67 replies to this topic

[Whiskiz]

As mentioned in the title the new change is definitely interesting and adds a little more skill to the gameplay (knowing to be calm and target lock everything first before firing instead of just peeking round a corner, freaking out, and blind firing. Etc.)

It also stops long range insta-gibs and close range light and medium fly-bys, helps players by encouraging them to lock targets for the extra information for them and their team, helps with the whole information warfare you guys seem to have a bo.ner over and is generally not bad.

But if you want us to have to use lasers this way it'd be great if you guys now work on a decent targeting prioritisation for us also.

Already i've started trying to target more and find it cool i'm rewarded with more damage, but any more than maybe 2 enemies and the target is random (if it even targets one of the mechs in my view....) which is really re.tarded when i already had in mind which target i was going to go for around the corner and where the position is and where to aim, how far i need to peek etc etc.

But only for some other random mech to get targeted and for me to either do half damage to my initial target or have to hope i've come out in a position to attack that other target and that it doesn't leave me hanging mid peek for more than a second or 2 so it doesn't get me killed, taking much extra damage needlessly.

This in turn then lowers the skill level, it kind of encourages people to not think about it, not strategize about it and just randomly peek and go for whatever happens to end up getting targeted....

I've peeked out recently, had 3 targets out in front of me, hit R, and it targeted something off my screen ahead and to the right 200m or so (/facepalm) so ive peeked out and either done half damage for no good reason or tried to then get back in cover and took free damage for nothing, not because of me or my skill but because of a faulty game mechanic. Many other situations like this also.

Again, if you want us to have to use this system, we are going to need a better target prioritisation system. Hell even if it targets the nearest mech to your reticule, or multiple options in settings: Target mech nearest reticule, Target nearest mech, Target mechs heaviest to lightest, left to right etc.

Don't mind me if targeting is indeed getting a rework already, im guessing it is, because its kind of obvious it needs to be done now that damage so heavily relies on it working properly.

Edited by Whiskiz, 04 February 2016 - 05:21 AM.

[Lugh]

You may have missed it but putting a reticle over a mech and hitting q targets that mech specifically.

[DovisKhan]

Tatget lock for lazers?


Did i miss some patch o something, can you give any link to an offcial source saying you have to target or deal half the damage?



This more than anything looks like ECM promotion and a huge nerf for Lights/Mediums if it's actually real


Also does ballistics suffer half damage if not targeted?

Edited by DovisKhan, 04 February 2016 - 05:35 AM.

[martian]

As far as I know, the idea of lasers needing target lock was abandoned maybe a month ago.

[Kyynele]

I'm pretty sure that's old news.

They tested that on the test server, and everyone saw that it was awkward and bad, and then PGI announced that feature will not be looked into further.

Please correct me if the situation has indeed changed after that.

[Darwins Dog]

On the subject of targeting priority, though what this game needs is a target lead function. It would help teamwork immensely if one player could be designated as the target lead (they could even make it the company commander), and you could hit a button to select their target.

[Ordin Hall]

Wow, this whole time I was under the impression the half laser damage on non-targeted mechs was in.

[Mcgral18]

Ghost Damage has been scrapped, praise Mecha Cthulu.

Affecting the optimal range of a laser was a poor idea.
Add in the live Magic Jesus Box quartering sensor range, and my Cute Fox having a bloody 350M sensor range, I couldn't target a DDC until UNDER 90M.


That's not right.


Duck auto correct

Edited by Mcgral18, 04 February 2016 - 07:48 AM.

[wanderer]

Locks for perfect convergence would be nice (and giving a default not-perfect one otherwise).

Magically making damage vanish was not. The second I saw it go from the big Reddit/forum thread on "lock to converge" to Paul's implementation test of "lock or lose damage", I actually gave myself a mild headache from head-desking.

[Ratpoison]

wanderer, on 04 February 2016 - 09:54 AM, said:

Locks for perfect convergence would be nice (and giving a default not-perfect one otherwise).

Magically making damage vanish was not. The second I saw it go from the big Reddit/forum thread on "lock to converge" to Paul's implementation test of "lock or lose damage", I actually gave myself a mild headache from head-desking.

Your suggestion is literally the same thing. You just lose your damage by spraying it around nonsensically instead of through a direct numbers reduction.

[Tarogato]

Lugh, on 04 February 2016 - 05:14 AM, said:

You may have missed it but putting a reticle over a mech and hitting q targets that mech specifically.

No, it doesn't.

Q brings up the overlay. I think you meant R.

And... it tries to. But it fails often and grabs the wrong mech.

Edited by Tarogato, 04 February 2016 - 10:52 AM.

[Mystere]

Mcgral18, on 04 February 2016 - 07:04 AM, said:

Ghost Damage has been scrapped, praise Mecha Cthulu.

Affecting the optimal range of a laser was a poor idea.

Ghost Damage for lasers is real:

[Monkey Lover]

I liked the system they used on the test server but to many cry babies don't want to press R and only want to poke snipe.

[wanderer]

That would be a cone-of-fire, not "my weapons don't magically have a shot grouping of zero".

But hey, if you're not wondering why a damage system based on NOT getting all your damage precision slotted into a single armor spot has constant TTK issues from weapons that can pull it off with impunity and ease and think that's the right way for the system to work...you're part of the problem.

Keep wubburning people into dead donuts. It's fast, efficient, and utterly breaks half the weapons in the game in terms of being worthy of meta-consideration. Or PPC/AC, depending on the current spot on the Wheel of Superiority.

If you have weapons that spread damage and weapons that don't, you basically render the former to be trash- or you have some mechanic that doesn't let you stack all your guns on the same spot.

[Sandpit]

Monkey Lover, on 04 February 2016 - 10:55 AM, said:

I liked the system they used on the test server but to many cry babies don't want to press R and only want to poke snipe.

Well I'm trying to understand how locking on a target causes a laser to do more damage (or any weapon for that matter). The idea that you can or should balance damage output of a weapon based on a target lock is a bit silly all the way around in my opinion.

All it sounds like is yet another complicated, unneeded mechanic to balance weapons because PGI can't figure out how to stop instant convergence.

[Mystere]

Sandpit, on 04 February 2016 - 11:14 AM, said:

Well I'm trying to understand how locking on a target causes a laser to do more damage (or any weapon for that matter). The idea that you can or should balance damage output of a weapon based on a target lock is a bit silly all the way around in my opinion.

All it sounds like is yet another complicated, unneeded mechanic to balance weapons because PGI can't figure out how to stop instant convergence.

See the picture I posted above. That is DARPA's Excalibur phased array laser. For it to be able to deliver maximum damage, those 28 individual lasers would all need to be focused (i.e. target lock) on the same spot on the target.

[Sandpit]

Mystere, on 04 February 2016 - 11:18 AM, said:

See the picture I posted above. That is DARPA's Excalibur phased array laser. For it to be able to deliver maximum damage, those 28 individual lasers would all need to be focused (i.e. target lock) on the same spot on the target.

That (again) is convergence, not a target lock mechanic.

I didn't see anything stated where that laser array requires a separate computer system to actively lock a target to obtain that convergence

[Ratpoison]

Sandpit, on 04 February 2016 - 11:14 AM, said:

Well I'm trying to understand how locking on a target causes a laser to do more damage (or any weapon for that matter). The idea that you can or should balance damage output of a weapon based on a target lock is a bit silly all the way around in my opinion.

All it sounds like is yet another complicated, unneeded mechanic to balance weapons because PGI can't figure out how to stop instant convergence.

I haven't heard anyone else give a convergence breaking idea that wouldn't result in trashed game performance, a tragically stunted competitive skillcap, and a horribly OP shoulder mounted PPFLD meta, so I don't see how it's reasonable to hate on PGI for not doing it.

[Sandpit]

tortuousGoddess, on 04 February 2016 - 11:24 AM, said:

I haven't heard anyone else give a convergence breaking idea that wouldn't result in trashed game performance, a tragically stunted competitive skillcap, and a horribly OP shoulder mounted PPFLD meta, so I don't see how it's reasonable to hate on PGI for not doing it.

There have been no less than a dozen other suggestions made on these very forums.

It's already coded into the game actually. You have a separate target reticle for arms and torsos. They've already implemented the mechanic needed to solve the issue. They just choose to ignore it and not work on it.

O O That's two reticles right? So you're going to tell me that a multi-million dollar game dev company that coded that mechanic right there in the first place can't add in a movement modifier to those reticles that move based on weapon size?

or

X that's an exampl of convergence. Two weapons fire at same location, if it hits at the correct "optimal" distance, the weapons converge at the center of the "X". If it hits under or beyond that convergence range for that particular weapon (again based on optimal range), then it doesn't hit the exact center of the "X", it either hits ^ the bottom legs being off-cetner slightly or beyond the optimal range it resorts to the top portion of the "X" and again moves past the perfect convergence point and hits slightly off-center.

That's two examples I tossed out in under 5 minutes of how to solve the instant convergence problem that requires no extra coding, doesn't screw with hit reg, and most importantly doesn't involve complex mechanics for the character like ghost heat and such. SO yes, PGI has been given PLENTY of examples over the years. They choose not to even discuss them, they're ignored and dismissed.

[wanderer]

....or, you know you could make sure all weapons had the same "no lock, damage spreads".

Excalibur delivers the same energy (damage) regardless, but unless it's got lock, it can't converge all that damage to the smallest and hence least protected spot to maximize the effect of that burn.

The Test laser system simply removed damage from hitting anywhere on the 'Mech, rather than allowing for no-lock weapons to deal damage in the same amounts across the target. That's the problem.