116 replies to this topic

[Andi Nagasia]

many have said it, and many are on both sides,
but their usually isnt a Table or Graph, so i made one!


Vertical Numbers are Damage, Horizontal Numbers is Range,

-Notes-
this is Just a Basic Idea about How Laser Min Range could work,
Some Have Expressed perhaps they should do Half Damage at 0m not 0,
that could also work as this Topic is just to Discuss Laser Min Range Viability,

-Poll Topic-
(Laser Minimum Range Concept!(With Picture) Poll!)


Thoughts, Comments, Concerns?
Thanks,

Edit- Link

Edited by Andi Nagasia, 05 November 2015 - 03:50 PM.

[Tarogato]

If you're going to go this far, why not just make each one a perfectly smooth arc? It's simpler. The optimum range is the "peak", and the maximum range is where the damage crosses zero.

[sycocys]

Would you look at that. Lasers that are actually balanced with other lasers.

Thanks for the graphics, I guess I didn't think it was such a hard concept to understand that it required them, but this should probably take care of it for the people with no graphical imagination.

[Troutmonkey]

Minimum range on lasers is a bad idea.
Lasers should be balanced around max range, heat, beam duration and cool down.

Adding another arbitrary damage multiplier is not needed and doesn't really solve the issue.

[Ex Atlas Overlord]

Troutmonkey, on 20 October 2015 - 09:30 PM, said:

Minimum range on lasers is a bad idea.
Lasers should be balanced around max range, heat, beam duration and cool down.

Adding another arbitrary damage multiplier is not needed and doesn't really solve the issue.

He disagrees clearly.... seeing as how it's the entire premise of his suggestion.

And yet here you come adding literally nothing to the conversation, but to state your own opinion that in no way counters anything he brought up OR moves the conversation forward.

You're the problem.

On the topic, I love the idea of lasers have minimum range.

It gives all the close range weapons (SRMs mostly) a reason to exist.

[Funkin Disher]

Gonna +1 the smooth arc idea, have falloff beyond optimum range and reverse it when going from 0 to optimum.

[Troutmonkey]

The Atlas Overlord, on 20 October 2015 - 09:45 PM, said:

He disagrees clearly.... seeing as how it's the entire premise of his suggestion.

And yet here you come adding literally nothing to the conversation, but to state your own opinion that in no way counters anything he brought up OR moves the conversation forward.

You're the problem.

On the topic, I love the idea of lasers have minimum range.

It gives all the close range weapons (SRMs mostly) a reason to exist.

I did add something. An alternative way to balance lasers instead of adding a silly minimum range to lasers.

Quote

Lasers should be balanced around max range, heat, beam duration and cool down.

Make lasers hotter, make lasers shorter ranged, make lasers take longer to cool down, increasing beam duration.

I have a more encompasing idea for improving balance, and while it does it a new mechanic (that's arbitrary and complicated), it's very easy for the user to understand - shooting lots makes you less accurate. It stops the laser spam but also stops any other weapon combination simply replacing it as the new meta.
http://mwomercs.com/...31#entry4745431

Then there's the often suggested idea of dropping the heat cap and increasing dissipation, which would reduce the amount of weapons people could alpha and force people to chain fire instead.

Larger Class lasers are great a peaking and shooting at a distance, but Medium and Small lasers are better up close because they are far more heat and weight efficient.

You also have to keep in mind the amount of tears something like this would add as trolls run around facehugging people in Cheetahs and Firestarters, completely immune to return fire because of min ranges. Even then it still wouldn't be enough to convince assault mechs to start carrying around small lasers "for backup"

Edited by Troutmonkey, 20 October 2015 - 10:21 PM.

[madhermit]

Wouldn't this actually be nerf to larger clan lasers? How often do you get to use your weapons at longer ranges? Most of the maps are centered around medium to short range play, few have fights between ranges 500-1000 meters and only in Alpine Peaks can you see enemies that are out of range of all weapons.

Either way interesting concept. Numbers can be adjusted.

[Y E O N N E]

If you do a minimum range, it shouldn't drop to zero at point blank. At most, half damage. If I were to implement something like this, damage would follow a parabolic curve. Let's say you have an isML. At zero meters, you are doing 2.5 damage. At 90 meters, you are doing 5 damage. At 180 meters, you are doing 2.5 damage. At 270 meters, you are doing no damage. Since laser damage is all about power density in the area of the beam spot, this makes sense. Obviously, we can tweak the ranges if those are too short.

I would also put that parabolic arc on a sliding scale; small lasers would have a much shallower arc so they would not be hit as hard as larger weapons.

I think this, combined with a system that takes into account destructive interference for multiple, non-phased lasers firing at once reducing total damage output, would be very interesting to play with.

[sycocys]

Not at all opposed to an arc, not sure though if PGI's can do it.

I'd have to go look, but I don't recall there being many if any assaults that don't have options for ballistics/missiles to assist in their short range protection game. If they were utterly determined to only use one range of lasers they still have other options.

[Andi Nagasia]

Remember this Topic is more to discuss the Merits and Viability of Laser Minimum range,
and less just my Idea, i think both the Arch Idea as well as the Half Damage ideas could work,
edit-

Edited by Andi Nagasia, 21 October 2015 - 02:28 PM.

[Revis Volek]

Andi Nagasia, on 20 October 2015 - 08:07 PM, said:

many have said it, and many are on both sides,
but their usually isnt a Table or Graph, so i made one!


Vertical Numbers are Damage, Horizontal Numbers is Range,


Thoughts, Comments, Concerns?
Thanks,

Andy lasers dont burn...they ABLATE material and use Propulsion to hammer metal. If you burn it because you were out of focus...Lighters burn stuff. Lasers can do much better then that.

Change Dat Fluff!

https://en.wikipedia.../Laser_ablation

Edited by DarthRevis, 21 October 2015 - 06:02 PM.

[GreyNovember]

Not opposed to the idea and would certainly try it out.

+1 support OP.

[mike29tw]

I dislike how the lasers start with zero damage at zero range.

50% damage at zero range is probably the most i'd go for, but otherwise i think the idea is interesting. Testing and tweaking are still required to make it actually balanced, but it's already miles ahead of what PGI has in mind right now.

[sycocys]

mike29tw, on 21 October 2015 - 06:32 PM, said:

I dislike how the lasers start with zero damage at zero range.

50% damage at zero range is probably the most i'd go for, but otherwise i think the idea is interesting. Testing and tweaking are still required to make it actually balanced, but it's already miles ahead of what PGI has in mind right now.

The reason I'd argue against that is because LL would still do more damage than a full power SL at point blank range.

While not as deadly per heat, still doesn't give it enough downside to make players consider using a mixed set.

[Y E O N N E]

sycocys, on 21 October 2015 - 07:05 PM, said:

The reason I'd argue against that is because LL would still do more damage than a full power SL at point blank range.

While not as deadly per heat, still doesn't give it enough downside to make players consider using a mixed set.

It'll still help. Remember that LL is still 5 tons. That's a lot of weight for something that does less damage at grinding distance than a medium laser's max output. That's 4 tons that could have been spent on DHS and a hard-point that could have been spent on a more efficient weapon for this application. It's also spread over a longer duration than a medium laser.

I wouldn't go lower than one-third damage at zero meters. Then your ML is doing 1.67 damage and the LL is doing 3 damage.

That said, the SL will still need a rate of fire buff to truly make this work. 2.25 seconds is way too long for something so weak and so short-ranged. Perhaps what we ought to be considering isn't damage at zero meters so much as damage at overlap points. If a MedLas is doing more DPS than a SmallLas at the same range where the small is doing max, we still have a problem.

[Deathlike]

It's not necessarily a bad idea, but I don't it would fly in the current game.

Although, anything is better than the silly future "delayed doritos".

[sycocys]

I can't argue with the weight on LL, but ML is only .5 tons more and would have the same effect I think.

The overlaps are definitely the "hot" points that will make the difference between them though, the larger doesn't need to be down a lot under the next lighter, just make sure its down a little so the other one is more effective in its range.

[Fate 6]

I look at the picture and go AAAAAHHHHHHH WHATS GOING ON - what would a new player think then?

[Y E O N N E]

Fate 6, on 21 October 2015 - 07:41 PM, said:

I look at the picture and go AAAAAHHHHHHH WHATS GOING ON - what would a new player think then?

What would a new player think now when his gun still does damage past what the number says?

The discoverability inside MWO is, in a word, missing.