30 replies to this topic

[Sereglach]

Sereglach, on 04 November 2015 - 09:09 PM, said:

Targeting Laser Range Modifiers

Spoiler

Again, as I said the last time this came up, I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing. However, two ranges need to be added to the HUD for this to work as desired. One range should be the optimal range of the weapon, which we can see shift through various targeting situations. The other range should be the maximum range of the weapon, giving players a fixed number that they always know they can hit a target at. This range issue is going to play havoc on players if some defining and consistent information isn't displayed on the HUD . . . especially with newer players.

I also perfectly understand this affecting laser weapons and not ballistic or missile weapons. While laser weapons are entirely hit-scan based equipment, ballistics and missiles require other aspects to function fully. Whether it's leading shots properly, ballistic drop-off, differing projectile velocities, weapon charge-up, or getting locks, all the other weapon systems already require aspects of IW to be at their best . . . lasers merely require pointing and shooting. This works as a significant balancing factor in adding IW into the laser weapons.

So, I just found out (apparently it was announced on Russ's Twitter, and I noticed it mentioned in a few threads on here) that the Laser Target Lock behavior is dead. We will not see it past this PTS Phase. So it looks like the above feedback from the OP is sort of a moot point, now.

I'm not sure how to feel about that. On one hand I think it's great because it may mean they're taking a completely different approach, like only having weapon convergence when you have a solid target lock and possibly only converging to the range of your target. On the other hand, if they just leave it out entirely and replace it with nothing, then IW really has no impact on laser weaponry, which is a bad thing.

Information Warfare, which includes target locks, needs some way to affect the firepower of mechs. Otherwise IW will have little impact as a balancing tool. This includes laser weaponry, which is currently the least affected by any sort of lock or targeting capability. LRMs and Streaks require solid locks, Ballistics have bullet drop and lead times, PPCs and SRMs have lead times. Those all have at least some connection to basic IW principles (having a target lock with range indicators helps assist with determining a proper target lead). Lasers are merely a hit-scan weapon, and are merely point and shoot -no matter what- with current IW implementations. That needs a fix.

Again, hopefully they take the convergence only on lock method to heart, as I think it's one of the best routes for them to go.

[Lord Auriel]

yeah but I think I remember Russ stating on twitter that it is too complicated and that he'll mention it on a townhall meeting and explain to us why this is not really an option (Whatever that means)

Whatever Paul comes up next with, it should be a "slight" nerf and no something as drastic as the previous solution me sinks

[Almond Brown]

Runebasher, on 06 November 2015 - 08:26 AM, said:

This whole Mech Re-Balance and Information Warfare ist just a big fail

And how many Test Matches did you play on the PTS 3?

[Sereglach]

Lord Auriel, on 09 November 2015 - 03:28 AM, said:

yeah but I think I remember Russ stating on twitter that it is too complicated and that he'll mention it on a townhall meeting and explain to us why this is not really an option (Whatever that means)

Whatever Paul comes up next with, it should be a "slight" nerf and no something as drastic as the previous solution me sinks

He didn't say it was impossible. For the exact quote you're looking for, from Russ's Twitter:

Quote

convergence is real tough technically - maybe a town hall conversation

So it's not impossible, but it'll be difficult to implement. I think that ends up being a matter of how badly do we want it; and if we want it bad enough, we better be prepared to 100% commit to it as a permanent fixture to MWO. Otherwise, it wouldn't be worth it for them to put the effort into making it happen. Thusly, it'd probably turn into a matter of options, and what does the community push for the most.

[Dev DarkWing Thynebra]

after a good amount of matches on the PST 3, i feel splitted on my opinion, i like the changes but, it's really necessary to nerf the basics skills?? i mean, why we want mechs soo static and hard to pilot?, and why i need to target lock to have the full potential of my weapons?, don't get me wrong but if i shoot a laser to a static enemy and he take it all the laser then he shouldn't receive all the damage?.

im not sure if all these nerfs are really necesary.

[Sereglach]

Dev DarkWing Thynebra, on 09 November 2015 - 02:54 PM, said:

after a good amount of matches on the PST 3, i feel splitted on my opinion, i like the changes but, it's really necessary to nerf the basics skills?? i mean, why we want mechs soo static and hard to pilot?, and why i need to target lock to have the full potential of my weapons?, don't get me wrong but if i shoot a laser to a static enemy and he take it all the laser then he shouldn't receive all the damage?.

im not sure if all these nerfs are really necesary.

For one, you don't need to worry about laser targeting anymore. Had you read the entire thread you'd have seen that.

The mechs aren't static and hard to pilot, they just actually feel like they're supposed to. The mastery skills should be a combat edge, not turn the mech into a completely different machine.

Also, if you like the changes overall, why would you then question the nerfs? If it made for a better game and better matches then obviously the nerfs are a good thing and create a better experience.

[Dev DarkWing Thynebra]

Quote

Also, if you like the changes overall, why would you then question the nerfs?

I know I know, it's a complicated sentiment, leave me alone. -.-

well i don't feel that the basics skills don't transforms the mechs into different ones, just feel it more agile, i think that the basic skills nerf are to drastic, think in a 53 kph dire wolf, it doesn't feel like a totally different mech, just a little more faster. but that's just my personal impression.

Edited by Dev DarkWing Thynebra, 10 November 2015 - 07:21 AM.

[Sereglach]

Dev DarkWing Thynebra, on 10 November 2015 - 07:20 AM, said:

I know I know, it's a complicated sentiment, leave me alone. -.-

well i don't feel that the basics skills don't transforms the mechs into different ones, just feel it more agile, i think that the basic skills nerf are to drastic, think in a 53 kph dire wolf, it doesn't feel like a totally different mech, just a little more faster. but that's just my personal impression.

But the current basics do create a completely different mech. You get boosts that range from 20-50% on everything from cooling ability and heat capacity to turning speed and acceleration/deceleration. Also, a 10% speed boost is 3-4 more engine sizes in speed. That's like saying the Dire Wolf suddenly has a clan XL320 in it . . . that's ~5.25 million c-bills in free performance! That is wrong on every level.

The nerf puts them into a good spot. Mastery skills should be a combat edge, not super-quirks. If you don't think they make a completely different mech, then why do all of the competitive players state that a mech is utterly useless until it is mastered? There's a reason for it . . . because it turns the machine into a completely different mech.

[Bud Crue]

Sereglach, on 09 November 2015 - 05:34 PM, said:

For one, you don't need to worry about laser targeting anymore. Had you read the entire thread you'd have seen that.

I have seen this a few times. People claim that Russ said on twitter that laser target lock is off the table. I have gone back over his feed for the last month and don't see this. Can someone re-post or give the time/date info. All I see is a statement that convergence is a difficult topic. That is nowhere near "the proposed laser target lock is off the table".

[Sereglach]

Bud Crue, on 10 November 2015 - 08:42 AM, said:

I have seen this a few times. People claim that Russ said on twitter that laser target lock is off the table. I have gone back over his feed for the last month and don't see this. Can someone re-post or give the time/date info. All I see is a statement that convergence is a difficult topic. That is nowhere near "the proposed laser target lock is off the table".

It's buried in a conversation. If you click "Tweets and Replies" and scroll down you'll see it buried in the mess. He makes several remarks about it.

The most recent one when someone was complaining about PGI not listening to player base:

Quote

Russ Bullock ‏@russ_bullock · Nov 6
@Kira_Onime @irlydonotcare what I say? We are , we do - laser lock thing is turfed gone - forget it.

EDIT: If you're looking for that exact "the proposed laser target lock is off the table" then you'll never find it. Look for him saying that it's "turfed" . . . among other remarks.

Edited by Sereglach, 10 November 2015 - 08:53 AM.

[Bud Crue]

Thanks. I will go back and look.