

Laser Lock-On Has Been Canned!
#21
Posted 06 November 2015 - 05:16 PM
Ghost heat keeps the laser meta in check a little bit, further heat or lower damage would be preferable than a whole new system.
#22
Posted 06 November 2015 - 05:18 PM
#23
Posted 06 November 2015 - 05:18 PM
#24
Posted 06 November 2015 - 05:20 PM
there probably waiting out the licensing contract so they can move on to something else
#25
Posted 06 November 2015 - 05:23 PM
In regards to sympathy for Russ dealing with negative backlash... I can see that he probably receives a lot of hate that is simply not warranted. After all, he's making a computer game, and people are talking to him like he just dumped nuclear waste outside a hospital in the rain forest. The amount of hate doesn't really fit his "crimes".
However, I think he has put himself in that position, to a certain degree. We have a community manager who simply has nothing to do with gameplay balance. And we have a guy in charge of gameplay balance who basically never interacts with the players. So if Russ doesnt want to deal with all the players himself, on top of all his other duties as the president of a company with 50 (!) employees, then he needs to give the players someone to talk to. Right now, his personal Twitter account is the best place to talk about gameplay balance with PGI. That is insane.
Mister D, on 06 November 2015 - 05:10 PM, said:
Which means start having a conversation about either Heatcap changes, laser heat and balance in general.
or the dreaded C word.
Convergence.
Yeah, this is kind of scary. What will the alternative be? Will they choose a safer and more conservative path, simply increasing the heat on all lasers and possibly adjusting ghost heat? Or will they come up with a completely new and wacky mechanic, like "ghost cooldown", which changes cooldown on lasers depending on how much heat your target is generating?
I think they have their plate full and I hope they take a more conservative approach to fixing lasers. I'd prefer to just see a heat increase, really. It's not a long term solution, but it will deal with the worst laservomit.
Edited by Alistair Winter, 06 November 2015 - 05:30 PM.
#26
Posted 06 November 2015 - 05:26 PM
Wintersdark, on 06 November 2015 - 05:12 PM, said:
I'd just like to say: even if they idea is bad, I'd rather than actually test things and get feedback than just throw **** at the wall and see what sticks on Live.
We're always on them to test stuff, so we should give them slack when they test stuff and let usntry it out.
That is a really good point. I bet their desire to do extensive work, balancing, and community involvement is sunk just as well. Whoever said it was scrapped because of refunds was probably right. I fully expect PGI to stick to the status quo for a long time now. I would be surprised if any extensive work ever gets done on anything actually new for the game.
#28
Posted 06 November 2015 - 05:27 PM
Wintersdark, on 06 November 2015 - 05:12 PM, said:
I'd just like to say: even if they idea is bad, I'd rather than actually test things and get feedback than just throw **** at the wall and see what sticks on Live.
We're always on them to test stuff, so we should give them slack when they test stuff and let usntry it out.
Absolutely. I applaud them for using public testing more actively now, and I applaud them for testing more radical ideas.
In a perfect world, they would simply say "Thanks for all your feedback. We will be keeping this and this feature and disregarding this and this one." instead of saying "We canned this feature, you can all go back to sleep now. Geez!"
#29
Posted 06 November 2015 - 05:28 PM
That was always my impression of Paul when he started posting about balance.
It was something along the lines of "he wanted us to react to balance changes... passionately".
Ironically, he's doing what he's told us back in 2013.
#30
Posted 06 November 2015 - 05:35 PM
#31
Posted 06 November 2015 - 05:35 PM
#35
Posted 06 November 2015 - 06:03 PM
#36
Posted 06 November 2015 - 06:04 PM
That is because accuracy is a factor.
Balancing lasers is really not that hard tbh it just requires conviction and a little bit of logic.
Edited by SnafuSnafu, 06 November 2015 - 06:06 PM.
#38
Posted 06 November 2015 - 06:07 PM
Russ, No matter the cost Hire them.
Kelly Johnson, Russ. Look it up.
https://en.wikipedia..._%28engineer%29
Edited by Mudhutwarrior, 06 November 2015 - 06:09 PM.
#39
Posted 06 November 2015 - 06:08 PM
IS medium laser's optimal range is 270 and max range is 540, twice the optimal. So why couldn't the Clan er-medium's optimal range be 405 and max range be 675. Use the same fall-off value that IS lasers have. Use 270m and not the double value of 405.
Would this be too hard to accept or does the 2x the optimal have to be there. Or pick any value, maybe Clan lasers have 80% of optimal value and IS has 100%.
#40
Posted 06 November 2015 - 06:10 PM
Rushmoar, on 06 November 2015 - 06:08 PM, said:
IS medium laser's optimal range is 270 and max range is 540, twice the optimal. So why couldn't the Clan er-medium's optimal range be 405 and max range be 675. Use the same fall-off value that IS lasers have. Use 270m and not the double value of 405.
Would this be too hard to accept or does the 2x the optimal have to be there. Or pick any value, maybe Clan lasers have 80% of optimal value and IS has 100%.
As far as it goes, clans are still getting 40% reduction on their maximum range.
1 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users