37 replies to this topic

[Alistair Winter]

Gryphorim, on 15 June 2016 - 02:48 AM, said:

Alistair, I included the rant about the ghost range, because I wanted to hear other people's thoughts on the matter. For me, having had some work with military laser equipment, it seemed a no-brainer that the lasers would need targeting info to achieve their max-rated range. Realism in gaming.

The two standard arguments are:

• It made the game less enjoyable for the majority of the players.
  
• It doesn't really add any realism.

We already have advanced range finder hardware on our mechs. Wherever you point your reticule, the HUD will tell you the distance. That is effectively the same as having a laser rangefinder. I have also had some experience with military laser equipment. Specifically, cannons using laser rangefinders. I don't see any reason why you should need a target lock to achieve maximum efficiency with lasers. If you're aiming directly at a target, then your mech is already calculating the range. It's already aiming its guns to converge on that exact spot you're aiming at, given the range your mech has measured.

To pretend that the mech doesn't have enough information unless you get a target lock with a paper doll is a very convoluted game mechanic that doesn't really make sense, except as a shoehorn to force more information warfare. It adds zero realism.

[Widowmaker1981]

Only if it is not patently ridiculous, like some mechs having a 4 second delay - making those mechs 100% not usable with energy weapons since targeting was tied to their efficiency. I could live with convergence being tied to targeting since it would affect all weapon types equally, but not laser range. Lasers are only OP in the underhive where people dont understand how to torso twist, and also cannot hit for sh!t with non hitscan weapons, they don't need nerfing.

Please stop talking about realism:

Giant stompy robots.
'long range' missiles with a 1KM range.
PPCs firing at non relativistic speeds and still doing damage.
Flame throwers with equivalent range to machine guns
etc.

This is a game. it is a long ****** way from realistic. Or do you want hitscan PPCs?

[Gryphorim]

Alistair Winter, on 15 June 2016 - 03:01 AM, said:

To pretend that the mech doesn't have enough information unless you get a target lock with a paper doll is a very convoluted game mechanic that doesn't really make sense, except as a shoehorn to force more information warfare. It adds zero realism.

Fair enough. The brief training I had was on laser target painting hardware. I was under the impression it needed more than range to correct for atmospherics and such. But they also had massive ranges, far in excess of what we see here. I just figured that higher laser power meant more optical focus required made sense.

[Gryphorim]

Widowmaker1981, on 15 June 2016 - 03:14 AM, said:

Only if it is not patently ridiculous, like some mechs having a 4 second delay - making those mechs 100% not usable with energy weapons since targeting was tied to their efficiency. I could live with convergence being tied to targeting since it would affect all weapon types equally, but not laser range. Lasers are only OP in the underhive where people dont understand how to torso twist, and also cannot hit for sh!t with non hitscan weapons, they don't need nerfing.

Please stop talking about realism:

Giant stompy robots.
'long range' missiles with a 1KM range.
PPCs firing at non relativistic speeds and still doing damage.
Flame throwers with equivalent range to machine guns
etc.

This is a game. it is a long ****** way from realistic. Or do you want hitscan PPCs?

Perhaps pseudo-realism? Suspension of disbelief? Realism is not the right term, is it?
I don't see how targetting delay makes a mech unusable with energy weapons. Optimal range was unaffected, and the effect to max range was, what, 20%. At the last 20% of max range, what damage are you doing anyway?

And for the record, yes, I want hitscan PPCs, or near enough that it doesn't matter. Just make sure all PPCs have the damage spreading mechanic from cERPPCs. (unpopular personal opinion is unpopular)

[Widowmaker1981]

Gryphorim, on 15 June 2016 - 03:28 AM, said:

And for the record, yes, I want hitscan PPCs, or near enough that it doesn't matter. Just make sure all PPCs have the damage spreading mechanic from cERPPCs. (unpopular personal opinion is unpopular)

That is a freaking terrible, terrible idea that would make PPCs absurdly OP. Its not just the fact that they put all their dmg in one spot that makes them good (ish) now, it is actually mainly the fact that you only need to expose yourself for an instant to fire. Make them hitscan, and i for one wouldnt use any other weapons, ever, pretty much.

[Bud Crue]

Not all mechs are equal. The desire PGI has to try and make them so, or at least give them equal possible value is illusory and futile. In re sensors and info tech, giving lights extra sensor boosts was 90% a wasted ability on the PTS...the damn maps are too small (and too well known) for added sensor value to do much for the individual or team.

Info-tech should not be sought after as a balancing tool (as PGI was attempting to do with PTS2) but rather to merely add flavor. If they added it without the ghost range (as many have proposed above) it would be fine but I don't think it would seriously impact the game.

All that said, if we are going to ask for "everything" from the last PTS but ghost range...does that mean my Quickdraw gets its 1000% srm cooldown back? If so, then I am all for this plan!

[Gryphorim]

Widowmaker1981, on 15 June 2016 - 03:45 AM, said:

That is a freaking terrible, terrible idea that would make PPCs absurdly OP. Its not just the fact that they put all their dmg in one spot that makes them good (ish) now, it is actually mainly the fact that you only need to expose yourself for an instant to fire. Make them hitscan, and i for one wouldnt use any other weapons, ever, pretty much.

I know. But when I bought this game, I was kinda hoping for a battletech game that didn't break any laws of physics, but just the few military-sense things that you just can't take out of Battletech, like big stompy robots, kinda silly weapon ranges (I'd have liked ranges to be triple what they are now) and FTL

[Weeny Machine]

Info Warfare would be great. Mechs could be balanced without slapping more and more weapon quirks on them e.g. scout mechs should be harder to detect / there should be a delay before they register on the sensors etc.

What was bad, though, was PGI's idea of reducing damage when no lock was achieved...which was weird.

However, I fear PGI scrapped the complete info warfare comepletely. What a shame

Edited by Bush Hopper, 15 June 2016 - 06:02 AM.

[Requiemking]

The problem is, Infowar did nothing for weapons like Flamers and MGs, also, I think that all the screaming about laser locks have pretty much screwed us when it comes to PGI listening to us. I think that PGI's unwillingness to not only tell us about these gamechanging mechanics and their unwillingness to alter the game in major ways is borne directly from the playerbase.

[Kaeb Odellas]

Gryphorim, on 14 June 2016 - 06:48 PM, said:

Each mech having unique sensor capabilities, some with faster lock times for missiles, others with more responsive sensors that pick up enemies and put doritos above them faster.

A general trend toward smaller mechs having better sensors, and scout types having best-in-class.

Sensor data actually taking time to transfer from forward observers to allied mechs based on range.

Scouting that was worth a damn.

Basically the perfect environment for the Cyclops to have it's purpose and for actual role warfare.


And people shouted down PGI because the same PTS had the "ghost range" for lasers. (BTW, real lasers need focussing/range data to "dial in" the appropriate focus in real life, otherwise you're shining a glorified torch at your target.) Was the 200m max range difference really THAT important?

Anyway, PGI, aside from the ghost range, can we have all the other stuff brought back please?

Light mechs shouldn't necessarily have better sensors than heavier mechs. Their advantage should be that they can get closer to enemies without being detected by their sensors.

There's no reason that an Atlas should have worse sensors than a Locust. If anything, an Atlas would have more room for it.

[Levi Porphyrogenitus]

PTS Infotech, value tweaked and iterated, would be a great boon to this game. I was at the time, and remain now, baffled by why PGI threw out the baby with the bathwater and dumped infowar alongside laser lock-ons. The ECM change alone would have been an amazing improvement, but individualized sensor tweaks and whatnot would go a very long way.

[Andi Nagasia]

Levi Porphyrogenitus, on 07 August 2016 - 06:49 PM, said:

PTS Infotech, value tweaked and iterated, would be a great boon to this game. I was at the time, and remain now, baffled by why PGI threw out the baby with the bathwater and dumped infowar alongside laser lock-ons. The ECM change alone would have been an amazing improvement, but individualized sensor tweaks and whatnot would go a very long way.

Much Agreed, but Russ has said InfoWarfare is coming out Right after Power Draw,
Russ also Said to Expect the Power Draw PTS soon, as they were in the Final Stages of getting set up,

[Signal27]

Levi Porphyrogenitus, on 07 August 2016 - 06:49 PM, said:

PTS Infotech, value tweaked and iterated, would be a great boon to this game. I was at the time, and remain now, baffled by why PGI threw out the baby with the bathwater and dumped infowar alongside laser lock-ons. The ECM change alone would have been an amazing improvement, but individualized sensor tweaks and whatnot would go a very long way.

I was on hiatus from the game when that was going on. How hard did the testers cry about everything? Could that have anything to do with PGI giving it all the axe?

[Requiemking]

Andi Nagasia, on 07 August 2016 - 08:36 PM, said:

Much Agreed, but Russ has said InfoWarfare is coming out Right after Power Draw,
Russ also Said to Expect the Power Draw PTS soon, as they were in the Final Stages of getting set up,

Except, how much of it will actually get added? For all we know, they might throw out variable sensor ranges and add Laser lock and ghost range.

[Levi Porphyrogenitus]

Signal27, on 07 August 2016 - 08:48 PM, said:

I was on hiatus from the game when that was going on. How hard did the testers cry about everything? Could that have anything to do with PGI giving it all the axe?

IIRC, the only things anyone talked about were ECM and laser locks. ECM got essentially universal praise (it actually implemented my suggestion for how to fix it), but laser locks (requiring lock-ons to get full benefit of your lasers' maximum range) was pretty broadly panned with some pretty epic QQ. A lot of players liked it as a mechanic but thought the values needed tweaking (they were super harsh). The infowar stuff also seemed to be solid in concept but in need of numbers iteration.

Of course the squeaky wheel gets the kick, so PGI axed the whole PTS in response to the massive outcry from a subset of players, many of whom never actually played the PTS but just read the notes for it.

Personally, I think the laser locks were an interesting idea, but not a great one. I won't miss them, but I really do miss the lack of the rest of that particular PTS. The Cyclops being imminent should offer PGI a prime opportunity to reintroduce a much deeper infotech system. Here's hoping they take advantage.

Edited by Levi Porphyrogenitus, 07 August 2016 - 10:13 PM.

[adamts01]

MadcatX, on 14 June 2016 - 07:16 PM, said:

TBH, even if PGI implemented a really good system for role and info warfare, I don't think that would change things in many levels of play to a drastic extent other then perhaps player-run leagues and FW to an extent (although scouting in FW as a defender usually boils down to calling out which lane an enemy is coming down).

We simply don't have a system which gives any other roles due to lack of tonnage restrictions and even with that a light mech can be as deadly as a heavy in the right hands. Every build does usually fit a role of some sort, sniper, brawler, skirkisher, mixed. Having a system that could look at the loadout and engine you are running, assign it to the closest role it would fit, and then have the matchmaker attempt to have teams with even numbers of brawlers, snipers, etc. might get us somewhere, but obviously that is not going to happen.

It wouldn't change much with current meta, but it's a huge step in the right direction. If all mechs couldn't just lock on and LOL away with LRMs, and you actually needed a spotter, they could crank the **** out of indirect LRM performance. Make them weak dumbfire SRMs at close range, deadly if a slow targeting LRM boat manages to get a lock, and brutal if a light locks you, as a dedicated spotter is one less gunner on the team. That's just one example. Non-ECM huge lights would be able to actually sneak around if they didn't instantly have a red dorito over their head at 800+ meters. To get away from the peek-a-mech **** this game has become there really needs to be something besides direct fire as a competitive option. Mortars? Mines? Maybe a light scout/spotter/with refillable air strikes, to make up for it's weak *** performance (MLX). I'm all about Planetside 2 these days, haven't touched MWO in a while. It'll take a good Ghost Heat 2.0, Info Warfare, and a real CW to get me back. PGI has their work cut out for them.

[Mystere]

Levi Porphyrogenitus, on 07 August 2016 - 10:10 PM, said:

IIRC, the only things anyone talked about were ECM and laser locks. ECM got essentially universal praise (it actually implemented my suggestion for how to fix it), but laser locks (requiring lock-ons to get full benefit of your lasers' maximum range) was pretty broadly panned with some pretty epic QQ. A lot of players liked it as a mechanic but thought the values needed tweaking (they were super harsh). The infowar stuff also seemed to be solid in concept but in need of numbers iteration.

Of course the squeaky wheel gets the kick, so PGI axed the whole PTS in response to the massive outcry from a subset of players, many of whom never actually played the PTS but just read the notes for it.

Personally, I think the laser locks were an interesting idea, but not a great one. I won't miss them, but I really do miss the lack of the rest of that particular PTS. The Cyclops being imminent should offer PGI a prime opportunity to reintroduce a much deeper infotech system. Here's hoping they take advantage.

Somehow the "convergence on lock" idea running around the forums got lost in translation into laser-only locks.

[Moonlight Grimoire]

Mystere, on 07 August 2016 - 10:30 PM, said:

Somehow the "convergence on lock" idea running around the forums got lost in translation into laser-only locks.

Maybe if it was only for torso weapons (and have certain mechs have quirks to adjust this like the Atlas and the thunderbolt with the shoulder PPC turret) that had convergence on lock and otherwise straight ray cast to infinity. Arms would work as normal, no need to lock for your arm ballistics or set focal point for lasers. Maybe take a few seconds to acquire convergence but requires hitting R (but not like LRM lock where you have to keep your reticule on them). Maybe make it also so you have to have LoS as so we don't have C3 essentially with being able to get torso weapons converged through a friendly lock or UAV. Details need hammering out.

Infowarfare though was a lot of great ideas and laser lock killed it due to people were upset at not being able to smack people excessively hard in one concentrated spot for full damage. Yeah this does the same thing (this being my proposal) but it is a bit more fair as you still have some equipment able to do damage exactly where you aim it. I feel that is more fair and doesn't do the whole cone of fire that triggers Paul and Russ even though almost every other game has it.

Hell Infowarfare could also play into a way of how to handle making lights more easy to learn with being harder to detect, throw that bone (though maybe a bit diminished) to the 40 and 45 tonners to give them something against their 50 and 55 tons relatives. Throw on seismic sensor pings being adjusted to weight (not weight class) of a mech and how hard it is hitting the ground (so someone falling or landing from JJ's would be a bigger ping than walking). I would want 50+ ton mechs (the bread and butter really of MWO) to have a standard sensor range outside of like the Cyclops and other HQ mechs (chassis or variant, after all, it is what quirks are for). That Standard Sensor range I would say maybe at 600m or so? Or make Lights not be detectable until at 600m unless right around your reticule (so keen eyes can spot a target) and 40-45 ton mechs detectable at 650m? IDK, throwing ideas out there trying to give the lighter mechs a leg up to make them, again, have an easier to understand niche and easier to learn for new players without having to stick to ECM variants.