Jump to content

Poll For Laser Targeting


69 replies to this topic

Poll: PTS laser targeting change (403 member(s) have cast votes)

Do you like the reduced optimum range on lasers when you do not have target lock?

  1. Yes (100 votes [24.81%])

    Percentage of vote: 24.81%

  2. No (247 votes [61.29%])

    Percentage of vote: 61.29%

  3. Possibly with some changes (56 votes [13.90%])

    Percentage of vote: 13.90%

Vote Guests cannot vote

#61 SirNotlag

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 335 posts

Posted 05 November 2015 - 02:18 PM

View PostBrandarr Gunnarson, on 04 November 2015 - 07:20 PM, said:

Surprised they kept the targeting-to-optimal-range mechanic at all after all the backlash.

It's still illogical and often penalizes people unfairly for using what should be a straightforward, direct fire weapon.

There are many other ways to balance lasers (proper and normalized ratios for heat/range/damage/duration!) without linking them to a nonsensical mechanic.


lol I love arguing logic in sci-fi universes. and I don't remember there being much back lash at the end of PTS 2 the vote was pretty even for and against its only in the time between that the no vote has continued to grow.

#62 Jack Shayu Walker

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The God
  • The God
  • 1,451 posts

Posted 05 November 2015 - 04:54 PM

View PostSirNotlag, on 05 November 2015 - 02:18 PM, said:


lol I love arguing logic in sci-fi universes. and I don't remember there being much back lash at the end of PTS 2 the vote was pretty even for and against its only in the time between that the no vote has continued to grow.


I believe you are mistaken. It was previously tied between "no" and the other two options combined.

#63 Reno Blade

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Blade
  • The Blade
  • 3,462 posts
  • LocationGermany

Posted 06 November 2015 - 05:30 AM

Overall it makes perfect sense for balance.

Fast and light mechs who rely on small and medium mechs have quicker target lock times, so the problem is not as severe as many make it seem.

The requirement to lock makes any mech that has very fast targeting a essential asset to any team (be it the medium strike team, or the long range sniper/lrm heavies), because the shared target can then be used for your own targeting and reduce your laser drop-off.

At the same time, it reduces:
- drive by laser alpha and twist/turn/run away playstyle
- peak around corners and alpha laser vomit

because you need longer to aquire lock, or need to get closer, or just deal less damage = be less effective

This also increase the importance of:
- teamplay (locks, communication and positioning)
- tactical awareness and movement
- multiple weapon builds (because you can initialize with Ballistics, then follow with laser and missiles once locked)
- ballistic and SRM builds more meaningfull for mid-range and quick drive-by playstyle

#64 Jack Shayu Walker

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The God
  • The God
  • 1,451 posts

Posted 06 November 2015 - 08:15 AM

View PostReno Blade, on 06 November 2015 - 05:30 AM, said:

Overall it makes perfect sense for balance.

Fast and light mechs who rely on small and medium mechs have quicker target lock times, so the problem is not as severe as many make it seem.


The problem is that the targeting algorithm is not solid enough. It will target the wrong mech is a tense situation far to often. MY Nova is tuned up for a 0.3 second targeting delay, but still the algorithm screws me out of damage all the time. It's actually fun to play the PTS with 4v4, but as soon is it's ramped back up to 12v12? no way; algorithm cannot handle.

View PostReno Blade, on 06 November 2015 - 05:30 AM, said:

At the same time, it reduces:
- drive by laser alpha and twist/turn/run away playstyle
- peak around corners and alpha laser vomit

because you need longer to aquire lock, or need to get closer, or just deal less damage = be less effective


Drive by laser alphas and twisting should CONTINUE for small lasers, that's what they are designed for, it's not unfair, nor is it unbalanced.

Edited by Jack Shayu Walker, 06 November 2015 - 08:17 AM.


#65 Ultimax

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 6,979 posts

Posted 06 November 2015 - 04:35 PM

People also need to understand that not only are lasers getting this bad mechanic, some mechs will be made harder to target and other mechs are having their sensors and lock ons nerfed I to the ground.

There are way too many variables and I think this particular laser nerf will just remove them from play much as PPCs disappeared.

Edited by Ultimatum X, 06 November 2015 - 04:58 PM.


#66 M T

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 351 posts
  • LocationGouda, South Holland

Posted 06 November 2015 - 04:36 PM

Obviously a clear no.

#67 Kira Onime

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Dragoon
  • The Dragoon
  • 2,486 posts
  • Twitch: Link
  • LocationMontréal, Québec.

Posted 06 November 2015 - 04:59 PM

SYSTEM HAS BEEN CANNED.

#68 CainenEX

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Civil Servant
  • Civil Servant
  • 398 posts

Posted 06 November 2015 - 05:48 PM

View PostKira Onime, on 06 November 2015 - 04:59 PM, said:

SYSTEM HAS BEEN CANNED.

Any confirmation from the Devs, mon ami?

#69 Kira Onime

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Dragoon
  • The Dragoon
  • 2,486 posts
  • Twitch: Link
  • LocationMontréal, Québec.

Posted 06 November 2015 - 05:51 PM

View PostCainenEX, on 06 November 2015 - 05:48 PM, said:

Any confirmation from the Devs, mon ami?



YOU ASK, I DELIVER
http://mwomercs.com/...as-been-canned/

#70 Brandarr Gunnarson

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Bad Company
  • Bad Company
  • 847 posts

Posted 07 November 2015 - 02:32 AM

Glad it's cancelled.

BTW, @SirNotlag:

Just because something is fictional doesn't mean that logic can't apply! Ruleset, even those that don't follow physics can still be logical and should be!





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users