69 replies to this topic

[Sabertooth1966]

@SirNotlag

I understand how the principle of how a laser works by using various optic lenses to focus a beam.

If I understand your logic correctly that means that the engineers of this advanced time period are to stupid or inept to have the focusing mechanism for the laser calibrated to the built in range finder that is always on and linked to the cross hairs in our computer driven H.U.D..

I would think that this would not be the case. What could be effected by no lock on is the accuracy of the weapon. This goes back to another post I read about iron sights verses a scope.The target lock gives the computer the info on the exact size, shape and type of the target. It also gives the exact location on the target that the cross hairs are on. The range finder would have already given it the distance.Without the target lock it has the range to target but not all of the info needed for a precise hit location so the accuracy of the shot should decrease not the power of the shot since it should already know the range to the target.

I think this could be achieved by simply having an un-locked shot hit somewhere within the radius of the cross hairs in the H.U.D.. The further away the target is the greater the area it has to hit there by making the weapon less accurate at longer ranges without a target lock.. As the target gets closer the effect will diminish as the crosshair size does not change but the target becomes larger in relation to the cross hair. This could also be applied to all weapon types so we don't just switch back to the pervious Meta of PPC and ballistic.

Edited by Sabertooth1966, 18 October 2015 - 12:16 PM.

[gloowa]

Sjorpha, on 18 October 2015 - 07:25 AM, said:

(...) snipped for brevity

This forums are full of people who do not even understand what convergence is and that we do indeed have convergence in game, much less differences between what currently is in game and what is proposed as a convergence change. But they'll sooner die, defending their ignorance, rather than admin they are wrong. Don't waste your breath.

[East Indy]

I can appreciate arguments that hit-scan has few of the challenges associated with other weapon systems. The principle is okay. But if the point is for a laser to be less effective without a lock, it's easier to explain and understand damage reduction than an abrupt and significant loss of range.

[ASHTAR0N]

I think the aproach is wrong. We all know what happens if one weapon type gets nerfed while the rest remains unchanged: people will simply switch to the other weapons to compensate and the few mech variants which cant do that (hardpoint/tonnage limitations...) will simply die out on the servers.

I think the much better solution would simply be (as it has been proposed before): If you have a lock ALL your weapons will converge and if you dont have a lock ALL your weapons will spray out a bit -> this"bit" obviously needs to be carefully balanced.

And aditionally some of the clan laser ranges should be adjusted individually in order to be more balanced with the IS lasers but still remain with superior range. And others should remain unchanged like the C-ER-LL since it has the same range as the IS-LL

[Wibbledtodeath]

I voted maybe with some changes- While I don't mind what this does in game balance terms- it is a bit like Ghost Heat in that it is not intuitive. Therefore my changes would be the aforementioned: reduced convergence with all weapons sans lock- and balance lasers via range/duration/heat etc.

This also reduces (although does not eliminate) the advantage of boating weapons so we can get rid of ghost heat...

Edited by Wibbledtodeath, 18 October 2015 - 11:36 PM.

[Zionkan]

Voted No, as it is a dumb Idea trying 2 nerf a weapon system with illogical range change w/o locks.
Lasers should at least be focussed on optimal range and do less dmg under this w/o lock.
My thoughts, stay in open Field trying 2 get a lock 4 your lazors, im waiting 800 meters away with Gauss/PPC hitting your Head

[Greyhart]

I voted yes. lasers need a trade off it doesn't seem that hard for someone to target what they are shooting at considering the change in the ecm.

now if I was doing it i would have the power of lasers drop off if they were too close as well have them effective within 50m each side of the target and have a default range set in the mechlab.

[Jack Shayu Walker]

Said it once, I'll say it a million times. This setup hits small lasers on both sides too hard. The effect should fit the weapon as many people here have suggested, 40% range reduction for all lasers is absurd.. 10% sounds acceptable for Clan smalls AND NO MORE, I would even suggest that the effect should be set to 0% for IS smalls.

Does anybody disagree with me on that point? If so I'd like to hear a fair argument from the other side.

Edited by Jack Shayu Walker, 19 October 2015 - 07:14 AM.

[GreyNovember]

Convergence seems like too much work. This has been demonstrated as a plausible, easier workaround.

Sure, why not? On the condition that lasers with already limited range get decreasing penalties for not locking.

I'd still like to be able to throw a fistful of Med/Small lasers at someone as I peek around a corner. I can accept losing the damage from larges.

[KodiakGW]

My main concern about this is the introduction of another complex system. Not only that it will make it harder for new players to understand, but also introduce additional hit registration issues.

Just my 2 cents.

[Jabilac]

I think requiring target lock for lasers is an interesting way to simulate convergence but I think a blanket 60% effective range is overkill on lower range weapons. 60% for Large class Lasers, 70% for Medium class Lasers, and 80% for Small class Lasers.

[Xenon Codex]

Overall I like the idea of rewarding players for target locking. However I'm not fully on board with the current proposal.

Here's my preference.

Up to Optimal Range (270m for an IS ML for example), lasers do FULL DAMAGE regardless of target lock.

Beyond Optimal Range, laser damage is based on target lock:
WITH - No change. Laser damage falls off linearly to 2x optimal range as currently implemented.
WITHOUT - Lasers do no damage at all, or if that's too nerffy, then fall off to 1.25x optimal range.

The biggest problem with lasers is their damage well beyond the typical engagement area, especially the clan ERs. Force lasers to get locks in order to use those ludicrous ranges. This nerf hits the ER lasers much more than standard lasers, which is intentional because ER lasers benefit most from the current 2X dropout.

It's a solution that doesn't really affect newbies either; they will eventually figure it out but in the meantime aren't confused or handicapped. It'll be a nice bonus when they realize they can target lock and extend their laser range beyond what's listed on the weapon spec. Also the Advanced Senor Range module might actually be useful beyond Tier 5 LRM boats.

[TerrasFallen]

Hello again! Third post so exciting!

So I have to say I would definitely prefer the addition of convergence calculations over the the current way this modification to the laser range and damage would effect lasers. If laser's focus locked on the range that the reticle was on when it starts its burn time and the damage fell off by a percent of the range difference then I would be much more inclined to go with the laser change.

Let's say that you are pointed at something 400 meters away and fire laser "x". 400 meters is within the optimal range of this laser so at that range it does its full damage. However let's say that the target you hit with it while sweeping the laser is at 200 meters so the beam is not focused correctly and does less damage. For this example of damage range let's start at 100% going to a minimum damage of 60%. Here we have 40% of the damage to work from and it is really straight forward. That 40% ticks down depend on where someone is between the laser's origin and that 400 meter mark. So at the half way point of 200 meters the laser does 80% of max damage, half of that 40% we have to play with. I would go ahead and do about the same thing for a target beyond the 400 meters up to the maximum range but with the minimum damage being 0% at the termination point.

But wait! we have fancy computers as mentioned by Sabertooth1966.

Sabertooth1966, on 18 October 2015 - 08:16 AM, said:

@SirNotlag

I understand how the principle of how a laser works by using various optic lenses to focus a beam.

If I understand your logic correctly that means that the engineers of this advanced time period are to stupid or inept to have the focusing mechanism for the laser calibrated to the built in range finder that is always on and linked to the cross hairs in our computer driven H.U.D..

I feel like this would be very difficult. Once a weapon fires it would probably have to lock position to maintain a coherent energy beam. So, unless you were on the target when it fired it would not be able to readjust considering, the amount of power moving through it and the heat involved, might fuse the pieces needed to adjust the optics. Mind you I am a layman in this and could possibly be totally wrong.

On the issue of convergence I would love to see it apply to all direct fire weapons. I have an adder with an extended range medium laser in each of my torso sections. If I am not target locked on an enemy adder standing face to face with me, I expect each laser to hit the same place on the enemy adder as it came from on mine. An alternative to this would be to use the same system I described in regards to laser reticle range lock when fired and have it set that range as the convergence point for the fired shot. That would still let you lob a pair of AC 20 rounds into someones face if you had them dead to rights, but mess with convergence if you are leading someone and don't have them locked.

Personally I would like to see both the laser focus I mentioned and the no lock, no convergence both be put in, but I would think that would take some time and effort get it all coded in so we won't see that for sometime regardless of whether or not the players and the developers think it is a good idea.

Good luck and god speed tiny dancers!

[Jack Shayu Walker]

Xenon Codex, on 19 October 2015 - 07:12 PM, said:

Overall I like the idea of rewarding players for target locking. However I'm not fully on board with the current proposal.

Here's my preference.

Up to Optimal Range (270m for an IS ML for example), lasers do FULL DAMAGE regardless of target lock.

Beyond Optimal Range, laser damage is based on target lock:
WITH - No change. Laser damage falls off linearly to 2x optimal range as currently implemented.
WITHOUT - Lasers do no damage at all, or if that's too nerffy, then fall off to 1.25x optimal range.

I'll take this all day long if you mean to add this mechanic in conjunction with removing the clan laser range nerf.

[StalaggtIKE]

Not optimum range. It should only affect maximum range.

Edited by StalaggtIKE, 20 October 2015 - 12:40 PM.

[Loganauer]

Logically speaking, lore-wise, why would whether or not you're targeting something remotely impact the effect of a laser?

[Brandarr Gunnarson]

I agree with Loganauer. It's nonsensical.

But anyone who has used a laser pointer over long distances knows that the "point" of beam contact isn't really a point at all, but a circular area that increases in size as the distance become greater.

That could be yet ANOTHER alternative to lock-link.

[C E Dwyer]

I don't get the hate all you have to do is hit the R button

and anything that reduces range and makes the game more mobile gets my vote

Having said that in its current form it needs adjustment sl's spl do need looking at

[Jack Shayu Walker]

Cathy, on 22 October 2015 - 04:42 AM, said:

I don't get the hate all you have to do is hit the R button

For me, that hate is derived from the fact that when you are fighting a death ball, the targeting algorithm simply can't read your mind : / . It will sometimes target the wrong mech, losing you damage in a tense situation. That is very frustrating and is, IMO, clear evidence of why the targeting system isn't solid enough to be tied to direct fire damage.

Deathballing should not provide laser damage protection via psuedo target jamming. This game doesn't need to encourage deathballs more than it already does.

Edited by Jack Shayu Walker, 22 October 2015 - 09:02 AM.

[Greyhart]

Jack Shayu Walker, on 22 October 2015 - 08:59 AM, said:

For me, that hate is derived from the fact that when you are fighting a death ball, the targeting algorithm simply can't read your mind : / . It will sometimes target the wrong mech, losing you damage in a tense situation. That is very frustrating and is, IMO, clear evidence of why the targeting system isn't solid enough to be tied to direct fire damage.

Deathballing should not provide laser damage protection via psuedo target jamming. This game doesn't need to encourage deathballs more than it already does.

yes but if you are facing a deathball you are either close in and therefore this is no problem or you further out and therefore you should have time.

the only people the system hurts are people that like to poke from behind cover. they now need someone to spot for them.

oh yes it also hurts people who dont press r

Edited by Greyhart, 22 October 2015 - 11:50 AM.