116 replies to this topic

[Deathlike]

Yeonne Greene, on 21 October 2015 - 07:52 PM, said:

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.

Well.. the tutorials don't really cover this either...

Gotta make mechanics arbitrary and harder for new players to pick up after all.

[sycocys]

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?

And yet its not confusing for you/them to understand your lasers/other weapons reduced damage to 150% of their range?

Come on now...

[BearFlag]

This table should never have been touched in the first place, much less adding more arbitrary changes. As long as I've been here the laser attenuation curve has been a constant - as close to "law" as can be hoped for in MWO. Now it's on the table for jury-rigging? This when there are a half dozen laser parms that could be adjusted! Jeez.

Admittedly, the original curve was goofy. Lasers don't go half distance undiminished then suddenly begin decay. But at least it was constant.

I keep hearing these "lens" arguments pulled out of Star Trek or something. Did the TT game have "lens" in front of gigawatt lasers? If so, they can safely be dropped. Lasers are already "focused." All you can do is narrow them to a point, turn them slightly and even "shape" them with a lens. And this is done in modern applications at low powers and very short ranges. Assuming you had some lens material that could survive a weapon's power, it would still be a liability. The slightest scratch, much less a MG bullet would self-destruct the laser on the next attempted shot. And you can expect any lens material modern or future to impose some attenuation which is converted to heat. Worse, both the back and front lens interfaces will reflect power back into the device. A brand new, perfectly clean future lens might keep this down to .1%. That still makes your lens a 1 megawatt heater.

IMO, PGI has two options for adjusting lasers.

1) Don't change the laws of the (MWO) universe. Keep the familiar curve and nerf lasers through other parms.

2) If we must change the law, try physics. A strict linear decay which can then be buffed back up (because it's a huge nerf) using the same parameters.

From another post:

[mike29tw]

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.

I get what you're trying to do, but it just feels silly that a weapon that does zero damage at zero range would be put on a massive war machine.

Maybe give them different damage-range model to address this.

[sycocys]

They don't need to be 0 damage at all on the min range side, just less at optimal then the next under and going downwards.

The RL physics doesn't really need to have any huge factor in the balance of weapons in a sci-fi video game. Its both sci-fi AND a video game, a fair bit is open to however they need to interpret it to provide a more balanced system.

The entire lens argument (and target lock making the computer targeting systems work better in the case of the PTS idea) is all there so that the people with little to no imagination have something to grab onto and attempt to find a way to relate to the mechanics.

Really though, no one seems to have any issues with heat sinks in their legs providing efficient cooling for lasers in their mechs arms where the piping would have to travel through at least a side torso and next to the engine as well as around dozens of other heat generating and moving components on the way down to the 1-2 very out of the way placed heat sinks.
- It would be akin to running your transmission cooler lines through the middle of your engine block, around your steering gear and then back into your trunk compartment where you keep the intercooler radiator tucked away.

Not to mention that most if not all mechs don't have any physical method for distributing this heat outward anywhere other than to their armor which wraps the entire mech - it might take heat away from components temporarily, but it would never be efficient enough that the mech wouldn't effectively store far more heat than it could ever remove without huge amounts of downtime.

Or that you could load missiles stored in your legs into launchers mounted on tiny little pegs on top of your mech. If you want to talk about things that make no sense, even in the realm of MWo. Other ammo in the legs?

At some point people just really need to sit back and realize that its very fiction and fantasy as well as a game. Balance mechanics often need to stretch and break the truth of real physics, and sometimes even canon because it is its own realm of existence.

Edited by sycocys, 21 October 2015 - 08:56 PM.

[BearFlag]

sycocys, on 21 October 2015 - 08:50 PM, said:

At some point people just really need to sit back and realize that its very fiction and fantasy as well as a game. Balance mechanics often need to stretch and break the truth of real physics, and sometimes even canon because it is its own realm of existence.

True. But in this case PGI is breaking their own "physics" through a fundamental table with which players have for months or years been intimate. "Fiction" is not an excuse to offend the sensibilities of the inhabitants of ~this~, the MWO universe. Perhaps ballistic speed should be .5 to 1/3 range, then 1.5 to 2/3 range, then decay in some other non-linear fashion.

[Sergeant Random]

Dang, them IS and Clan engineers really designed their lazors well...

[Greyhart]

I think the minimum range concept is good.

If you want to sit and poke from 700m fine but if you allow people to get close you are a sitting duck.

I know it is not TT rules or the logic might be fuzzy but well its a game and the logic is fuzzy on a lot of things like heat sinks increasing the heat cap. How do they increase the melting point of the reactor shield exactly?

[sycocys]

Greyhart, on 22 October 2015 - 12:59 AM, said:

I think the minimum range concept is good.

If you want to sit and poke from 700m fine but if you allow people to get close you are a sitting duck.

I know it is not TT rules or the logic might be fuzzy but well its a game and the logic is fuzzy on a lot of things like heat sinks increasing the heat cap. How do they increase the melting point of the reactor shield exactly?

Why doesn't your mech (especially your omnimech) start ejecting components that are running way too hot instead of letting them burn up the mech?

Or why doesn't your advanced future computer refuse to fire when you are shooting enough weapons to overheat and destroy it in the first place? 1980 car amplifiers have heat protection circuits, so it wasn't even lostec when the canon was created.

-- Honestly I think most of the opponents of it are by in large fearful that they'd no longer have a weapons suite that was vastly superior to everything else on the field. No ammo, lightweight, hitscan - would actually be mostly balanced out not only against each other laser weapon, but in a fair degree to the rest of the weapons as well.

Heck, they don't even crit easy like most of the ballistics or blow your ST off when their ammo gets shot up.

Edited by sycocys, 22 October 2015 - 02:37 AM.

[Joseph Mallan]

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.

Since when is having an opposing opinion and delivering it in a constructive manner "the problem"?

DarthRevis, on 21 October 2015 - 05:59 PM, said:

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

As far as This universe is concerned a Laser...

Laser stands for "Light Amplification by Stimulated Emission of Radiation", or a device that focuses an amplified beam of light on a small surface area. Lasers are popular weapons due to their low cost compared to other energy weapons and because they do not rely on ammunition, which simplifies logistics. Laser rifles are one of the most effective weapons infantry units have when fighting vehicles or 'Mechs. Light does not hammer anything it may heat it but light even in pulses does not hammer.

Edited by Joseph Mallan, 22 October 2015 - 02:45 AM.

[Yellonet]

I'd be willing to try this.

[Ex Atlas Overlord]

Joseph Mallan, on 22 October 2015 - 02:44 AM, said:

Since when is having an opposing opinion and delivering it in a constructive manner "the problem"?

1) The OP said here's my idea.... criticize it so that it can be improved, or explain why it's bad. He didn't say "blow it off and and suggest something else".

2) I'd hardly call the following response constructive.

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.

What he's suggesting is LITERALLY how they're "balanced" now.

So he's in essence saying "I don't like your idea, I'm not going to mention why, I'm not going to suggest anything that could make it better, I'm just going to suggest we use the system we already have."

Which isn't what the OP was looking for when he started the thread.

Therefore, it's just a pointless derail (much like me having to spell things out in crayon for you now.)

Otherwise known as "being part of the problem". (again just like now... see how I'm wasting time correcting ignorance and bias rather than helping make the system better)

Edited by The Atlas Overlord, 22 October 2015 - 05:22 AM.

[Decadre]

Hmm Convergence somewhat managed through laser focal lenses. I like it.

Takes me back some to playing WW2 Flight sims and having to set the wing mounted MG convergence distance.

Which makes me think what would make this even better would be allowing the pilot to set the "sweet spot" on medium and large lasers before the match.

[sycocys]

The sweet spot thing is kind of what the PTS idea is, not really fully thought through but the principle is really similar..

[Lugh]

Joseph Mallan, on 22 October 2015 - 02:44 AM, said:

Since when is having an opposing opinion and delivering it in a constructive manner "the problem"?As far as This universe is concerned a Laser...

Since he hadn't had his coffee and had his grumpy grumpkin pants on?

[Troutmonkey]

The Atlas Overlord, on 22 October 2015 - 05:20 AM, said:

Therefore, it's just a pointless derail (much like me having to spell things out in crayon for you now.)

Otherwise known as "being part of the problem". (again just like now... see how I'm wasting time correcting ignorance and bias rather than helping make the system better)

I don't appreciate your condescending tone. You don't need to defend OP's suggestion. If it has merit, it should be able to stand on it's own, face down criticism, and stand above competing ideas.

The min range idea doesn't stand up. When I using or have lasers used against me never do I think, "damn, this would be more balanced if I did less damage up close". I think "wow, those clan lasers can shoot really far" and "I can fire 4 LLs at this guy and instantly hit the same spot, and I never run out of ammo".

Lasers need less range, especially clan lasers. The testing server idea of having 1.5x max range for clan lasers is good. The lock on idea however is a bit gimmicky as it leads to weapons behaving inconsistently.

Everyone here wants the game to be balanced, and we all have our own ideas of what would improve balance. Some ideas have merit, others not so much. It's not worth getting upset over. Personally, I'm for either cone of fire for alpha strikes, or for a reduced heat cap. If someone makes a better suggestion I'd be happy to change my mind, but so far nothing else I've seen looks like it would be.

[sycocys]

Have you ever tried to think - "this might be more balanced if these LL's did less damage up close and ML/SL's did more in that range?"

[Strum Wealh]

DarthRevis, on 21 October 2015 - 05:59 PM, said:

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

"Usually, laser ablation refers to removing material with a pulsed laser, but it is possible to ablate material with a continuous wave laser beam if the laser intensity is high enough."

As it happens, the principle described is already noted in BattleTech as one of the damage mechanisms of laser weapons, and the dispersion of the ablated material is given as the reason Pulse Lasers deal more damage per salvo than Standard Lasers & ER Lasers.

"The pulse laser uses rapid-cycling, high-energy pulses to generate multiple laser beams, creating an effect comparable to machine-gun fire. But because the staggered pulses give the protective ablation products from combat armor a chance to disperse - to expose fresh armor to subsequent pulses - the result is a burst of fire that is more effective and accurate." - TechManual, pg. 226

[sycocys]

You guys and your silly tech manual and Wikipedia references.

[Strum Wealh]

BearFlag, on 21 October 2015 - 08:24 PM, said:

I keep hearing these "lens" arguments pulled out of Star Trek or something. Did the TT game have "lens" in front of gigawatt lasers? If so, they can safely be dropped. Lasers are already "focused." All you can do is narrow them to a point, turn them slightly and even "shape" them with a lens. And this is done in modern applications at low powers and very short ranges. Assuming you had some lens material that could survive a weapon's power, it would still be a liability. The slightest scratch, much less a MG bullet would self-destruct the laser on the next attempted shot. And you can expect any lens material modern or future to impose some attenuation which is converted to heat. Worse, both the back and front lens interfaces will reflect power back into the device. A brand new, perfectly clean future lens might keep this down to .1%. That still makes your lens a 1 megawatt heater.

They are described as having "focusing lenses" in the novels.

"The Kingfisher spat a flurry of ruby darts from its pulse lasers, runneling the last of David's armor to the ground and digging deep into his left side. The destructive energy fused together the barrels of his particle projection cannon and laser and then cut deeper to destroy their focusing lenses as well. David came back with everything left to him, knowing he could not stand up under another bar rage like that one." - Flashpoint, propogue

"'Not fully armed, Highness. When we were told that your 'Mech would not be needed, we stripped it of all ammunition as well as the focusing lenses on two pulse lasers in order to bring other machines up to full military readiness.' He looked over at Shakov and then at the nearby MechWarriors. 'We thought you would want the men as prepared for combat as possible.'" - Storms of Fate, ch. 27

"The trio of pulse lasers hit, with one melting away armor on the Archer's right flank. The other two completed the destruction of the 'Mech's right arm that the Gauss rifle had begun. Myomers parted like smoke as the lasers pulsed into them, leaving the limb hanging like a wet rag and the medium laser a useless collection of lenses." - By Blood Betrayed, ch. 20

Of note is that the first example also describes the PPC as having a focusing lens, as well.
Though, as a particle beam weapon/particle accelerator, the PPC focusing lens is likely to be a magnetic lens rather than a physical lens, yes?