75 replies to this topic

[Darian DelFord]

Help me understand something....

To get the FULl Damage potential past the 60%, do I merely need to have them targeted, or Actual Target infomrtion listed as in weapons load out and where they are hurt?

[Benjamin Davion]

Anarcho, on 15 October 2015 - 06:05 PM, said:

Ppl dont see the advantages of this system...

*Makes run and gun harder

Run and gun is literally the entire purpose of a light mech, so you just admitted that this is a direct nerf on lights.

[sycocys]

Just "R'd" - you don't need the info as far as I have been able to discern.

[Darian DelFord]

Benjamin Davion, on 15 October 2015 - 06:06 PM, said:

No, Darian has hit the nail on the head here, this is yet another stealth nerf on lights. I probably spend 60-75% of my time in lights. My Spider, Firestarters, and Ravens all have ~2+ KDRs. The simple fact is, if you know what you're doing in a light as far as staying alive is concerned, you do not have the time to lock up every target you engage. On approach to a target or against a single opponent, sure, fine. But during a brawl, I am frequently diving in and out of a fight, probably engaging 4-5 targets before withdrawing to cool off and reposition. I MAY get locks on 2 or 3 of those targets.
With results like these:


For sniping lights like the Raven this is even worse. The Ravens are most effective as ERLL/LL snipers where they can break cover, fire, and immediately disappear again. They are excellent vertical peaking snipers. Being forced to acquire a lock means dramatically increased face time, which means exponentially greater risk of return fire and destruction. To prove I know what I'm doing in Ravens, before that comes up:


Old photo, old unit, but I don't drive my Ravens all that much any more.

Under the new system, instead of breaking cover, firing 2 ERLL to a single panel that I visually acquired and disappearing again, in order to do full damage, I have to break cover, sit there and wait for a lock, which may not even be possible to acquire, then fire. In the meantime, anyone who cares to take a shot at my vulnerable ass is free to do so. Or I can fight in the old way, pop up, acquire target like always, fire, and scurry away, but it now means a hard 40% reduction to my total effectiveness. That is the absolute definition of a nerf.

This is because there are truly fewer dedicated light pilots out there. We are a dying breed, and we can see this for the problem its going to be, to where the heavier chassis do not understand that.

sycocys, on 15 October 2015 - 06:11 PM, said:

Just "R'd" - you don't need the info as far as I have been able to discern.

OK, thats what I thought, but a friend in chat was saying something else, and I found the post now, thanks

[sycocys]

Benjamin Davion, on 15 October 2015 - 06:11 PM, said:

Run and gun is literally the entire purpose of a light mech, so you just admitted that this is a direct nerf on lights.

Also I do agree that it is harder - I'd use the term 'more challenging' - run and gunning with lights. I was working with my Death Knell last night though, and while I don't have JJ I really didn't have much of any issue kiting in a brawl, getting into both non and targeted ranges for my weapons and for the most part escaping relatively unharmed. Definitely requires more thought in your approach, that's for sure.

This is the style I've used for this particular chassis since closed beta though so I do have quite a fair bit of experience running up close, in/out and in between. Probably make my adjustment to it with this light much easier.

I'll hop on and load up one of the commandos with a similar loadout to your jenner and see how I do.

[sycocys]

As I'm loading up, one thing to keep in mind that the added target scan delay will be added back in before long - and that will actually be a huge buff for the fast lights because we will be able to take them from cover - into non-target range (if needed, our scanning will probably be faster as well) - take some shots - and get back into cover by the time enemies will be able to try to everything they want to do to get full damage on.

[Benjamin Davion]

sycocys, on 15 October 2015 - 06:23 PM, said:

As I'm loading up, one thing to keep in mind that the added target scan delay will be added back in before long - and that will actually be a huge buff for the fast lights because we will be able to take them from cover - into non-target range (if needed, our scanning will probably be faster as well) - take some shots - and get back into cover by the time enemies will be able to try to everything they want to do to get full damage on.

Except the laser nerf means that anything that possible can is going to be running Gauss/ERPPC builds to the exception of all else, and they'll do their damage perfectly fine. Given that when I'm NOT in a light I almost always run Gauss as it is, I can tell you, inexperienced light pilots are going to be beyond screwed by this.

[Tarl Cabot]

Darian DelFord, on 15 October 2015 - 05:39 PM, said:

Simple as pressing R?

Hop in a Jenner, Get up to Speed, Now Twist, Maneuver, Take a Shot, Jump, Turn, Juimp Turn, Take a Shot at another mech, Maneuver, Jump Turn, Look for a Way out, Trip on a Rock and tell me when the hell you have time to press R

This change effects lights more than anything, we have to be nimble and quick. I use SPL's as my main weapons and I can assure you the 60% Change in Max Damage range is huge. My damage is now down by about 150 points per match.

My Optimal range has droped from 121 meters to 73 meters with the module. That is a change of 57 meters, for a light that is huge. We do not have the luxuoury of most Heavies and Assaults to be able to lumber along and just shoot. We actually have to be able to 10 things at once. Now your adding on something else we have only so many fingers

If PGI had originally implemented or ever implements more of the HeatScale with regards slowing down a mech and making it less agile, lights would not be dancing and firing as much or as often as they currently do, thus doing less damage.

[Benjamin Davion]

The Atlas Overlord, on 15 October 2015 - 04:24 PM, said:

Or you could just use a light for scouting and spotting as intended, instead of trying to pretend it's a heavy

I'm gonna guess you like LRMs.

[MischiefSC]

So being a light needs to involve hitting 'r'.

If this destroys your playstyle or certain goofy builds like ERLL sniper ravens, oh the humanity. I bleed peanut butter.

Hit ******* R. Always. All the time. Every chance you get. Every instant there is an enemy around. Always. WIthout exception. I've never failed to target someone I was shooting I can remember. Lights, heavies, mediums, assaults, doesn't matter.

Maybe a Raven could be good for something other than ERLL sniping. Crazy, I know. Bordering on madness. Maybe though... just maybe, perhaps, mechs could have more than 1 use.

[sycocys]

1 kill, 8 assists 141 damage with 2 SL, 2 SRM4. 174k c-bill take. Com-3a.

Caused a fair bit of disruption though on most of those 8 assists, so all things considered it really wasn't a bad performance, secured a win. Got targets, fought other targets while holding. Would probably have cleared 200 maybe 250 with full range. So if they adjust things to somewhere in the 80-90% range I don't think it would end up being a bad place for the zippy lights at all.

Think I'd still honestly use ML over SPL on most lights like this myself, but with some range adjusting I think it will find a pretty decent balance.

[MischiefSC]

sycocys, on 15 October 2015 - 06:51 PM, said:

1 kill, 8 assists 141 damage with 2 SL, 2 SRM4. 174k c-bill take. Com-3a.

Caused a fair bit of disruption though on most of those 8 assists, so all things considered it really wasn't a bad performance, secured a win. Got targets, fought other targets while holding. Would probably have cleared 200 maybe 250 with full range. So if they adjust things to somewhere in the 80-90% range I don't think it would end up being a bad place for the zippy lights at all.

Think I'd still honestly use ML over SPL on most lights like this myself, but with some range adjusting I think it will find a pretty decent balance.

I'd like IS spls and smls to get additional buffs. They're just flat out sub-par right now for what they do.

[sycocys]

We have really very little idea yet what they have in mind to balance out and/or add info tech systems to the other weapons yet at all.

Just saying I wouldn't dive in on jumping to conclusions that PPC/Guass/Ballistics is going to be the end all just because we are testing out some laser adjustments right now.

[sycocys]

MischiefSC, on 15 October 2015 - 06:53 PM, said:

I'd like IS spls and smls to get additional buffs. They're just flat out sub-par right now for what they do.

I agree they are a bit low. This could be a decent way to give them a little balance back too if they are close to ML counterparts untargeted range - or at least not ridiculously far off.

At the same time I have actually found that the SL in live (just for a comparison to what we know more of) is a great compliment to MPL. 3 MPL to 1 SL on things like the Death Knell. It takes forever to over heat even with minimum sinks, and the sl can keep damage scratching away while you kite and cool. You also don't lose much range/duration between the two if you are doing some power brawling/knife fighting with it so its pretty much game on 100% of the time.

[Tarogato]

MischiefSC, on 15 October 2015 - 06:47 PM, said:

So being a light needs to involve hitting 'r'.

If this destroys your playstyle or certain goofy builds like ERLL sniper ravens, oh the humanity. I bleed peanut butter.

Hit ******* R. Always. All the time. Every chance you get. Every instant there is an enemy around. Always. WIthout exception. I've never failed to target someone I was shooting I can remember. Lights, heavies, mediums, assaults, doesn't matter.

You must not play as fast-paced a game as the rest of us do. I certainly don't have time to lock every single target I shoot at that's outside my "maximum unlocked optimum range".

[BearFlag]

Quote

And if your worried about smaller lasers this is just a test. They might change this for each level of laser or lights might get quirks for this too.

OMG. No offense to the poster of this comment, but it encapsulates everything that is wrong with PGI's approach and those that second it.

Count-intuitive, arbitrary, silly, nonsensical and impossible-in-any-universe tweaks are not the way to do it. Yes, lasers need to be toned down. But make freaking sense or be seen as arbitrary, nonsensical and silly.

Just look:

First we start with an impossible, unnatural non-linear light attenuation curve. We create a mystical "optimum range" in it. We don't like it so instead of fixing things through existing parameters we butcher a fundamental component of the calcs with another silly and arbitrary change. Add to this an invisible shield provided by lack of lock. (I've seen several whoopers, er, explanations for this magic.) Finally, when that offends sensibilities AND nerfs unevenly, someone suggests we add yet another arbitrary change by weapon class!?

Are you kidding me? Stop.

Need to nerf lasers generally? Fine. Use a simple linear fall off like, maybe, they were lasers or something. THEN adjust the other parms to suit purpose. But DON'T jack around a fundamental, low level mechanic in the game in utterly arbitrary and baffling ways.

Right direction, very bad approach.

Edited by BearFlag, 15 October 2015 - 07:50 PM.

[Coralld]

Darian DelFord, on 15 October 2015 - 06:10 PM, said:

Help me understand something....

To get the FULl Damage potential past the 60%, do I merely need to have them targeted, or Actual Target infomrtion listed as in weapons load out and where they are hurt?

You just need to target them, as in just putting the red box around the red dorito, you don't need to wait for the paper doll to pop up.

Edited by Coralld, 15 October 2015 - 08:06 PM.

[sycocys]

I guess I don't find it silly that electronic/energy based weapons perform better or worse when coupled/de-coupled with their computer targeting systems.

To me it makes far more sense than simply saying these energy weapons do x amount of damage out to a random distance you are pointing at which you don't even know is an enemy target or a rock.

Seems more logical to me that technology based weapons would be tied in more directly with the technology in ways like focusing where it does the most damage, or being in a more standby mode so you aren't burning out your electronics trying to melt the shadow rock at 900m you think might be an enemy.

Personally I'd push for far more depth into the system including things like:

running hot/overheating can/will damage computer sensors/targeting equipment making them less useful as well as damaging weapons and making them less useful or having misfires/non-fires

different computers do different things - mentioned in another great post, more concerning the rest of the info tech quirks

weapon tech manufacturers have different buffs/debuffs

boating weapons (especially tech weapons) creates both synergies as well as deficiencies

mixing tech weapons(weapon sizes/types)/sensors/targeting, can cause a range of small buff/debuffs

and so on - so forth. I'd like to see crazy amounts of depth injected into the system to make it far more interesting to both design mechs as well as play them.

I understand it's probably too much for some people to handle, and a lot of work to make it happen so we will never see it.

Simpler stuff like this though that addresses balance and helps to work on things like pinpoint damage when the Devs believe that their netcode/HSR system can't properly do things like cof beyond the screen shake mechanic or more in-depth convergence systems - really for me does add depth and helps to work to improve the game. It might not be in the way we all really want to see it happen, but we also have to work with what can actually be done in the confines of the coding sytems available.

Just my thoughts on it.

[BearFlag]

sycocys, on 15 October 2015 - 08:11 PM, said:

I guess I don't find it silly that electronic/energy based weapons perform better or worse when coupled/de-coupled with their computer targeting systems.

To me it makes far more sense than simply saying these energy weapons do x amount of damage out to a random distance you are pointing at which you don't even know is an enemy target or a rock.

Seems more logical to me that technology based weapons would be tied in more directly with the technology in ways like focusing where it does the most damage, or being in a more standby mode so you aren't burning out your electronics trying to melt the shadow rock at 900m you think might be an enemy.

...
Just my thoughts on it.

And your thoughts make perfect sense to me. The problem is the targeting computer in a shooter game is the player. Nerfing "aim" with "target lock" when all that is required for convergence is distance to target (provided by the reticule) will not be well-liked. Any adjustments the onboard computer could possibly make also only require distance to target. Any improvements to pinpoint accuracy beyond that would require some kind of active system - radar, tagging, whatever. My impression is that this nonsensical nerf is arm-twisting to get the player to press 'r' and opt into Electronic Warfare. Seen this way it's even less palatable.

There are many other ways to tone down lasers. But target lock nerf stinks of ham-handed social engineering.

I expressed in another thread that my fear is that PGI for reasons unfathomable is leaning towards fight-by-instrumentation. More cluttered and obscuring maps, new emphasis on the wrongly named "Information Warfare." To me this would be antithetical to duke it out mech combat. I'm here to shoot at mechs, not red boxes.

[Anarcho]

Lights arent supose to gun and run like they do now, light pilots are spoiled with the bad hitreg at high speeds in this game.