148 replies to this topic

[dwwolf]

How long will you try to apply bandaids over bandaids when the root issue is pinpoint damage application in general ?
Fixing pinpoint direct fire weapons would unnerf LRMs SRMs and LBX ACs ( their relative value would increase ).

All it needs is some kind of cone fire system which has excellent hooks into many battletech game mechanics...heat scale , component damage, equipment like TC etc etc.

Its a good enough mechanic that the military uses for simulations........it should be good enough for MWO.

[nehebkau]

@ Paul Good idea.   Locking targets needed more reason to exist other than LRMs and SRMs.   Could you do the same thing with auto-cannons and Gauss?

Edited by nehebkau, 15 October 2015 - 09:50 AM.

[Trev Firestorm]

So he took the lock targets for convergence idea and twisted it into something nonsensical instead?

[Cementi]

So far I am very happy with the changes.

My one concern is that I noticed that IS and Clan sensor ranges are different. I think base numbers should be the same just my opinion. Different chassis may vary down the road i understand that.

The chart is not that complex, it is fairly clear actually. It is also nice that the in game display shows the altered optimal ranges when you do not lock.

Pressing R before you fire really is not that difficult. If it bothers you that much use ballistics. I think the passive lock feature if you aim at a target long enough should be removed.

Now we just need recoil for ballistics.

Im not a coder but PGI has been clear that convergence is not going to happen as it cause Hit Reg issues. This is a fairly good comprimise.

[Koniks]

Cementi, on 15 October 2015 - 11:46 AM, said:

If it bothers you that much use ballistics. I think the passive lock feature if you aim at a target long enough should be removed.

I hope you like dual Gauss.

[Rascally Jack]

Kmieciu, on 14 October 2015 - 10:26 PM, said:

Clan Laser Maximum Ranges

• Maximum Ranges for all Clan Lasers have been reduced by 40%.

I logged into the PTS client just to check.




In the mechlab I could see that ERML now has a maximum range of 648 meters.
It used to be 810 meters.
(810-648)/810 is actually 20%.
But they, I'm from Europe. Out Math is probably different than yours ;-)

As it was explained to me:

405m*0.6=243m so 405m+243m=648m maximum range
so it is actually 40%

Courtesy of VanguardMK1

Edited by Rascally Jack, 15 October 2015 - 12:45 PM.

[L3mming2]

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?

thats due to payload not aerodynamics

[Mr Hunter]

It seems really out of place in a sensor test... maybe in the weapon re-balance test but not in this one. Also if you are going to make lasers less desirable you have to dissuade ac boating at the same time i.e. recoil.

Edited by B8hunter, 15 October 2015 - 01:13 PM.

[Commissar Aku]

Instead of all these laser changes and other crap that frankly isn't going to help anymore than weapon quirks (if not be worse) is you could just fix weapon convergence. I mean the mech tree says it exists, so you guys must have planned on putting it in at some point, why not now instead of all this complicated crap that frankly isn't going to fix anything. Why make sweeping changes if it isn't going to make the game better, even if it doesn't make the game worse, it isn't going to make the game better either. Quirks are not and have never been the answer, this is like the war on drugs, not working but you push forward like it is anyway.

[Struan]

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

Hey folks, here's a clarification post (with pictures!) for the laser changes on PTS build 2 for 'Mech Rebalance.

There are 2 fundamental changes being made here:

1) Clan laser MAXIMUM distances are being shortened globally. The LongRange value is not changing from what it is now. (It WILL be affected by change 2 below however).

Here's how Clan lasers are being affected...



2) A global change to lasers based on target lock.

If the target 'Mech is not locked, your 'Mech's targeting system is going to focus your lasers at 60% of it's normal LongRange. Damage falloff happens from this point on. If you DO target your enemy 'Mech, your targeting system now knows the distance at which to focus the lasers to do maximum damage. This is when your lasers go back to normal max damage at LongRange. Targeting or Not Targeting does not affect MaxRange distances.

Here is how targeting affects all lasers...



These two system combined are meant to futher enhance the importance of InfoTech and Clan laser max range imbalance.

Okay, I like the intent here, but this is a tad extreme in my view. Why not work off of this model instead, which is what I took to be the case before the PTS opened.

-Reduce clan total range by 40%
-Have extra damage cutoff occur at 60% of total range (compounding with existing range penalties for the laser in question)

The results of this idea are displayed below for both clan and IS medium lasers.

Clan medium:
Damage: 7
Duration: 1.15 s
Heat: 6
Long Range: 400m
Total Range: (400 x 2) x 0.6 = 480m
Long Range w/o target data= 480 x 0.6 = 288m

Inner Sphere medium:
Damage: 5
Duration: 0.9s
Heat: 4
Range: 270m
Total Range: 270 x 2 = 540m
Long Range w/o target data= 540 x 0.6 = 324m (though you do more damage at 270m)

It is true that the Clan Medium does 40% more damage, and it its locked target effective range is roughly 48% greater. However, this potential is only realized with a target lock. Without one, the Clan medium still does 40% more damage, but only at 288m, a range that is a mere 7% greater than the range of an IS medium laser.Couple this with the fact that the clan medium has a 30% longer laser duration, and has a whopping 50% more heat generation, we are now talking about two comparable weapons. It is also worth noting that the new clan med laser max range is 13% less than that of an inner sphere med laser.

I have performed this calculation on most lasers now, the non-locked effective range of clan lasers never seems to exceed 20% the same range of its IS counterpart.

Considering the high heat of clan lasers (making them difficult to use in many close range situations), these changes would certainly promote emphasis on targeting in the game, without maiming the effectiveness of both IS and clan lasers at close range. Furthermore, this would help significantly with reducing the effectiveness gap between IS and clan lasers. Considering this, it is also reasonable to say that it would be a large step towards the elimination of the somewhat extreme weapon quirks that have become necessary to balance IS mechs with clan mechs.

Just food for thought.

Edited by Struan, 15 October 2015 - 04:16 PM.

[Sky Hawk]

1. The ongoing numberical changes in the weapon-group line make me crazy.. (In other words, it is very disturbing.) Can you not just use a new color for displaying the "weapon on a targeted enemy" status? Something like... instead of using the Black-Yellow-Green color-set, you could use the Black-Yellow-Green-Orange set... and let the range number texts unchanged?

2. If I hit a target, I want see those reticle flashes in RED and not in yellow.. For me, even no flashes would be better, than this yellow ones, what you use now, in the PTS2... So use please red, or use nothing... (You are in Canada.. so, you should have enough red color.. I think..).

[SirNotlag]

Happy with this it makes sense to me.

Edited by SirNotlag, 15 October 2015 - 05:49 PM.

[Pinkelton]

This change is really stupid.

Why artificially nerf something? You want people to hit R? Do convergence.

Edited by Pinkelton, 15 October 2015 - 07:08 PM.

[Fiona Marshe]

Still downloading the PTS so this is based on reading and math in head.

Current: 60% unlocked range for all

Suggested by type:
Sm Pulse = 90%
Small = 85%
ER Small / Medium Pulse = 80%
Medium = 75%
ER Medium / Large Pulse = 70%
Large = 65%
ER Large = 60%

Edited by Fiona Marshe, 15 October 2015 - 08:09 PM.

[L Y N X]

Folks... It is in test... it is subject to change prior to being pushed live.

PGI, I understand the reasons for the changes and think it will bring more diverse weapons to the battlefield for those who go through the trouble to understand this game mechanic and those who still WUB Boat will learn to use R if they currently do not...

However, I also think there are less computational means to reach the same goals.

1) Convergence may not be less computational but it is a easier to understand mechanic when explaining it to new players.
2) Changing up the ranges on IS and clan weapons. Both max effective damage range(Long range) and max extended ranges. (we need better terms than you or I are using for these two ranges)*
3) Doing 60% damage at a target the is not locked to simulate the loss of aid/aim from on-board targeting computers in the mechs.

Any one or more of these ideas can also bring about the goal behaviors in the player base with less number crunching, for #3 it could be any % value, not necessarily 60%. Please try to Keep It Simple Sillies.


*Nothing ties you(PGI) to TT values, Clan in TT was a business venture to sell new TRO's and handbooks and rulesets, etc. It was a virtual arms race. In MWO, if you do not want a ARM's race, then you should balance it in ways that do not make it the same, but do not put one side or the other at a clear disadvantage.

Edited by 7ynx, 15 October 2015 - 08:26 PM.

[MavRCK]

This mechanism is a needlessly complex solution to a design and balance question.

[RogueLdr]

It seems to me that all you would have to do is add a cone of fire (cof).

If you're not locked on ® then all you're doing in pointing your weapons in the general direction of your target; which means a greater chance to miss. If you are locked on, then you're giving your weapons systems an exact location which leads to pin point damage.

Every other shooter already does this. If you hip fire a weapon your COF is larger and you have a greater chance to miss but if you aim down sight it's accurate.

You want to shoot at that mech 400m away without locking... fine, but you run the risk of your shots going wide, or hitting it's arm instead of it's CT.

If you want your shots to go exactly where you aim... lock on.

This seems like a much simpler solution to the problem. I'm intrigued by the changes but time and test will tell.

[Lord Auriel]

someone might have asked this before but I'll mentioned it anyway. in the training grounds, if you point the crosshair on a mech, the range indicator is different than when you move the crosshair away from it. In other words, aim at mech. range says "440" or something, aim away, range changes. Is this intentional? I find that a bit confusing

PS: Talking about the Optimal range indicator at the bottom right of the HUD

Edited by Lord Auriel, 16 October 2015 - 01:09 AM.

[Surn]

I understand that this makes it harder to damage ecm clan mechs, but is there any basis in reality for this change?

I know of no laser related focus or convergence physical reality that would justify this change... please expand my knowledge.

I am an old school player who liked the simulator aspect of the MechWarrior series, I need some suspension of disbelief support.

Edited by MechregSurn, 16 October 2015 - 02:36 AM.

[GenJack]

I love this change!

Cannot Wait to see where it goes!