69 replies to this topic

[SirNotlag]

EDIT: It looks like the system has been cancelled. Well better that they try ideas out on the PTS rather than doing nothing at all or just sending them live.

http://mwomercs.com/...as-been-canned/


Here is the big one! The change that seems to have the most people up in arms over it, since both sides seem very vocal this poll will hopefully show how many people are actually taking which side.

"Lasers will not do full damage when striking a ‘Mech that is not target-locked from a range greater than 60% of the Laser’s Optimal Range."

Ex this means when shooting at a mech with IS medium lasers if you have hit R and got the red box around the target optimum range is 270m and max range is 540m. If you do not hit R and just shoot at him, maybe they are under ECM, optimum range is 162m and max range is 540m.


I really really like this change! PGI has found a way to elegantly make Info tech an effective pillar of balance by linking it to the damage out put of a weapon type that, until now, hasn't had many negative elements. My hat is off to whoever thought of this because you have made information an incredibly desirable thing in a game that is based around 15 min skirmishes bravo!

The best thing I find is that combined with the changes to ECM, ECM now also reduces laser effectiveness but only for 3 seconds. And since ballistic weapons are not affected ballistic mechs can easily do peak-aboo tactics as they currently do, even against ECM.

Edited by SirNotlag, 06 November 2015 - 07:01 PM.

[SkyHammyr]

I'm gonna say no to this.
I doesn't feel right to nerf overall effective range to lasers- maximum range, sure, but the ranges we all know shouldn't be effected.
This is especially true of IS Small Lasers & Small Pulse Lasers who take this hit severely

Edited by SkyHammr, 16 October 2015 - 02:07 PM.

[SirNotlag]

SkyHammr, on 16 October 2015 - 02:06 PM, said:

I'm gonna say no to this.
I doesn't feel right to nerf overall effective range to lasers- maximum range, sure, but the ranges we all know shouldn't be effected.
This is especially true of IS Small Lasers & Small Pulse Lasers who take this hit severely

I do agree on the small lasers if they do not have a target the optimum range is 81m and 270m max. The pulse is even worse at 66m optimum and 220m max without a target.

That is why I think the optimum range reduction should be different for the different laser classes: EX 60% optimum for large variants without lock, 70% for mediums variants, and 80% for small variants. That way it doesn't cut so deeply into the already pitiful range of the weapons.

[oldradagast]

This goofy proposal is just a sideways attempt to increase TTK in a bad way thanks to a refusal to consider a variable cone of fire.

• The game does not need more slapped on, illogical mechanics piled on top of things like: ghost heat, arbitrary hard cut-off minimum ranges for some weapons, etc. MWO has a hard enough time getting new players and retaining them - random lunacy like this will only make that situation worse.
  
• The proposal itself makes no sense whatsoever and somehow turns ECM into a form of weapon specific armor. It's just bad, reactionary game design: the same time of game design that earned us: ghost heat, horrible PPC's, missiles that were unplayable and at half damage for over a year, Hoverjets ™, and so on.
  
• For the nth time, nerfing weapons because they can be boated does NOT fix the pinpoint damage or high alpha problem. It just kills mechs that are dependent upon those weapons because of tonnage and hardpoint limitations, and also punishes mechs that can't boat weapons because nerfed firepower is effective ONLY if boated.
  
• Finally, this change would overly punish lights and skirmishers since both dependent on a mix of lasers and hit-and-run tactics, which will be incompatible with a need for a target lock for full damage. Ironically, it won't do much of anything to dakka-Wolves or Gauss mounting snipers.

Change is not the same as balance or progress.

Edited by oldradagast, 16 October 2015 - 03:19 PM.

[Brandarr Gunnarson]

I agree with radagast. This change makes no sense. Lasers are beams of light: they go where you point them!

I'm not sure what the thinking behind this was or the purpose; but if it's pointed at Clan lasers, the right way is to balance them internally with a correct heat:range:damage:recycle:tonnage ratio. I know that sounds ridiculous, but actually you can more simply think of it like heat:range. They should be dang hot; but they should shoot a long ways.

After all, range and accuracy is the whole Clan thing! That's what defines Clans against IS. This goes back to flavor, of course (which is another discussion).

Anyway, I want things to be consistent and causal, not random and arbitrary.

[Not A Real RAbbi]

Voted YES.

Time for the meta to shift again. MIGHT be too hard a nerf, but then, the numbers are sure to soften between PTS and live implementation. It'll be interesting to see where the live values fall in.

Thing is, we'd EXPECT convergence and focus to be based on the expected target range. In this case, if we HAVE a target identified by the targeting/sensor systems in the mech, then that's naturally the range we're shooting for (pun TOTES intended). So yeah.

To be fully honest, I'd like to see that thinking, in a kinda-sorta way, applied across the board. If my target is at 473 meters, then my AC/5 should fire with a trajectory such that, at 473 meters, the round will be level with the crosshairs at the time it was fired. If I fire an LRM 20 at that same target, I want ideal (optimal) missile convergence to be at that range. Not much of a discussion with MGs, SRMs, and so on. STILL...

But anyhow, yeah, I like the idea. I think the values of the nerf may be a little EXCESSIVE (like Mister Torgue's use of CAPITAL LETTERS and EXPLOSIONS), but it's a good-enough move. Wasn't NECESSARY, but SOMETHING probably ought to be done.

AGAIN, not debating. Just adding my $.02 to the topic, in justification/explanation of my vote.

Carry on.

[Kira Onime]

To anybody voting on this system, do keep in mind the lack of dorito delay that is currently on the PTS.
If it holds true to what was said, this system will work side-by-side with dorito delay.

ECM is said to delay dorito by 3 seconds. That means it's 3 seconds you have to face before even getting a lock on your target.

Don't vote on this system without that in mind.

Edited by Kira Onime, 17 October 2015 - 06:29 AM.

[Dracol]

Kira Onime, on 17 October 2015 - 06:22 AM, said:

To anybody voting on this system, do keep in mind the lack or dorito delay that is currently on the PTS.
If it holds true to what was said, this system will work side-by-side with dorito delay.

ECM is said to delay dorito by 3 seconds. That means it's 3 seconds you have to face before even getting a lock on your target.

Don't vote on this system without that in mind.

You are incorrect. Having played on the PTS, there is no delay in getting a dorito on an ECM mech. There is a delay in getting missile locks on an ECM mech.

Edited by Dracol, 17 October 2015 - 06:26 AM.

[gloowa]

Voted no, because the solution is:

http://mwomercs.com/...le-its-amazing/

[Kira Onime]

Dracol, on 17 October 2015 - 06:26 AM, said:

You are incorrect. Having played on the PTS, there is no delay in getting a dorito on an ECM mech.

Quote

lack of dorito delay

So you say I'm wrong but then say the same thing.

[Dracol]

Kira Onime, on 17 October 2015 - 06:30 AM, said:

So you say I'm wrong but then say the same thing.

..... apparently I need more coffee.....

[Gas Guzzler]

As it stands now, once dorito delay gets implemented for lasers, you will see a SHIFT to PPC/Gauss/AC5 style gameplay. Keep that in mind as well!

[Sabertooth1966]

This just makes no real world type of sense to me. A laser is an energy weapon that's damage just decreases over the time it takes, I.E. distance, to reach it's target do to energy lost. So why would it's damage decrease at the point of contact just because it did not have a solid lock on its target? I could see the cone of fire type of thing were you may not hit exactly were you are aiming outside a given distance or percentage of distance but not a damage reduction.

Edit: Ok just found Paul's post explaining how this is supposed to work. It still makes no sense to me. If you have no lock than the energy supplied is reduced. To use a bad analogy, this would be like a phalanx defense weapon on a ship that was setup to use 2 mini gun style weapons and for some reason had a manual targeting system to only let the operator use 1 of the cannons I they could not get a solid computer target lock on it. " Oh no we have incoming targets but the computer can't find them good enough to target so we will use less fire power to try and shoot them down."

Edited by Sabertooth1966, 17 October 2015 - 12:40 PM.

[Brandarr Gunnarson]

@Sabertooth1966:

Excellent logic, there.

I agree, it's a very counterintuitive system. How ECM, a system targeted at disrupting the detection and acquisition of a target, would affect the damage of a beam of light (or energy; that is, laser) is beyond me.

Seems arbitrary and illogical. There are better, simpler ways to restrict lasers.

[Rinkata Prime]

Nice poll, up.
Moders, pls pin.

[SirNotlag]

Sabertooth1966, on 17 October 2015 - 10:39 AM, said:

This just makes no real world type of sense to me. A laser is an energy weapon that's damage just decreases over the time it takes, I.E. distance, to reach it's target do to energy lost. So why would it's damage decrease at the point of contact just because it did not have a solid lock on its target? I could see the cone of fire type of thing were you may not hit exactly were you are aiming outside a given distance or percentage of distance but not a damage reduction.

Edit: Ok just found Paul's post explaining how this is supposed to work. It still makes no sense to me. If you have no lock than the energy supplied is reduced. To use a bad analogy, this would be like a phalanx defense weapon on a ship that was setup to use 2 mini gun style weapons and for some reason had a manual targeting system to only let the operator use 1 of the cannons I they could not get a solid computer target lock on it. " Oh no we have incoming targets but the computer can't find them good enough to target so we will use less fire power to try and shoot them down."

Think of it more like a magnify glass or a flash light, Yes it is a beam of light that travels in a straight line slowly becoming weaker as it passes through the atmosphere but there is also another aspect you may not have noticed.The Focus Point which is the point where the beam is most focused, this is the point where the center of a flash lights beam would be very small and very bright or where you could use sunlight to burn things if using a magnify glass, adjusting the lens of the flash light or moving the magnify glass will move the focus point. In all cases with light the focus point is where there is the most energy so a laser gun would have the best burn there. If the focus point is not on target, either behind or in front of it, the beam will not do max damage as the beam will be wider or not carry as much energy.

There is also a real world example of a laser weapon that works this way, so we could assume that future laser guns might be built the same way.. The laser guns that modern day ships use to shoot down drones actually do use a targeting computer to adjust the beams focus point to be exactly on the drones skin allowing it to burn the drone as effectively as possible.

Enough with the physics lesson, how does this work in MWO. Well if the lasers focus point was always tunned to max optimum range then they would actually start doing less damage as an enemy mech got closer. Since it is not reasonable for the the pilot to have enough time to adjust the lens of each laser or even the ability with the workload they have to deal with when in combat the process is entirely automated by the targeting computer. And since the targeting computer can only read a mech you have target lock on it only adjusts when you target a mech. When not reading a mech the targeting computer will adjust the lens in a way so that the beam will still do full damage at point blank range just incase someone manages to get the jump on you. If it didn't do that and a stealth mech got up close you wouldn't be doing full damage to him as your focus point is still out there at 270m but chances are his lasers would be adjusting bringing his focus point in onto the surface of your mech allowing him to burn through your armour much more effectively.

Why would it do that when most mech fights happen at long range? Blame the engineers that designed it, they aren't the pilots and have no idea how actually mech fights work so they simply do what they can and design the machines to run effectively in all situations they think of.

Edited by SirNotlag, 18 October 2015 - 06:03 AM.

[Sjorpha]

gloowa, on 17 October 2015 - 06:28 AM, said:

Voted no, because the solution is:

http://mwomercs.com/...le-its-amazing/

I agree, that is a great idea. Better than the laser range mechanic, and solves the problem for all weapons.

[Dracol]

Sjorpha, on 18 October 2015 - 06:03 AM, said:

I agree, that is a great idea. Better than the laser range mechanic, and solves the problem for all weapons.

Ballistics need to lead targets, as do PPCs. Gauss has a charge mechanic. LRMs and streaks require target locks. SRMs have cone of fire. Why do those need to have convergence??

Laser targeting is a fairly simple mechanic that simulates convergence without being applied to weapons that don't require it.

Another way to look at it, lasers finally get a mechanic that needs to be considered when using them, just like all the other weapons already have.

[Weeny Machine]

It curbs the brainless laser spam on extreme ranges. This in turn will make velocity weapons a bit more viable and give brawlers a chance to get into range.

Too bad that some people will discover that lasers are the easy peasy weapons when they try to switch to velocity weapons hehehe

[Sjorpha]

Dracol, on 18 October 2015 - 06:35 AM, said:

Ballistics need to lead targets, as do PPCs. Gauss has a charge mechanic. LRMs and streaks require target locks. SRMs have cone of fire. Why do those need to have convergence??

Laser targeting is a fairly simple mechanic that simulates convergence without being applied to weapons that don't require it.

Another way to look at it, lasers finally get a mechanic that needs to be considered when using them, just like all the other weapons already have.

What do you mean they don't require it? Ballistics and PPCs currently have near perfect convergence just like all other weapons, if you don't think they need to converge why do you have a problem with convergence being removed?

Or are you confusing "convergence" (which we currently have on all weapons) with "lack of perfect convergence" (which is what we are suggesting)

What we are saying is that there is currently too much convergence, and that it should be reduced.

And to answer your question, why do weapons need less convergence?

Simple answer: weapons (all weapons) are currently too easy to use and should have less convergence to make them harder to hit with, thus making the game more difficult to be good at and increasing time to kill.

Balance between weapons is another issue entirely, if decreased convergence hurts projectile weapons more than lasers (true, it would) then those weapons can be buffed with more velocity, range, damage or whatever is appropriate, or lasers can be nerfed.

I personally think learning to lead ballistics and PPCs without perfect convergence would be very interesting.

Edited by Sjorpha, 18 October 2015 - 07:34 AM.