26 replies to this topic

[Insanity09]

I'm puzzled.

In order to get usefulness out of my medium lasers, I need to add zero skill nodes.
If I want my jump jets to function reasonably, I need to unlock and activate zero skill nodes.
If I want to improve the function of those devices, or my mech in general, yes, I unlock skill nodes.

If I want to turn my ECM device from an effectively useless piece of junk into something that actually benefits me, I need two skill nodes and 9 other nodes that I may not have needed or wanted.
It may seem like I am merely enhancing the function of the ECM, but there is a big difference between actual enhancement, and making it viable.
Imagine for a second that your mech only had enough heat containment to fire, say, 1 ERPPC one time without overheating, and that you could, if you wanted, take heat containment nodes to improve that into something meaningful. That is the current situation with ECM.

How is that just like everybody/everything else?

[Golden Viper]

TD working or not??? I think no.....
Before the introduction of the skill tree 3.5 seс - 2sec Radar depr. mod.= 1.5sec target lock
now 100% RD kill TD+bap ???

BUG???? or......???

Edited by DIRECT0R, 20 May 2017 - 09:48 AM.

[Insanity09]

So, at present, there are so many questions about how target decay, sensor range +, radar deprivation, and ECM work, separately, and in combination. And then we need to add TC, CC, and B/CAP into the mix, in case they are doing anything wonky (target lock on times?). Which, now that I think of it, also means we need to include TAG, NARC, and Artemis as well, since those affect lock on times too.

Among other purposes, the new skill tree was supposed to give us the power of choosing how our mechs would be improved.
Sadly, as long as the mechanisms behind how certain things function is a mystery, and as the skill tree has added to (or created) confusion here, we are simply throwing darts blindfolded. That's no way to expect us to make choices.

We could really use some explanation from PGI on this.

[50 50]

I kind of just read the changes to ECM as being you can have it as a personal effect, or buff it so you can provide group ECM.
As for radar dep used in conjunction with ECM, if the ECM protection is breached or lost then radar dep acts as that backup.

[AzureRathalos]

Normal Target Loss 2.25s

Target Decay 1 +0.70s
Target Decay 2 +0.70s
Target Decay 3 +0.70s
Target Decay 4 +0.70s
Target Decay 5 +0.70s
Total +3.50s

Radar Derp 1 20% of -2.25s = -0.45s
Radar Derp 2 20% of -2.25s = -0.45s
Radar Derp 3 20% of -2.25s = -0.45s
Radar Derp 4 20% of -2.25s = -0.45s
Radar Derp 5 20% of -2.25s = -0.45s
Total -2.25s

Full Target Decay
2.25s + 3.50s = 5.75s

Full Radar Derp
2.25s - 2.25s = 0s

Full Target Decay vs. Full Radar Derp
2.25s + 3.50s - 2.25s = 3.50s

EDIT: This information was an educated guess based on how Radar Derp vs. Target Decay used to work, where one added set amounts time and one subtracted set amounts of time. This is not the case anymore. Derp is now multiplicative and completely bypasses Decay.

Edited by AzureRathalos, 23 June 2017 - 05:36 PM.

[Scyther]

Actually I'm pretty sure Radar Deprivation was shown to cancel the 3.50s of Target Decay in the past, not just the 2.25 seconds of standard.

@AzureRathalos: Do you have any testing or sources to back up your claim that 100% Radar Dep only cancels 2.25s of Target Decay, or is that just a guess you're tossing out because the math looks nice?

[AzureRathalos]

An educated guess based on a research topic I found.

People were testing Decay vs. Derp and first found that Derp was subtracting time rather than instantly cutting off a lock.

I just took the value they had determined Derp to be (which was the normal target loss time) and divided it by five.

The exact times may not be entirely correct, but the concept on how Decay and Derp interact with each other and with targeting is correct.