Edited by pwnface, 12 February 2015 - 03:54 PM.
Is Erll Range Bug?
#21
Posted 12 February 2015 - 12:26 PM
#22
Posted 12 February 2015 - 04:03 PM
#26
Posted 12 February 2015 - 09:03 PM
AtomCore, on 12 February 2015 - 01:45 AM, said:
my ERLL range shows 911m optimal. So they should do some damage at 1822m range?
But in fact their limit is 1499m.
Clan ERLL dont have that limit, easily hit after 1700 easily.
As inner sphere warrior I demand my ERLL damage after 1500m!
I am pretty sure they nerfed that. I don't think they do damage over 1500?, have to find the specs on that, any one know the range on that clan LL
Kmieciu, on 12 February 2015 - 06:00 AM, said:
While the C-ER LL has 2000: http://static.mwomer...apons/1213.json
ok so there was an answer, but I thought that was nerfed?
#27
Posted 12 February 2015 - 10:06 PM
#28
Posted 12 February 2015 - 11:38 PM
AtomCore, on 12 February 2015 - 01:45 AM, said:
my ERLL range shows 911m optimal. So they should do some damage at 1822m range?
But in fact their limit is 1499m.
Clan ERLL dont have that limit, easily hit after 1700 easily.
As inner sphere warrior I demand my ERLL damage after 1500m!
Why does PGI ignore bags, internal spheres related to the weapon? Because. Why does PGI ignore problems which the pilots of internal sphere write about? Because PGI right bear. PGI hireling on work in the company freely bear - the half of negative will go away from a forum.
#29
Posted 12 February 2015 - 11:47 PM
Luhs, on 12 February 2015 - 11:38 PM, said:
Google translate was not kind to you.
#30
Posted 13 February 2015 - 03:09 AM
PerfectDuck, on 12 February 2015 - 08:29 AM, said:
We found that the red hit indicator lied to us, but damage incurred proportinately fell off based on what I've already posted, with 50% damage happening where predicted at halfway between 911 and 1485.
We also considered that glimpses of damage at slightly beyond these ranges (like 1499) are rounding errors that are yeilding the game's minimum damage instead of zero. Medium lasers have such a small base damage of 5 that they could in fact have more difficulty reaching a calculated zero damage due to bad calculation resolution.
Gas Guzzler, on 12 February 2015 - 12:11 PM, said:
To note, exactly double your range results in 0 damage. This has always been the case.
911.25 is the range the Thunderbolt 5SS comes up with for ER LL.
At 1822.5 it will produce exactly 0 damage.
At 1366.875 meters it will produce exactly 50% damage for the entire beam duration. (4.5 damage).
At 1139.0625 meters it will produce exactly 75% damage for the beam duration. (6.75 damage).
At 1594.6875 meters it will produce exactly 25% damage for the entire beam duration. (2.25 damage).
If you spread that 1500+ meter range at all, you're not likely to see much if any damage.
#31
Posted 13 February 2015 - 08:56 AM
Koniving, on 13 February 2015 - 03:09 AM, said:
To note, exactly double your range results in 0 damage. This has always been the case.
911.25 is the range the Thunderbolt 5SS comes up with for ER LL.
At 1822.5 it will produce exactly 0 damage.
At 1366.875 meters it will produce exactly 50% damage for the entire beam duration. (4.5 damage).
At 1139.0625 meters it will produce exactly 75% damage for the beam duration. (6.75 damage).
At 1594.6875 meters it will produce exactly 25% damage for the entire beam duration. (2.25 damage).
If you spread that 1500+ meter range at all, you're not likely to see much if any damage.
The problem here is that this is the way it should work...but right now, at 1500 meters (actually, before 1500 by a few meters), it drops to zero damage. It also hits the 75, 50, and 25% ranges much earlier than it should.
#32
Posted 13 February 2015 - 12:39 PM
3 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 3 guests, 0 anonymous users