97 replies to this topic

[Kjudoon]

That is why i gave such a compliment. I knew youd appreciate it.

[Pjwned]

There's no indication that it will actually happen now because PGI half-assed their "great mech re-balance" efforts. The only small hope of anything improving is that maybe PGI realized that mech scaling is a huge problem that needs to be addressed before trying to balance mechs with quirks, but I have basically nil expectations for that.

Xetelian, on 09 January 2016 - 07:39 PM, said:

No thank you. Making ECM just a minor annoyance would be too much of a buff to LRMs.
The different radar ranges would probably be a heavy nerf to bigger LRM mechs. I don't think this balances out with the ECM changes at all.


I don't think it makes sense that a DWF would have less radar range than an ACH, if I read the changes correctly, I don't believe that bigger mechs would have crappy radar while little mechs have supreme range.

While I don't think that makes sense I can totally understand the ideas backing the initial changes. Putting light mechs into a better role would be very good. Won't make them any more popular to pilot in a game based around how much damage you do during a match.

If you need to rely on ECM as a crutch against LRMs then you're bad, nothing else to it.

"Oh no, I can't possibly use AMS because I'm a massive scrub, please let me retain my jesus box or else I will continue to stand out in the open and actually get punished for it."

Edited by Pjwned, 09 January 2016 - 08:54 PM.

[Alistair Winter]

Bishop Steiner, on 09 January 2016 - 08:35 PM, said:

when the tryhards stop QQing over anything that makes them have to do more than mash pixels?

Yeah, the reaction to the PTS sessions was pretty disappointing, to be honest. I mean, haters gonna hate. But I was hoping more people would speak up and show appreciation that something potentially good was happening.

Again, it would be a huge bummer if the biggest recent event to provide deeper gameplay resulted in nothing.

Most of the criticism I saw was either pointless (complaining about individual values that could always be changed later) or directed towards the Ghost Range for lasers. A lot of negativity from the latter seemed to spread out and stain the whole PTS, as if everything was a failure because that one concept was rejected.

I do believe Russ explicitly said they would abandon the concept of Ghost Range (I forget what the actual name was), but I don't think I've seen them publically reject Infotech as well.

[MechaBattler]

Pjwned, on 09 January 2016 - 08:49 PM, said:

There's no indication that it will actually happen now because PGI half-assed their "great mech re-balance" efforts. The only small hope of anything improving is that maybe PGI realized that mech scaling is a huge problem that needs to be addressed before trying to balance mechs with quirks, but I have basically nil expectations for that.



If you need to rely on ECM as a crutch against LRMs then you're bad, nothing else to it.

"Oh no, I can't possibly use AMS because I'm a massive scrub, please let me retain my jesus box or else I will continue to stand out in the open and actually get punished for it."

It's not really fair to call it half assed when the other half was basically booed into oblivion by players. They clearly had a plan. But with so much negative knee jerky reaction to all of the actual game changes. They probably didn't want the player-base to turn on them just before Steam launch. The bittervets couldn't harpoon it, but if enough of the player-base got their pitchforks, it would have hurt the Steam release.

[Kjudoon]

Ams is for pikers. I never touch the stuff.

[Mystere]

Alistair Winter, on 09 January 2016 - 07:23 PM, said:

I think people just kiboshed the ghost range. Lasers doing less damage when you don't have target locks.

I kinda liked the basic principle if not the actual idea. I would have preferred weapons having zero convergence in the absence of a lock and convergence as we have it now in the presence of one.

But then again at worst PGI would have heard not much more than a whimper or slight annoyance from me if they did as planned.

Sigilum Sanctum, on 09 January 2016 - 07:46 PM, said:

Info tech is meaningless short of PVE situations where we're granted multi-kilometer sized maps with multiple objectives, factions, bases, etc.

Then scouts, UAVs and what not would have a vastly superior role.

No it is not. What is missing are huge maps and more complex objectives. PVE is definitely not a requirement.

[Pjwned]

MechaBattler, on 09 January 2016 - 09:04 PM, said:

It's not really fair to call it half assed when the other half was basically booed into oblivion by players. They clearly had a plan. But with so much negative knee jerky reaction to all of the actual game changes. They probably didn't want the player-base to turn on them just before Steam launch. The bittervets couldn't harpoon it, but if enough of the player-base got their pitchforks, it would have hurt the Steam release.

That's not an excuse, PGI half-assed it because they wanted the game out on Steam in time for the holidays, even though they obviously needed more time to follow through with what they said they were going to (assuming that was even their intention, but I think it was at the time) but of course they did practically nothing and now the whole thing is dead in the water.

Not the players' fault that PGI is incompetent and can't follow through with anything.

[Strum Wealh]

Bishop Steiner, on 09 January 2016 - 08:38 PM, said:

well, one of my greatest amusements here in the forums is the irony of my siggy... and how many idjits actualyl think I am a white knight... simply cuz I ain't a black one.

"Gunmetal Knight" would actually be a pretty cool title, yes?

[pbiggz]

Kjudoon, on 09 January 2016 - 09:04 PM, said:

Ams is for pikers. I never touch the stuff.

Yeah you don't need AMS when you can just step to the side slightly.

[Lyoto Machida]

VinJade, on 09 January 2016 - 07:47 PM, said:

a real buff to LRMs?
what are you smoking?
any mech with one or two AMS can trash almost an entire flight of LRMs....

Two AMS is taking out a 45 or 60 tube salvo?

[DAYLEET]

Xetelian, on 09 January 2016 - 07:39 PM, said:

No thank you. Making ECM just a minor annoyance would be too much of a buff to LRMs.
The different radar ranges would probably be a heavy nerf to bigger LRM mechs. I don't think this balances out with the ECM changes at all.


I don't think it makes sense that a DWF would have less radar range than an ACH, if I read the changes correctly, I don't believe that bigger mechs would have crappy radar while little mechs have supreme range.

While I don't think that makes sense I can totally understand the ideas backing the initial changes. Putting light mechs into a better role would be very good. Won't make them any more popular to pilot in a game based around how much damage you do during a match.

The smaller something is and the farther something is, the harder it is to be scanned and locked on radar, it's part of something called physics i think. On that basis, it make sense that a locust can lock a direwolf way before a direwolf can lock a locust.

Edited by DAYLEET, 09 January 2016 - 09:52 PM.

[Sigilum Sanctum]

Mystere, on 09 January 2016 - 09:09 PM, said:

No it is not. What is missing are huge maps and more complex objectives. PVE is definitely not a requirement.

It probably would because too many people ***** about the game being a "walking simulator" when you mention making maps bigger.

What I would do?

Relegate the current gameplay into Solaris arena with FFA and team modes. Then convert CW into large scale persistent warfare with multiple objectives and resources with repair bases and everything. One team has a union dropship or 3 leopards. The other has the anti orbital gauss cannons. Territory loss and gain mechanics can be done in similar fashion to Planetside 2. Whoever wins the planet is whoever destroys the dropship/gauss cannons. Make dropdecks bigger, maybe have your mechs on a respawn timer too. Nothing too long or egregious, maybe spend mc to reduce the timer.

[Kjudoon]

2 ams no. And it wouldnt be a problem if it only protectdd yourself. Ams is why you rarely see small numbers of lrms on a mech as a good backup weapon in a multi range loadout.

[Strum Wealh]

DAYLEET, on 09 January 2016 - 09:51 PM, said:

The smaller something is and the farther something is, the harder it is to be scanned and locked on radar, it's part of something called physics i think. On that basis, it make sense that a locust can lock a direwolf way before a direwolf can lock a locust.

With radar cross sections (see also, here), it's as-much or more about the target's geometry (specifically, the cross-sectional area presented to the transmitter) & material composition rather than its sheer size.





An average human body has a RCS of approximately 1 square meter (1.0m^2) while stealth aircraft have RCSs that are one-tenth of that (e.g. 0.1m^2) or less, and the RCS of an average automobile is on-par with a large strategic bomber.

'Mechs are not exactly stealthy things, and the difference in detection range between any two non-stealthed 'Mechs (such as out hypothetical Locust/Daishi pair) if we're taking realistic radar capabilities into consideration would likely to be a non-issue once one considers how powerful BattleMech-mounted radars would likely be, given the amount of energy available from the Fusion Engine.

Edited by Strum Wealh, 10 January 2016 - 06:31 AM.

[DAYLEET]

Strum Wealh, on 09 January 2016 - 10:26 PM, said:

'Mechs are not exactly stealthy things,

Exactly and smaller would be harder to detect especially when you compare a DireBox to a Locust.

Strum Wealh, on 09 January 2016 - 10:26 PM, said:

and the difference in detection range between any two non-stealthed 'Mechs (such as out hypothetical Locust/Daishi pair)... would likely to be a non-issue once one considers how powerful BattleMech-mounted radars would likely be,

Is that a Lore thing or your wish? I think "would likely be" answers my question...

[MechaBattler]

Pjwned, on 09 January 2016 - 09:41 PM, said:

That's not an excuse, PGI half-assed it because they wanted the game out on Steam in time for the holidays, even though they obviously needed more time to follow through with what they said they were going to (assuming that was even their intention, but I think it was at the time) but of course they did practically nothing and now the whole thing is dead in the water.

Not the players' fault that PGI is incompetent and can't follow through with anything.

Seemed like they had the mechanics in place during the PTS. People complained loudly. And PGI chose not to risk the Steam release. Doesn't sound too incompetent. Especially as Steam release went well.

I guess they shouldn't listen to the player-base. Like they're always accused of doing.

[Davers]

People keep bringing up convergence despite PGI's statement that they couldn't get it to work with HSR. Their version of IW was an attempt to simulate convergence, and no one seemed to like it. I wonder who those 'someones' were, since 1. there are many complaints about the 'laser meta' (which this directly addressed) and 2. PGI is using tonnage as part of their balance, it makes no sense to allow the lightest of weapons to be superior in most cases to heavier ACs and missiles,

[Mystere]

Davers, on 09 January 2016 - 11:01 PM, said:

People keep bringing up convergence despite PGI's statement that they couldn't get it to work with HSR. Their version of IW was an attempt to simulate convergence, and no one seemed to like it. I wonder who those 'someones' were, since 1. there are many complaints about the 'laser meta' (which this directly addressed) and 2. PGI is using tonnage as part of their balance, it makes no sense to allow the lightest of weapons to be superior in most cases to heavier ACs and missiles,

Actually, it was only me, in this thread anyway.

Having said that, the necessary mechanics for zero convergence is already in the game. As such, going from zero convergence to full convergence when getting a lock is doable. And that is a more general solution than the laser-only one presented on the PTS.

Edited by Mystere, 09 January 2016 - 11:13 PM.

[Davers]

Mystere, on 09 January 2016 - 11:12 PM, said:

Actually, it was only me, in this thread anyway.

Having said that, the necessary mechanics for zero convergence is already in the game. As such, going from zero convergence to full convergence when getting a lock is doable. And that is a more general solution than the laser-only one presented on the PTS.

But it's the 'perfect convergence' of lasers that is the issue, much more than ACs or PPCs which seemed to be 'fixed' by velocity adjustments.

[VinJade]

one thing that bothers me is that LRMs are indirect fire weapons and can lock onto targets behind walls and hills and fired. you don't need tag or narc for that. they just help increase the chance of hitting the target.