

Laser Lock-On Has Been Canned!
#101
Posted 07 November 2015 - 03:20 AM
#102
Posted 07 November 2015 - 04:32 AM
#103
Posted 07 November 2015 - 04:39 AM
Going to be rough to come up with something easier then pressing R.
#104
Posted 07 November 2015 - 05:34 AM
add a little crosshair sway for good measure and the good old days of brawling are back in my view.
#105
Posted 07 November 2015 - 06:34 AM
#106
Posted 07 November 2015 - 06:58 AM
TWIAFU, on 07 November 2015 - 04:39 AM, said:
Going to be rough to come up with something easier then pressing R.
Before laser vomit it was poptart Gauss PPC
At least with laser vomit more people could do it since its easier
#107
Posted 07 November 2015 - 07:07 AM
Lightfoot, on 06 November 2015 - 10:27 PM, said:
It SOUNDS like a lot, giving an Atlas basically 50% more health overall than stock.
But that's the Atlas K. A 100t assault with hardpoints a Heavy would be embarassed about.
Adding armor and structure to balance against firepower and a clanXL requires a large amount, because it needs to keep you alive under superior fire long enough for your lesser firepower to bring down your opponent... Remembering that the longer your alive and fighting, the more damage the other mech is pushing too.
" Sounds" is dangerous. Actually testing things in situ is what shows how they actually work. And in practice? That AS7-K was able to hold its own 1v1 a Direwolf, but wasn't better.
Quote
I'm sure you can make all sorts of claims here, but the hard truth of things is that without weapon quirks Clans are grossly more powerful than IS mechs. In Live, Clan lasers are simply better, Clan XL's are simply better (by an enormous margin), Clan Gauss is simply better, Clan SRM's are simply better, Clan Endo and FF is massively better, Clan DHS are better. Having (arguably) better LRM's and autocannons isn't very helpful.
Weapon quirks CAN balance this, but that has a threefold effect of destroying TTK, making IS mechs extraordinarily gimmicky and massively reducing build variety.
#108
Posted 07 November 2015 - 07:07 AM
MischiefSC, on 06 November 2015 - 10:39 PM, said:
I call Russ mentioning the "C" word an opening ready to be exploited.

Besides, I think PGI's mindset is still on the old dynamic convergence, which is not what people are calling for.
Here is something to think about. What happens today if while firing at a target someone else steps into your line of fire?
Edited by Mystere, 07 November 2015 - 07:21 AM.
#109
Posted 07 November 2015 - 07:10 AM
Xetelian, on 06 November 2015 - 05:00 PM, said:
I'd accept a 20% or even 40% nerf to the range on clan lasers, or a raise in heat, or less damage.
Locking onto a target for full damage is a counter intuitive mechanic, especially when targets are moving around each other.
Agreed. "Ghost Range" was a stupid mechanic that didn't make a lick of sense and it should never have gotten off the drawing board. It was illogical and easily exploited and punished mechs that move around or change targets a lot, which is exactly the type of playstyle we need MORE of in the game, not less.
Good to see this bad idea die.
#111
Posted 07 November 2015 - 07:11 AM
#112
Posted 07 November 2015 - 07:11 AM

No more damned ghost mechanics.
#114
Posted 07 November 2015 - 08:18 AM
IMO, they still need to set up a PTS session to mess with heat scale caps and dissipation values. It should be a session long enough to make several adjustments to both so they can see the effect of different cap values, different dissipation values, both together, etc. Maybe run a certain spec for 2 days, then patch and adjust for 2 more days, etc etc while they gather info.
it might not be the end solution. it might not even work. It has been asked for since beta. it MIGHT be the best thing to ever happen to MWO. We won;t know unless they try. it is just PTS, the only loss of anything that could happen is some minor time for some one to adjust the spread sheet values.
NOTE: it is important to consider the way heat sinks add directly to the cap for a test like this. IMO, that should be included in part of the pass. Something like "DHS add zero to cap" along with cap/dissipation changes. it needs to be a widely varied, and thorough test.
The main benefit is the potential to bust up the alphas, with basically nothing wierd or "ghost" about it. heat scale is heat scale, it is easy to understand and is already visually represented in an easy to recognize way in the game. The real trick of it, is to find out the right combination of cap/dissipate/heatsink values to get the desired results. that will take multiple patch/adjustments for testing to hone in on.
#116
Posted 07 November 2015 - 08:24 AM
But i do prefer a lower heat cap no matter what happens.
#117
Posted 07 November 2015 - 08:40 AM
Deathlike, on 06 November 2015 - 07:20 PM, said:
I'm on the "don't care" bandwagon with regards to map voting.
It's an indirect incentive to not ever pick Terra Therma ever again.
Actually did get a Terra Therma match, but haven't seen Conquest yet.

Ultimatum X, on 06 November 2015 - 07:47 PM, said:
Why does "Info Warfare" have to specifically be a laser nerf?
It was also a missile nerf.

But it was a way to balance the most overused weapons in the game, made infowar useful, and still rewarded people for accuracy.
Kraftwerkedup, on 06 November 2015 - 08:34 PM, said:
I feel like Israel and Palestine on a good month. Maybe there CAN be peace in the MWO General Discussion.
And seriously, we know its "hard" Russ.
Thats why you ***king hire someone to build a convergence system. For godsakes man its almost 2016...
Everyone that can't hit a light mech at 200m is gonna be ******, since they will never be able to hit them at distance now either.
Kraftwerkedup, on 07 November 2015 - 07:11 AM, said:

No more damned ghost mechanics.
Unless we all have multiple reticles that show where every shot is going to land, convergence is a ghost mechanic.
#118
Posted 07 November 2015 - 08:46 AM
#119
Posted 07 November 2015 - 09:02 AM
TWIAFU, on 07 November 2015 - 04:39 AM, said:
Going to be rough to come up with something easier then pressing R.
Lol.
It has nothing to do with pressing R, its more of having "R" select the wrong target or having to wait a second out in the open before you can fire to get your range. For some of you, that might boil down to "just pressing R" because you stand out in the open waiting to be shot anyway, but for others it is not attractive at all.
Imagine balancing lasers by tweaking the weapon values themselves. What a novelty.
#120
Posted 07 November 2015 - 09:12 AM
Gas Guzzler, on 07 November 2015 - 09:02 AM, said:
It has nothing to do with pressing R, its more of having "R" select the wrong target or having to wait a second out in the open before you can fire to get your range. For some of you, that might boil down to "just pressing R" because you stand out in the open waiting to be shot anyway, but for others it is not attractive at all.
Imagine balancing lasers by tweaking the weapon values themselves. What a novelty.
The real fix that is ignored is the pinpoint damage. Tabletop had a roll to hit - Roll to location
-- A laser did the laser's damage - 10 lasers rarely hit the same location more that a couple times (Unless you rolled well)
This game needs to simulate that otherwise we might has well make the game COD and get over it and move to another game.
MWO NEEDS a COF or a way for a 7MPL Thuderbolt to not hit the same location pinpoint with all weapons. Every time they fire.
MWO NEEDS a Meaningful Heat Scale that factors into the COF and other systems that effect mech performance.
1 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users