148 replies to this topic

[Deathlike]

BigBenn, on 14 October 2015 - 03:55 PM, said:

Obviously... you and many others like you can't see the light. You're set in your ways and anything you dont like is wrong. Stop and read the changes and ask yourself just how this is going to "nerf" the Clan layzurs. In short: it isnt. It is going to do one thing: help the ballisitics (non gauss) at longer range in terms of per shot damage. Thats it.

Suck it up, cupcake.

lol?

Nerfing lasers across the board indirectly is not a solution to a problem that wasn't about optimal range. You don't have to be a freebirth or truebirth to come to that conclusion.

I guess the other ultimately question is whether TAG is affected by this change.

[Mystere]

Prosperity Park, on 14 October 2015 - 03:00 PM, said:

I like this change. It encourages people to use the in-game technologies (sensor systems, modules, BAP, etc.) Instead of relying entirely on VOIP to choose targets for concentrated laser vomit.

PPC, ballistics, missiles all unaffected. Works for me.

Lights just might have more than a bit of difficulty getting in to apply damage unless they're using longer-range weapons. If I am correct, I expect them to be at single digits in the queue.

[FupDup]

BigBenn, on 14 October 2015 - 03:55 PM, said:

Obviously... you and many others like you can't see the light. You're set in your ways and anything you dont like is wrong. Stop and read the changes and ask yourself just how this is going to "nerf" the Clan layzurs. In short: it isnt. It is going to do one thing: help the ballisitics (non gauss) at longer range in terms of per shot damage. Thats it.

Suck it up, cupcake.

EDIT: oh, and above all remember the changes are for BETA TESTING. Nothing about MWO is in stone, it can be changed, added, removed, and tested. Let them test it and once the feedback arrives and the developers have a chance to measure it all THEN start your crying. But for now... relax. jeeeesh

I've always wondered what the voice of the mythical "silent majority" that PGI refers to sounded like... Now I don't have to wonder anymore.

[Wintersdark]

East Indy, on 14 October 2015 - 03:56 PM, said:

1. If you want to tighten one more screw on lasers, consider moving DHS dissipation in the other direction. You'll need to give (ER) PPCs some cooling love, but the side effect would be lowering of TTK, which the game can still use in a big way.
2. Consider reducing damage instead of changing range. Same effect but pretty straightforward.

Lower capacity, higher dissipation is better for this than the other way. High dissipation on paper results in higher DPS, but low capacity reduces burst damage ability - it's what counters "alpha-warrior online" that people like to complain about.

Peek and poke alphawarrior happens with high capacity, because disipation doesn't matter.

Mystere, on 14 October 2015 - 04:00 PM, said:

Lights just might have more than a bit of difficulty getting in to apply damage unless they're using longer-range weapons. If I am correct, I expect them to be at single digits in the queue.

Lights have R keys too, though. And the longest sensor ranges.

Edited by Wintersdark, 14 October 2015 - 04:09 PM.

[SocketWrench]

I'm definitely in the convergence camp just from a more interesting mechanic standpoint. Reducing damage due to no target lock seems like an afterthought rather than a proper solution. Plus it has the added benefit of fixing an issue with convergence while leading targets and affects all direct-fire weapons.

[Tanus Dimitrov]

How about instead of silly DHS nerf and an idiotic across the board laser nerf for Clan mechs, you design a GOOD solution? Create a second queue system and pit fewer Clan mechs vs more IS mechs. Then if you still need to scale down the range on certain Clan lasers (ERLL..?) then you can make a reasonable argument for it.

While we are at it, explain why anyone should bother to use a Clan ERPPC when the LPL is better dmg, less heat, and is generally a better weapon? Bump the Clan ERPPC dmg up to 12-13 and test with that, to see if it becomes useful.

I have been supporting PGI in this game since early Beta. I've played through their ill thought out nerfs and system revamps, the lack of content for months on end, and the questionable CW. But if Clan mechs get the purposed range, dmg, AND heat nerf that is purposed, well PGI count on not seeing another dime from me.

[GoKuXo]

why all this nonsense?

PGI already create regular clan auto cannon, why not regular clan laser and clan ppc? then you make extended range laser small and medium for the IS and streak four and six for IS, problem solve, no more stupid balace, everybody have the same weapons, same range and same damage.

clan have the light weapons and IS change engine.

[Bobbys Gherkin]

I like it,

Ballistics need ammo and you have to lead on moving targets (LBX/MG's still needs some love).
Missiles need locks and ammo but track to a degree / dumbfire and need ammo but don't do pin-point damage.
Lasers need locks or are less effective, no ammo but you pay with heat.
Flamers.... No comment (Is there a chance we could see a change for these in the next PTS?)

Every weapon system has 2 negatives now (except flamers that are just negative )
I'm keen to see how this pans out.

[Anarcho]

You guys really can't see beyond your belly buttons right? "they changed my meta, BOO HOO!''

This change on lasers will make ppl to FINALLY LOCK THEIR TGTS, stop the long range laser snipering, and bring clans weapons a little bit closer to IS...

But no, its different and I don't like cry river starts even before playing around and testing the new mechanic...

[WarHippy]

Anarcho, on 14 October 2015 - 04:25 PM, said:

You guys really can't see beyond your belly buttons right? "they changed my meta, BOO HOO!''

This change on lasers will make ppl to FINALLY LOCK THEIR TGTS, stop the long range laser snipering, and bring clans weapons a little bit closer to IS...

But no, its different and I don't like cry river starts even before playing around and testing the new mechanic...

People are testing it and they don't like it, and the second change that most are complaining about effects IS as well not just Clan. As for targeting people I see that for the most part people do target but often couldn't because of ECM, but now that ECM isn't an issue I don't see targeting being a problem at all. You know what just seem to be wrong about all of your observations so maybe just maybe you should stay silent and let the adults talk for awhile.

[East Indy]

Wintersdark, on 14 October 2015 - 04:09 PM, said:

Lower capacity, higher dissipation is better for this than the other way. High dissipation on paper results in higher DPS, but low capacity reduces burst damage ability - it's what counters "alpha-warrior online" that people like to complain about.

Possibly, though I'd be fine with both. On a serious note, I noticed some hot Clan builds on temperate maps that could get away with a lot of burst as long as they avoided pegging the heat bar. Time will tell on the PTS if this is a thing, I guess.

[Apathy Enrage]

Prosperity Park, on 14 October 2015 - 03:00 PM, said:

I like this change. It encourages people to use the in-game technologies (sensor systems, modules, BAP, etc.) Instead of relying entirely on VOIP to choose targets for concentrated laser vomit.

PPC, ballistics, missiles all unaffected. Works for me.

This

[Mystere]

BigBenn, on 14 October 2015 - 03:55 PM, said:

Obviously... you and many others like you can't see the light. You're set in your ways and anything you dont like is wrong. Stop and read the changes and ask yourself just how this is going to "nerf" the Clan layzurs. In short: it isnt. It is going to do one thing: help the ballisitics (non gauss) at longer range in terms of per shot damage. Thats it.

Suck it up, cupcake.

EDIT: oh, and above all remember the changes are for BETA TESTING. Nothing about MWO is in stone, it can be changed, added, removed, and tested. Let them test it and once the feedback arrives and the developers have a chance to measure it all THEN start your crying. But for now... relax. jeeeesh

Well, if the options are only Lucifer, Hades, and Sokar, the only winning move is not to play.

[Mystere]

Wintersdark, on 14 October 2015 - 04:09 PM, said:

Lights have R keys too, though. And the longest sensor ranges.

That's potentially a few seconds of delay for an ECM Mech hunter, though, which can be fatal.

[Wintersdark]

Mystere, on 14 October 2015 - 05:14 PM, said:

That's potentially a few seconds of delay for an ECM Mech hunter, though, which can be fatal.

It's no delay. Targeting for full laser damage is instant, regardless of ECM. The ECM delay is to missile locks, which has no bearing on laser damage.

[Carl Vickers]

Why are people saying this is complicated?

It cant be that hard to understand, if you have someone targeted you get full damage out to optimal range, if not you do full damage to 60% of optimal range. TTK should go up a little as a side affect, bonus!

Forcing people to press R to target mechs should be a good thing and vets should be rejoicing!

This will bring lurms back into play nicely and ecm nerf/lurm buff is exactly what it should be.

TBH I think all lasers should end at their optimal range rather than this 2x range thing we have atm.

Ive been using mixed uac/laser loadouts for a good long while now, when this becomes the reality ill still be using the same loadouts, net affect to me, nothing.

It still doesnt change the fact that this is for testing purposes and all the rage should not be happening, atleast they are trying something they havent tried before.

[Mystere]

Wintersdark, on 14 October 2015 - 05:19 PM, said:

It's no delay. Targeting for full laser damage is instant, regardless of ECM. The ECM delay is to missile locks, which has no bearing on laser damage.

So I just read in another thread. But now, that's what I call really disappointing.

[Slavv]

I think that is bad idea, because it is not corresponding to common sense.

Edited by Slavv, 14 October 2015 - 05:47 PM.

[LordSkyKnight]

Tennex, on 14 October 2015 - 02:59 PM, said:

If you got to make such a complicated chart to explain it then there is a problem.

If you think this chart is complicated there may be a different problem.....


I'm glad of the clarification. I reserve judgement on whether these changes will significantly affect faction balance.

[Tennex]

LordSkyKnight, on 14 October 2015 - 05:48 PM, said:

If you think this chart is complicated there may be a different problem.....


I'm glad of the clarification. I reserve judgement on whether these changes will significantly affect faction balance.

I dont remember the last game i played where weapon range had to be explained with a graph?