the teams are).


There are even times when I can't stand ACs and prefer energy weapons. The prime example was when I was grinding my Shads. My original 2H loadout had an AC/5, LL, and 3 SSRM2. I came to seriously hate that cannon on my shoulder, because it felt about as powerful as a wet noodle launcher. I ended up replacing it with an AC/10, by downgrading my LL to an ML. Another case is with my VTR-9K, which used 3 LL and an AC/10. The cannon could come in handy when my heat was high, or for taking a quick snapshot, but overall my Large Lasers did the vast majority of my damage output. The enemy team seemed to realize this, too, because they had a tendency to hit my left arm more often than the my right.... One match they even focused exclusively on the left arm early in the match, and I managed to survive but ended up with very pathetic end-of-match stats because I lost my main damage/kill weapons (the trio of LL).

Builds that try to stack on really huge numbers of energy weapons are certainly lackluster, which they shouldn't be (they should be more competitive than they are now), but builds with a low to moderate number of energy (even non-PPC ones) do just fine. Energy is actually slightly underrated, IMO.

Edited by FupDup, 07 April 2014 - 03:34 PM.

[Khobai]

Quote

In all honesty, I don't feel the "AC superiority" is nearly as large as rumor has it.

I dunno about the AC20, but the AC5 is definitely overpowered. AC5s are pretty much the only weapon in the game that get to ignore heat besides the Gauss Rifle and the Gauss Rifle got hit with the nerf bat pretty hard.

[FupDup]

Khobai, on 07 April 2014 - 03:52 PM, said:

I dunno about the AC20, but the AC5 is definitely overpowered. AC5s are pretty much the only weapon in the game that get to ignore heat besides the Gauss Rifle and the Gauss Rifle got hit with the nerf bat pretty hard.

There is a part of my quote above about that...

FupDup, on 07 April 2014 - 03:32 PM, said:

...
There are even times when I can't stand ACs and prefer energy weapons. The prime example was when I was grinding my Shads. My original 2H loadout had an AC/5, LL, and 3 SSRM2. I came to seriously hate that cannon on my shoulder, because it felt about as powerful as a wet noodle launcher. I ended up replacing it with an AC/10, by downgrading my LL to an ML.
...

I'm dead serious. I could not stand that solitary AC/5 on my Shadow Hawk's shoulder. Shooting people with it felt like slapping them with a wet towel. I would've taken a PPC or ERPPC in place of it any day of the week, no lying or exaggerating.

[Solis Obscuri]

stjobe, on 07 April 2014 - 10:50 AM, said:

Instead they're better than lasers* in every way, which makes some people reluctant to even discuss changing them in any way.

*and missiles, too.

The only time lasers are bad are when you lack a chainfire group, or when hit reg is going completely screwy. Otherwise their precision and excellent damage/weight make them invaluable.

[101011]

Ordellus, on 07 April 2014 - 12:57 PM, said:

Bullets can't shoot forever b/c of gravity.... it has literally nothing to do with the energy put into the projectile.

If you shoot a bullet across a flat plane, and drop a bullet from the same height at the same time..... they both hit the ground in the same amount of time.

News flash: I'm not arguing that shells should be able to shoot forever, I'm arguing that there is a reason for them to do damage past optimal range. http://en.wikipedia....tall_120_mm_gun There is the modern equivalent of an AC/20: please note the effective firing range of 4 km. Effective range of an AC/20 in MWO? Yeah, it's 270 meters. You're saying that there should be bullet drop in-game (there is already, by the way), which is completely irrelevant to my argument. Since you seem lost, I'll also point out that shell damage (which is what we were talking about) is absolutely and irrefutably tied to projectile velocity, which is a factor of energy put into said projectile. Well, since shells in this game deal damage purely through kinetic energy, air resistance/gravity will reduce the energy of the shell over time, therefore a shell that has traveled 540 meters will, instead of just bouncing off without even scratching the paint, simply have less of an impact. While lasers do continue forever, they deal damage off of focused heat. Shine a flashlight at the wall from ten feet away versus ten miles away. You'll notice that the flashlight not only loses focus, but it won't even go ten miles. Wanna guess what lasers are? Think of them as super flashlights that use radiation to radiate light. They'll go further than a flashlight, but they still lose cohesion. It's not enough for a laser to hit you, it has to have enough cohesion to conduct enough heat to melt sci-fi armor.
Your suggestion that ballistics have range halved is, quite frankly, ludicrous. That means that a shell which weighs approximately 142 kg, fired from a cannon, just plinks off after 135 meters.

[Ordellus]

101011, on 08 April 2014 - 04:35 PM, said:

News flash: I'm not arguing that shells should be able to shoot forever, I'm arguing that there is a reason for them to do damage past optimal range.

Actually, you were arguing that ballistics should be able to shoot farther than a missle.

101011, on 08 April 2014 - 04:35 PM, said:

There is the modern equivalent of an AC/20: please note the effective firing range of 4 km. Effective range of an AC/20 in MWO? Yeah, it's 270 meters.

Guns in a video game aren't accurate? No way.

P.s. You do realize that's only b/c they are exploiting the curvature of the earth right? If they shot that horizontal it would go like........700 meters or so. Oh wait... that' kinda like the AC20.

101011, on 08 April 2014 - 04:35 PM, said:

You're saying that there should be bullet drop in-game (there is already, by the way), which is completely irrelevant to my argument.

1) None of mine seem too, but honestly I don't pay that much attention.

2) It's actually very relevant to your original point, b/c since bullet drop will have an effect on how far a bullet is able to travel.... thus affecting it's range.... which is what you were talking about

101011, on 08 April 2014 - 04:35 PM, said:

Since you seem lost,

You do change the topic quite a bit, but I'm following as shown

101011, on 08 April 2014 - 04:35 PM, said:

I'll also point out that shell damage (which is what we were talking about)

Again, shell damage has nothing to do with a bullets range - so it's actually not what you were talking about

101011, on 08 April 2014 - 04:35 PM, said:

is absolutely and irrefutably tied to projectile velocity, which is a factor of energy put into said projectile.

Neither of which have anything to do with how far the projectile traveled......which was your original point

101011, on 08 April 2014 - 04:35 PM, said:

Well, since shells in this game deal damage purely through kinetic energy, air resistance/gravity will reduce the energy of the shell over time, therefore a shell that has traveled 540 meters will, instead of just bouncing off without even scratching the paint, simply have less of an impact.

Gravity does not have any effect on a projectiles forward kinetic energy.

101011, on 08 April 2014 - 04:35 PM, said:

You'll notice that the flashlight not only loses focus, but it won't even go ten miles.

A flashlight is not a laser, but it's light actually does go ten miles (assuming a clear path).......there just isn't enough that makes it back for you to notice.

101011, on 08 April 2014 - 04:35 PM, said:

Wanna guess what lasers are? Think of them as super flashlights that use radiation to radiate light.

I don't think you know what radiation means. It's not something that is "used".

It's simply a word used to describe energy being transferred without going through a medium.

That's like saying the sun "uses" radiation to heat up the earth.

Spoiler: The sun radiates energy. -> Meaning the energy given off by the sun does not require a third party (a medium) to arrive at the earth.

101011, on 08 April 2014 - 04:35 PM, said:

They'll go further than a flashlight, but they still lose cohesion.

Any laser like the ones we're seeing in this game would hold their monowavelength WAY longer than it would take a bullet to be pulled to the ground by gravity. Which was one of my points.


So to summarize: Way to change the subject.

Edited by Ordellus, 08 April 2014 - 08:40 PM.