84 replies to this topic

[Darian DelFord]

Wintersdark, on 26 July 2016 - 05:36 AM, said:

But I ask: how do you feel hard limits would improve things, other than making brawling even harder?

It'd just make short ranged weapons worse.

Well for one it would slow down all this darn long range peek a boo the game has turned into. On most maps it has literally turned into... find a rock and Laser Vomit at 600+ for the first 5 to 7 minutes of the match until there is an advantage then push.

It would not make the short ranged weapons worse.

Pjwned, on 26 July 2016 - 05:40 AM, said:

The current system we have now is the best for this game, and if you don't like it because you had a crappy match in your brawling range mech then tough **** because the alternatives are far worse. I'm also going to assume that game of waiting 7 minutes took place in Skirmish mode, because otherwise there would have easily been an objective to go after instead of sitting around, and that is a problem with Skirmish mode, not with weapon ranges.

Please leave the attitude at the door. you really completely missed what I posted.

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 26 July 2016 - 07:12 AM, said:

He is basically asking for us to return to MW4 which had the hard range cap, which I'm not against, but as Winterdark said, it doesn't really improve brawling (though it does help missiles compete better against direct fire).

The problem that I am seeing with it... especially with the clans.... is Most peek a boos happen at roughly 600 to 800 ish meters... The reason this takes place is the fall off range still does damage when you are boating the same type of weapons. It also makes trying to get within brawling range... very difficult... if you have a ML boat that can still hit you at 400 to 600ish meters and still do significant damage to parts

Just wondering is all

CygnusX7, on 26 July 2016 - 07:25 AM, said:

But I want to run my jenner and shoot SHORT range missiles far.

Another it's all about me thread.
Same sh!t, different day.

Please..... Get a clue and actually read what I posted...

Mudhutwarrior, on 26 July 2016 - 07:55 AM, said:

High alphas from range did more to stop brawling than LRMs ever could. If the other team is using lrms just face hug the enemy. Then they take damage like you.

Aye this is the issue and I trying to figure out...... With the Fall off range damage... you can still accomplish good bits of damage well outside of optimal range...

If nothing else... change it from 2x's to 1.5 or something.

Oderint dum Metuant, on 26 July 2016 - 07:57 AM, said:

It would actually be an improvement. If that laser can't go x meters further than it's optimum range there is less suppression which makes it easier to close distance, as you trade less armor.

My point exactly.... I sit here and constantly see the assaults built for brawling just get annihilated before they can get within range... due to the fall off boated weapons just stripping them.

Edited by Darian DelFord, 26 July 2016 - 08:23 AM.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Oderint dum Metuant, on 26 July 2016 - 07:57 AM, said:

It would actually be an improvement. If that laser can't go x meters further than it's optimum range there is less suppression which makes it easier to close distance, as you trade less armor.

Since SRMs are the main brawling weapon these days, I guess this does make more sense as they already function like this. If it weren't for that however I would've disagreed, as the old TDR-5SS pushes definitely benefited from having the ability to shoot outside optimal as well, and a lot of maps don't allow ERLL mechs to abuse their past-optimal range for any significant advantage, at least in the current dakka meta.

[SirSlaughter]

The main issue with infinite range weapons is that "at some point" they will hit you in your back

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Darian DelFord, on 26 July 2016 - 08:10 AM, said:

The problem that I am seeing with it... especially with the clans.... is Most peek a boos happen at roughly 600 to 800 ish meters...

You are going to see that regardless of this change as Clan LPLs have a range of 600 (plus whatever it is with modules) and ERPPC/Gauss mixtures hit between 660 and 810. I'd be very careful of this though as dakka is really strong currently, and neutering any long-extreme range may have adverse effects in other styles of play.

Extremes are always going to be harder to pull off in PUG play, whether it be ERLL or pure brawl. Mid-long will always be stronger than short or extreme in PUGs because they don't require the same coordination to do well against a more flexible mid-long team.

[Oderint dum Metuant]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 26 July 2016 - 08:39 AM, said:

Since SRMs are the main brawling weapon these days, I guess this does make more sense as they already function like this. If it weren't for that however I would've disagreed, as the old TDR-5SS pushes definitely benefited from having the ability to shoot outside optimal as well, and a lot of maps don't allow ERLL mechs to abuse their past-optimal range for any significant advantage, at least in the current dakka meta.

sadly im not sure the ERLL situation is as resolvable, that would require larger maps and todays ADHD audience dislike having to traverse more than 10 seconds. (see the polar highlands reaction)

[Mystere]

If the problem is the PeekabooWarriorOnline game we have now, then I think it's time for long-lasting smoke screens.

Oderint dum Metuant, on 26 July 2016 - 07:57 AM, said:

It would actually be an improvement. If that laser can't go x meters further than it's optimum range there is less suppression which makes it easier to close distance, as you trade less armor.

Lasers that suddenly do 0 damage at X+10^-6 meters (where X is max effective range) just does not sit well with me.

Edited by Mystere, 26 July 2016 - 08:54 AM.

[Narcissistic Martyr]

oneda, on 26 July 2016 - 05:05 AM, said:

How can even a single player dislike sniping. The art of long range trading while not getting hit is so much fun. I love sniper wars. My best builds and loadouts and mechs are optimized to be lethal snipers. All the time ppl complain about sniping haha. Damn. Its the best part about mwo. Brawling is easy. Being a good sniper requires real skills.

Where real skills are defined as being able to set mouse sensitivity low enough to be able to aim accurately and the ability to account for a small amount of projectile speed and the ability to not be a moron and pop out at the same place repeatedly?

Also... as a light mech pilot I love snipers. I think all assaults and heavies should be snipers and go off sniping by themselves.

[Pjwned]

Darian DelFord, on 26 July 2016 - 08:10 AM, said:

Please leave the attitude at the door. you really completely missed what I posted.

Or else...what? You're going to dodge my argument completely?

I don't care if your feelings get hurt because of "attitude," if you post a stupid idea then (if I feel like it) I will say as much. Maybe if literally all I said was "your idea is stupid and you're stupid" then you'd have a point, but that's not what I said.

The idea is stupid and it's stupid for exactly the reasons I stated, so if you want to refute it without copping out by whining about "muh hurt feelings" then go ahead.

[Oderint dum Metuant]

Mystere, on 26 July 2016 - 08:50 AM, said:

If the problem is the PeekabooWarriorOnline game we have now, then I think it's time for long-lasting smoke screens.



Lasers that suddenly do 0 damage at X+10^-6 meters (where X is max effective range) just does not sit well with me.

It wouldn't be lasers don't do damage at X+10. It would be lasers dont do damage past X range full stop.
We can debate the "realisim" side if you wish, there is very little "real" to Battletech and the fact it's sci fi means you can do just about whatever you want to it.

Weapons in general exceeding their defined maximum ranges is part of why we have the problems we do.

[Mystere]

Oderint dum Metuant, on 26 July 2016 - 09:06 AM, said:

It wouldn't be lasers don't do damage at X+10. It would be lasers dont do damage past X range full stop.
We can debate the "realisim" side if you wish, there is very little "real" to Battletech and the fact it's sci fi means you can do just about whatever you want to it.

Weapons in general exceeding their defined maximum ranges is part of why we have the problems we do.

Well, I want my war games to have as much dose of reality as it can bear.

As for the long-range peekaboo game play problem, I already gave a solution: long-lasting smoke screens.

[Darian DelFord]

Pjwned, on 26 July 2016 - 09:03 AM, said:

Or else...what? You're going to dodge my argument completely?

I don't care if your feelings get hurt because of "attitude," if you post a stupid idea then (if I feel like it) I will say as much. Maybe if literally all I said was "your idea is stupid and you're stupid" then you'd have a point, but that's not what I said.

The idea is stupid and it's stupid for exactly the reasons I stated, so if you want to refute it without copping out by whining about "muh hurt feelings" then go ahead.

Obviously someone did not read the rest of my post, or else they will see where i did respond to your argument.... not exactly your quote but your idea yes....

Reading comprehension.... the first thing to go on game forums.

[Pjwned]

Oderint dum Metuant, on 26 July 2016 - 09:06 AM, said:

It wouldn't be lasers don't do damage at X+10. It would be lasers dont do damage past X range full stop.
We can debate the "realisim" side if you wish, there is very little "real" to Battletech and the fact it's sci fi means you can do just about whatever you want to it.

Weapons in general exceeding their defined maximum ranges is part of why we have the problems we do.

While I do think that the "realism" of lasers not doing any damage only 1 meter beyond their optimal range is significant and that it would be really stupid from a "realism" standpoint, that's not the whole issue. I also think you misunderstood the point there, because it was arguing that it's stupid for a target as little as a millionth of a meter past optimal range (putting aside how that doesn't actually happen in game, because it's supposed to be hyperbolic) would take no damage without range falloff.

It may or may not be the case that weapons exceeding optimal range causes problems, but you're completely ignoring the glaring problems that would surface from putting a hard range cap on every weapon.

[Darian DelFord]

Mystere, on 26 July 2016 - 09:14 AM, said:

As for the long-range peekaboo game play problem, I already gave a solution: long-lasting smoke screens.

The reason its a problem is due to the extended ranges... which unfortunately favors the clans over the IS. Not trying to bring clan > IS argument just talking about the ranges.

I honestly think it would solve alot of this problem..... Another problem is a LPL is just as effective at 1 meter as it is at 400 meters. But that is a different argument for a different day.

Pjwned, on 26 July 2016 - 09:20 AM, said:

While I do think that the "realism" of lasers not doing any damage only 1 meter beyond their optimal range is significant and that it would be really stupid from a "realism" standpoint, that's not the whole issue. I also think you misunderstood the point there, because it was arguing that it's stupid for a target as little as a millionth of a meter past optimal range (putting aside how that doesn't actually happen in game, because it's supposed to be hyperbolic) would take no damage without range falloff.

It may or may not be the case that weapons exceeding optimal range causes problems, but you're completely ignoring the glaring problems that would surface from putting a hard range cap on every weapon.

Not really we had it in beta...... worked great.

In fact..... CHARGE THE GUASS SNIPER was a battle cry you heard in almost every match.

Edited by Darian DelFord, 26 July 2016 - 09:26 AM.

[Pjwned]

Darian DelFord, on 26 July 2016 - 09:19 AM, said:

Obviously someone did not read the rest of my post, or else they will see where i did respond to your argument.... not exactly your quote but your idea yes....

Reading comprehension.... the first thing to go on game forums.

I actually did read the rest of your post you numbskull, and no you did not actually address the points that I brought up.

Quote

Imagine how annoying it is when somebody fires their PPC at a target only 89m away, and it does no damage.

Then try to imagine pretty much that same effect happening to every single weapon except 1,000x more irritating. Oh you fired your AC20 at a target 271m away? LOL NO DAMAGE GIT GUD SCRUB LOL.

Was this addressed anywhere? No.

Quote

At least in TT you had accuracy penalties for firing at long range (rather than the weapon being guaranteed to do do no damage) and you didn't have targets moving around in real time so you could take that shot knowing the enemy mech would be in the same hex rather than OOPS LOL MOVED 1 METER AWAY NO DAMAGE LOL LE AYY LMAO LOL; removing the falloff range would be a catastrophic nightmare for this game.

Was this addressed anywhere? No.

Quote

I know that SRMs (and LRMs, but they have really long range) already deal with this hard range cap and people do use SRMs, but SRMs are also used far less than they should be and people often post about how they'd rather take a couple medium lasers or something over a SRM4 (which is a problem that needs to be addressed) and honestly the hard range cap on missiles is partly why.

Was this addressed anywhere? No.

All you did was whine about "attitude" and you didn't even bother confirming or denying if your example was in Skirmish mode or not, when your whole rant was inspired by a crappy match because you chose to bring an exclusively short range mech.

I understand that you think the long range peek-a-boo is not healthy for the game, which I don't necessarily disagree with, but I explicitly told you the very major & negative consequences of removing range falloff in this game and you just completely ignored it.

[Darian DelFord]

Pjwned, on 26 July 2016 - 09:30 AM, said:

I understand that you think the long range peek-a-boo is not healthy for the game, which I don't necessarily disagree with, but I explicitly told you the very major & negative consequences of removing range falloff in this game and you just completely ignored it.

Interesting.... when it was in game... it worked much better than what we have now.

[Oderint dum Metuant]

Mystere, on 26 July 2016 - 09:14 AM, said:

Well, I want my war games to have as much dose of reality as it can bear.

As for the long-range peekaboo game play problem, I already gave a solution: long-lasting smoke screens.

Helps vs Heat vision how?

Pjwned, on 26 July 2016 - 09:20 AM, said:

While I do think that the "realism" of lasers not doing any damage only 1 meter beyond their optimal range is significant and that it would be really stupid from a "realism" standpoint, that's not the whole issue. I also think you misunderstood the point there, because it was arguing that it's stupid for a target as little as a millionth of a meter past optimal range (putting aside how that doesn't actually happen in game, because it's supposed to be hyperbolic) would take no damage without range falloff.

It may or may not be the case that weapons exceeding optimal range causes problems, but you're completely ignoring the glaring problems that would surface from putting a hard range cap on every weapon.

The problems you speak of, were never spoke of in past games where this occurred. You can't have everything. Some things just don't work well together. Ranged falloff damage while adding realism and sense it causes issues with the balance of gameplay (which is even more pronounced when the map design is terrible)

[Mystere]

Oderint dum Metuant, on 26 July 2016 - 09:38 AM, said:

Helps vs Heat vision how?

Do you know the composition and capabilities of current-day smoke screens? Go read up on it. You might be surprised.

[Pjwned]

Darian DelFord, on 26 July 2016 - 09:34 AM, said:

Interesting.... when it was in game... it worked much better than what we have now.

Well, for one thing, from what I can see the range falloff has been in the game since nearly the beginning.

For another thing, I don't really believe you that it worked much better than what we have now, and even if that was actually true I also know for a fact that the game played much differently back then and I have no reason whatsoever to think it would work well now.

[Oderint dum Metuant]

Mystere, on 26 July 2016 - 09:40 AM, said:

Do you know the composition and capabilities of current-day smoke screens? Go read up on it. You might be surprised.

Entirely irrelevant when your dependent on PGI's coding capabilities. But i guess another consumable is exactly what we need.

[Darian DelFord]

Pjwned, on 26 July 2016 - 09:40 AM, said:

Well, for one thing, from what I can see the range falloff has been in the game since nearly the beginning.

For another thing, I don't really believe you that it worked much better than what we have now, and even if that was actually true I also know for a fact that the game played much differently back then and I have no reason whatsoever to think it would work well now.

The fall off came at the end of closed beta ish.... really don't remember when they did it... but I do remember an upheaval over it.... just can't remember why they did it.... which is the entire point of this thread.... I just can't remember why.

In regards to game play being better.... yes it was...... you did not have your CT blown off at 600+ meters just because you were running between two rocks and someone got a lucky shot off.

in regards to it working the way it did then in today's environment I dunno...... but it could actually bring a few aspects back to the game.... like true brawling... which we really do not have until there is a numbers advantage.