148 replies to this topic

[GorlockTheDestroyer]

Such a clever solution.
Now we wait for the smart solution.

It would be far more useful to us ,the end user, if you were smart about things as opposed to showing off how clever you can be.


**Revisited after time spent on PTS**
** just played for a good while **

162 on non locks for IS is flipping atrocious. Have you not seen first hand the plight of the IS mech?
IS spl and sml are greatly affected in a negative manner.

Max range clan nerf is palatible and a GOOD idea. Though the percentage felt a bit much. When standing on the ridges that surround theta on canyon network you scratch those in mid(working as intended i guess will be the response). LRMs worked well but they still have far to high of an arch.

Global laser change for non locked targets is a bit much.
162 meds is bad. It also leaves IS sl and smp way behind on the viable weapons list for me.
Same for clan sml and smp.
This entire mechanic seems heavy handed for IS meds , small and s-pulses. Equally heavy handed for C-small and s-pulses.

Max range nerf for c-erl ,c-lpl and c-erm are a good idea, but not at its current percentage.

ECM change...good.

Edited by UncleTouchy, 14 October 2015 - 05:48 PM.

[Felicitatem Parco]

Jin Ma, on 14 October 2015 - 03:14 PM, said:

Leave it up to paul to make something that shoud be simple like laser range into rocket science. Meanwhile accomplishing nothing.

This is like pulling out a nuke for a cockroach. Just adjust the clan's laser range normally. Either that, or make the global change to laser max range.

You have no Appreciation for rocket science. I bet you think a sharp pointy nosecap is more aerodynamically-efficient than a rounded nosecone for high-speed missiles, huh?

[Jin Ma]

notjoe, on 14 October 2015 - 03:18 PM, said:

[Unapproved post]

well lets be fair.

The patch buffed Single heat sinks, and ECM no longer nullifies all missiles.

Should these changes have been made 2 years ago? Yes. Were the ECM mechanics his ideas to begin with? yes. But hey there are *some* good things on the PTS

[cSand]

Interesting choice of change but I like the idea of making people PUSH R FFS

tentative thumbs up


Reread...

I think 60% of optimal range is a bit much.

Why not reduce just the max range?

I would much prefer the target lock to affect convergence rather than damage/range



Is it really that big of a technical hurdle??

That said i could live with these changes. Maybe a bit less heavy handed on the global change but... liveable.

Edited by cSand, 14 October 2015 - 03:53 PM.

[Jin Ma]

Prosperity Park, on 14 October 2015 - 03:17 PM, said:

You have no Appreciation for rocket science. I bet you think a sharp pointy nosecap is more aerodynamically-efficient than a rounded nosecone for high-speed missiles, huh?

Sorry I only know Neurosurgery. Bet you think an epidural hematoma occurs as a result of injury to the bridging veins, and the subdural hematoma occurs when there is injury to the middle meningeal artery. What even is a subarachnoid hemorrhage?

[Tennex]

cSand, on 14 October 2015 - 03:28 PM, said:

Interesting choice of change but I like the idea of making people PUSH R FFS

tentative thumbs up

Both of these changes are too complicated and specific for no reason

Edited by Tennex, 14 October 2015 - 03:49 PM.

[Deathlike]

60% of optimal is too much.

If it were 75% to 85% of optimal, I could kinda be OK with (not really), but there's no reason to take IS SL/SPL vs ECM mechs unless you like facehugging range.

[FupDup]

Deathlike, on 14 October 2015 - 03:38 PM, said:

60% of optimal is too much.

If it were 75% to 85% of optimal, I could kinda be OK with (not really), but there's no reason to take IS SL/SPL vs ECM mechs unless you like facehugging range.

I think it's a ridicous concept at practically any values inputted into it.

Ghost Damage should not be a thing.

[Kira Onime]

Paul Inouye, on 14 October 2015 - 02:21 PM, said:

... and this is where the changes get derpy, to stay polite.

[Deathlike]

FupDup, on 14 October 2015 - 03:40 PM, said:

I think it's a ridicous concept at practically any values inputted into it.

Ghost Damage should not be a thing.

If it was against max range that I had originally expected... I could be OK with that.

You would have been better off nerfing overall range straight up if you had to.. but this is woefully inelegant.

[Wintersdark]

Rather than the damage falloff, which is complicated and strange, Pariah Devalis suggests on Twitter tying weapon convergence to target lock, rather than distance to crosshairs: https://twitter.com/...398205476667392

Thus, if you don't lock your target, you're straight firing weapons and spreading damage.  Lock target for pinpoint.

But the real side benefit of this is that you'll get correct weapon convergence when firing at targets you have to lead!  Currently, firing arm mounted autocannons at a speeding light can result in a situation where it's literally impossible to hit the light due to your weapons converging on the terrain at the crosshairs rather than the target distance.

Weapons converging on the distance to R target solves that problem, as well as making R targeting important.

What's more, it makes sense, which the damage falloff doesn't do.  When you target a mech, you're telling the targeting computer what range to converge your weapons at.

Edited by Wintersdark, 14 October 2015 - 03:51 PM.

[Ano]

Jin Ma, on 14 October 2015 - 03:29 PM, said:

. What even is a subarachnoid hemorrhage?

It's those bloody spiders, isn't it?

*rimshot*

Edited by Ano, 14 October 2015 - 03:51 PM.

[Tennex]

Wintersdark, on 14 October 2015 - 03:49 PM, said:

Rather than the damage falloff, which is complicated and strange, Pariah Devalis suggests on Twitter tying weapon convergence to target lock, rather than distance to crosshairs: https://twitter.com/...398205476667392

Thus, if you don't lock your target, you're straight firing weapons and spreading damage. Lock target for pinpoint.

But the real side benefit of this is that you'll get correct weapon convergence when firing at targets you have to lead! Currently, firing arm mounted autocannons at a speeding light can result in a situation where it's literally impossible to hit the light due to your weapons converging on the terrain at the crosshairs rather than the target distance.

Weapons converging on the distance to R target solves that problem, as well as making R targeting important.

What's more, it makes sense, which the damage falloff doesn't do. When you target a mech, you're telling the targeting computer what range to converge your weapons at.

That is good too. But my philosophy is: if it aint broke, dont fix it

[Deathlike]

Tennex, on 14 October 2015 - 03:51 PM, said:

That is good too. But my philosophy is: if it aint broke, dont fix it

Around here, the reverse is true.

[Mcgral18]

FupDup, on 14 October 2015 - 03:40 PM, said:

I think it's a ridicous concept at practically any values inputted into it.

Ghost Damage should not be a thing.

Past Optimal, I can see it. Need precise measurements to align the lenses into a DeathStar or somesuch, and while they function fine inside their optimal range, past that they need the extra info.


But optimal is just too much, especially with so many bad lasers around (blanket nerfing all of them).


This doesn't make SRMs a nicer choice (especially with the red indicator being gone entirely), it just cements Gauss as the best weapon in the game (best Crit weapon, almost everything has 15HP, Gauss Crits for 15, FLD crit advantage, best range in the game, best velocity in the game, etc...).


But, the 60% off MAXimum Clan laser range I can fully get behind. My suggestion actually had 50%...

[BigBenn]

Deathlike, on 14 October 2015 - 02:47 PM, said:

This greatly disappoints me.

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

Edited by BigBenn, 14 October 2015 - 03:58 PM.

[Twinkleblade]

Honestly I dont see much of a problem with how lasers will work, I would use different terms though.

Its like short range, long range and max range.
Enemy not targeted? Damage falls off at short range-max range
Enemy locked ? Damage falls off at long range-max range
(In Battletech this was kinda represented with short, medium and long range modifiers).

Its easy to understand and kinda makes sense.
I just hope that the diagram makes it into mechstats. The text explanation was confusing me too but that picture makes it crystal clear.


is SL/SPL might need adjustments but thats not hard to change.
People in here seem to forget that this is a test and everything can be changed.
I am fine with the mechanics numbers can be changed.

[Wintersdark]

Tennex, on 14 October 2015 - 03:51 PM, said:

That is good too. But my philosophy is: if it aint broke, dont fix it

Well, this fixes what PGI feels IS broke (whether we agree or not that it is, PGI clearly feels it is): That is, the importance of target locks and thus target data communication. It also fixes what inarguably is broken (weapon convergence when you have to lead targets.

Thus, it's achieving PGI's aims, fixing a long standing serious problem with weapon convergence making some lights literally impossible to hit, and it makes more sense than lasers doing ghost damage.

[East Indy]

Appreciate the clarification.

I played for about 90 minutes on the PTS (mostly autocannon fire support). I have two problems with the target lock range loss:

1. It's less about infotech and weapons than it is about lasers.
2. It's binary and, I think, abrupt and potentially confusing. 270/162/270 struck me as weird.

to that end:

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 raising 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.

Edited by East Indy, 14 October 2015 - 03:59 PM.

[Ultimax]

You need to reduce clan burn times then, the CERLLAS is going to become extinct after these changes.