Jump to content

Kanajashi's Spot-On Critique


25 replies to this topic

#1 The6thMessenger

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Nova Captain
  • Nova Captain
  • 8,045 posts
  • LocationFrom a distance in an Urbie with a HAG, delivering righteous fury to heretics.

Posted 25 January 2019 - 02:02 AM



Just linking the video here.

He got the problem of locking on point here.

#2 justcallme A S H

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • CS 2020 Referee
  • CS 2020 Referee
  • 8,987 posts
  • LocationMelbourne, AU

Posted 25 January 2019 - 06:06 AM

I kinda could see how this was going to go from the start with the comment of: I don't really play LRMs so I dont really care.

To me that sounded more like - I don't really understand the issue or the weapon system/balance so I'm just gonna waffle on and make a video anyway.

No surprise that's what happened.

Radar Derp - Fair enough about losing locks to a pole (although that doesn't actually happen). Yet there is no mention about Target Decay - which would ensure you maintain your lock. So either totally ignnores it or does not know/understand it.

Then we hear: Radar Derp doesn't cost anything. What? It costs skill points. Skill points are important. 16 points for 100% radar derp that, if there is a single mech spotting, is totally neutralised and a waste. You need hard cover, thats the only solution.

Then we come to the best part: Playing at high levels. People know it's hard to get locks? So they don't use missiles.
Again, what is that? Does he not watch any high skill player streams? Clearly not. Everyone has been LRMing to levels of insanity the past 6-12 months!!!!!

I turned the video off once the SHC stuff came on because a 1v1 sitaution in MWO is usually a 1% level occurence with 12 mechs on the field and thus the ability to maintain locks via a spotter, UAV, a friendly also exposing/firing or otherwise. Again neutralising the entire rant about Radar Derp.


It really seemed to me to be to be mainly opinion based on a lack of understanding of MWO gameplay.

Edited by justcallme A S H, 25 January 2019 - 06:08 AM.


#3 The6thMessenger

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Nova Captain
  • Nova Captain
  • 8,045 posts
  • LocationFrom a distance in an Urbie with a HAG, delivering righteous fury to heretics.

Posted 25 January 2019 - 06:25 AM

View Postjustcallme A S H, on 25 January 2019 - 06:06 AM, said:

Radar Derp - Fair enough about losing locks to a pole (although that doesn't actually happen). Yet there is no mention about Target Decay - which would ensure you maintain your lock. So either totally ignnores it or does not know/understand it.


That's really a watered down version of his concern. I mean sure, not a pole, but with covers actually prevalent, it's easy for lights and meds to go around cover after cover, perhaps other 80-95 KPH heavies as well. And once they're stalking across the battlefield, it's actually hard to nail them with an effective lock unless with UAVs, other spotters, or just flanked them out of their position.

I mean check out 15:33 of his video.

Yes it's a cockblock on most other weapons too, but it's not like you could trade with LRMs that well, i mean that's an extra second of locking for homing weapons to be effective (because dumbfiring with LRMs is mostly only workable on mechs standing still or with a great amount of lead and i-dare-say a considerable amount of luck), the same time it takes for IS lasers to finish a burn but not enough time to launch LRMs that will home (and forget about even landing).

Even the longest laser-burn which is at 1.55s, with 190 m/s LRM velocity is just 294.5 meters, which means that an enemy shooting an HLL at you at 400 meters away would still have 105.5 meters of berth to dodge, or 0.5552 seconds of window of time and that is assuming that the LRM boat could launch the missiles exactly when the HLL burn started, now add in the fact you could have 1.00s of lock-time before you could launch LRMs that would home, that is 1.5552 seconds of window-of-time which is basically a second HLL burn.

As for the Target-Decay, i honestly don't know how it works with Radar-Derp. I assume it's basically multiplicative, that despite having 5 levels of it, the target is lost anyways with 100%. Unless of course it's unaffected by Radar-Derp, which i really couldn't tell, since I don't know the skills of my enemies.

View Postjustcallme A S H, on 25 January 2019 - 06:06 AM, said:

Then we hear: Radar Derp doesn't cost anything. What? It costs skill points. Skill points are important. 16 points for 100% radar derp that, if there is a single mech spotting, is totally neutralised and a waste. You need hard cover, thats the only solution.


Dedicated spotters are a rare-breed in QP, not to mention that hard-cover isn't really that hard to find in the game, only in certain maps.

"Nothing", perhaps that's a misplaced generalization, he specified tonnage, critical slots, and "combat performance (11:28), he did admitted that it's in skill-tree. Unlike tonnage, skills are more of fine-tuning your builds performance, it's unlike crit-slots or tonnage that could make or break a build, that you need to sacrifice a ton of ammo, a DHS, or something else -- if Radar-Derp costs 1-slot and 0.5 tons, what do you think will happen?

Skills are far more flexible to have or have-not, compared to mechs. Case and point, you can have the similar skill-build on a Laser-Boat locust to other laser-boats in the game, but it's highly likely that the locust couldn't boat what a Hunchback-P could boat (as in 9 MLs).

Nitpicking what "nothing" means instead of actually hearing what he said doesn't exactly help.

Considering that's still a massive block for LRMs, 16 skill-points is hardly a sacrifice to be nigh-untouchable by most LRMs saved for people who actually knows how to position themselves, it only harms the min-maxer, but otherwise the remaining 75 points of skills is still workable at least.

Even if it's not 100%, it still a worthy investment at a few points alone, the lock might not be instantly gone but it's a hell of a lot faster anyways and still makes it difficult for the LRM user against me to some degrees. Hell, by default everyone of my mech have at least two points of Radar-Derp, or 7 skill-points, I found that 100% Radar-Derp is overkill anyways, since i have enough positioning skills to compensate.

View Postjustcallme A S H, on 25 January 2019 - 06:06 AM, said:

I turned the video off once the SHC stuff came on because a 1v1 sitaution in MWO is usually a 1% level occurence with 12 mechs on the field and thus the ability to maintain locks via a spotter, UAV, a friendly also exposing/firing or otherwise. Again neutralising the entire rant about Radar Derp.


I don't think you quite grasp the point of the 1v1 with the shadow-cat, the 1v1 is barely even the point, rather he highlighted how easy it is to lose a lock both from the perspective of one being targeted, and the one launching LRMs, the 1v1 component of it is hardly anything to do with the point he's making. And if anything, you do have to provide a bit of attention as if a 1v1 to an enemy to land your LRMs, it's not like you could just switch targets and the previously launched LRMs meant for another would go to the other mech you just locked, and this could be problematic.

It's true that the team could spot for you, and having 11 others would make it easier to find locks, problem is that, unless with a dedicated spotter, narcer, limited UAV, with trading chances are they won't have enough time to give a reliable lock for you to launch and land an LRM volley so they themselves won't be isolated from enemy-fire.

I suppose that if you can't lock one mech, you move on to another mech, but it still highlights the problem, that you could just easily break locks that render LRMs to be quite trivial, even on polar-highlands.

Granted not every fight is a firing-line, in fact I usually lurm from the flank and where they usually don't see it coming, pretty much with other pokes. But I try to get my own locks than rely on my teams', in which allied locks wouldn't be less of a factor.

Edited by The6thMessenger, 26 January 2019 - 05:06 PM.


#4 Tesunie

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Seeker
  • The Seeker
  • 8,575 posts
  • LocationSeraphim HQ: Asuncion

Posted 25 January 2019 - 08:54 AM

View Postjustcallme A S H, on 25 January 2019 - 06:06 AM, said:

Radar Derp - Fair enough about losing locks to a pole (although that doesn't actually happen). Yet there is no mention about Target Decay - which would ensure you maintain your lock. So either totally ignnores it or does not know/understand it.


Actually, from everything I've experienced, Radar Deprivation is more powerful than Adv. Target Decay.

Since it's inspection, once you got maxed Deprivation, it completely cuts off locks as soon as you get into cover (100% deprivation). That's 100% even with Adv Target Decay going into effect.

I can tell when someone has placed skills into RD as I'll instantly lose locks with my LRMs even though I have maxed ATD skills unlocked.

Even though I've been told it's a direct counter from one to another and that one is not suppose to exceed the other (AKA: Max RD vs max ATD are suppose to leave you with normal locking decay times) it does not. RD, when maxed, still will instantly cut locks as soon as line of sight is broken. It's happened to me many many times, especially before the new skill tree when RD was the go to module at the time...

I can comment as well, that I've had small cables obstruct enough of a target that the lock flickered in and out, or just wouldn't let me get a lock, while we could still trade direct fire weapons. The cable/obstruction just has to cover a certain portion of the target's torso for it to block locks, even if you can still see a large portion of the enemy mech. (Though, I do have to admit this was on old Therma with the wire suspension bridges, where the cables holding the bridge up could and did often block locks. As this map is no longer in rotation, it really hasn't been much of an issue, on top of the fact that most people no longer invest into RD anymore.)


Can't say I've watch the video (as I haven't), but the rest of your technical points appear spot on.



On note of "return fire times", LRMs are a utility weapon that can fire indirectly and homes in on targets. The weakness to those strengths are a lack of control of where the damage will land as well as slightly slower response times to immediate threats (missile lock time delays). That is the cost of homing indirect weapons, which has it's own strengths as well.

LRMs are a rather complex system, with a lot of information, details and equipment that interacts with it. If you've not invested the time to actually learn LRMs and only use them in the more basic sensibilities of the system, it's easy to miss out on the whole of the picture.

#5 0Jiggs0

    Member

  • PipPipPip
  • 53 posts

Posted 25 January 2019 - 08:15 PM

The "hard to hold locks" point is moot. LRMs that travel past their minimum range will damage whatever they happen to hit, locked target or no. With the PTS flight path change, dumb-fired LRMs fly similar to SRMs, so using them in a similar capacity should be feasible. Leading the target well and keeping it out of minimum range would be mandatory of course, but waiting for a lock would not be.

#6 The6thMessenger

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Nova Captain
  • Nova Captain
  • 8,045 posts
  • LocationFrom a distance in an Urbie with a HAG, delivering righteous fury to heretics.

Posted 25 January 2019 - 10:43 PM

View Post0Jiggs0, on 25 January 2019 - 08:15 PM, said:

The "hard to hold locks" point is moot. LRMs that travel past their minimum range will damage whatever they happen to hit, locked target or no. With the PTS flight path change, dumb-fired LRMs fly similar to SRMs, so using them in a similar capacity should be feasible. Leading the target well and keeping it out of minimum range would be mandatory of course, but waiting for a lock would not be.


Are you suggesting that just because they have better Direct-Fire, now they are legitimately usable for dumfiring, like SRM?

You do realize that SRMs have 400 m/s projectile right? Which means at their range which is at 270m, it would at best take 0.675s window time to dodge, or at least put a lead.

The LRM would now have 175 m/s, and for the same amount of time of 0.675s, the LRMs effectively could only travel 118.125 meters, and that's not even past their minimum range.

NOTE: PGI actually have a velocity multiplier, because their speed takes account of the arc, so the 175m/s is actually the horizontal speed without taking account of the arc.

Now assuming the MRMs as well, they have 475m/s speed, at 550m, assuming you could hit the missiles that far effectively at all while you skirt the farthest effective range, you have have at least 1.1578s of travel time and you have to account for that lead. For the same duration, the LRMs could only reach 202 meters.

The problem with LRMs and why they are ought to be homed isn't because of the angle (though it's kinda needed for IDF), rather it's the abhorrent projectile speed for the distance it is actually supposed to be effective, hell, it's even a convention that best distance LRMs are used are at 400m, and that is because even if they are homing they take too much time to land.

Now take away the homing part, such as dumb-firing, that is why LRMs are abhorrent at it, when they are already bad at landing WITH homing.

No man, they are not feasible, they are highly situational.

Edited by The6thMessenger, 26 January 2019 - 05:38 AM.


#7 General Solo

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • 3,625 posts

Posted 26 January 2019 - 05:23 AM

I don't think a weapon that aims for you**,
Should be good all the time in every situation and against every weapon or opponent all the time.

Lerms are fine, maybe the guy on the video needs Lerm support equipment - tag , narc

And if people have troubles leaching locks from team mates.
Well its probably because their team mates are already dead, coz they were dumb.
Dumb for getting locks for some lerm leach instead of using said leach as a meat shield.

**(OK getting Locks is kinda aiming-sadly people still bad at it, )

Edited by OZHomerOZ, 26 January 2019 - 05:29 AM.


#8 Reno Blade

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Blade
  • The Blade
  • 3,456 posts
  • LocationGermany

Posted 26 January 2019 - 06:04 AM

I agree on one major point in Kanajashi's video (around the end):
- Information Warfare differences for different sized mechs is lacking.

Scrapping the Information Warfare implementation of the PTS3 (back then, 2015/16 i think) was the biggest disappointment and biggest lost opportunity to make things like LRM, targeting, spotting, scouting have a real impact in gameplay and mech choice!

#9 Y E O N N E

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Nimble
  • The Nimble
  • 16,810 posts

Posted 26 January 2019 - 12:00 PM

Spot-on-critique*

*Hits with 95% certainty within 300 meter radius

#10 0Jiggs0

    Member

  • PipPipPip
  • 53 posts

Posted 26 January 2019 - 02:01 PM

View PostThe6thMessenger, on 25 January 2019 - 10:43 PM, said:


Are you suggesting that just because they have better Direct-Fire, now they are legitimately usable for dumfiring, like SRM?



Yes, I am. But just so we're clear, I never stated they could do the same job equally well. I would only expect unlocked LRMs to land consistently against slow-movers or mechs that are immobilized somehow (legged, chokepoints, stuck on terrain, etc.), and LRMs fired with a lock would always perform better in those circumstances. The intent of my post was to highlight an option that did not exist before, and any assertions beyond that are misconstrued.

#11 The6thMessenger

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Nova Captain
  • Nova Captain
  • 8,045 posts
  • LocationFrom a distance in an Urbie with a HAG, delivering righteous fury to heretics.

Posted 26 January 2019 - 04:22 PM

View Post0Jiggs0, on 26 January 2019 - 02:01 PM, said:

Yes, I am. But just so we're clear, I never stated they could do the same job equally well.

I would only expect unlocked LRMs to land consistently against slow-movers or mechs that are immobilized somehow (legged, chokepoints, stuck on terrain, etc.), and LRMs fired with a lock would always perform better in those circumstances.


You mean like the current dumbfire of LRMs right now? Yes, the current Dumb-Fired LRMs could actually hit stationary targets.

And if they aren't closing in, why would you find yourself in a situation where you are so close you "could" dumb-fire them "effectively"? You should be maintaining an adequate distance, so much so that the comparison you did with SRMs shouldn't be coming up.

View Post0Jiggs0, on 26 January 2019 - 02:01 PM, said:

The intent of my post was to highlight an option that did not exist before, and any assertions beyond that are misconstrued.


No man, the option exists even before, it's only a bit better granted, but it's still practically useless you might as well get a lock, or an actual set of SRMs for backup.

View PostY E O N N E, on 26 January 2019 - 12:00 PM, said:

Spot-on-critique*

*Hits with 95% certainty within 300 meter radius


Well, he did hit something.

He did highlighted certain concerns quite well, like the locking systems. He did demonstrated that locks can be flimsy with radar-deprivation cause they can be easy to break locks (highlighted with the 15:11 mark of the video), which is a complete disservice to LRMs.

ASH is quick to dismiss that 1v1 part, if he only knew that it's not about the 1v1 itself, but to demonstrate the ease of breaking locks. And sure, on 12v12, there's other targets, but trying to land a volley of LRMs would mean an attention somewhat like that of 1v1, i mean you can't just launch one volley to one mech and then lock another, that would mean that the volley you previously launched won't home and thereby land.

Flimsy locks isn't going to be that of a problem when you have spotters sure and undoubtedly the low-angle lock is a big help for lurmers that peek time to time to get their DF weapons a whirl. But isn't that the angle-lock is supposed to encourage DF use, which includes getting your own locks? Once you're getting to "spotters" argument, it somewhat defeats the point of the PTS change, (lower angle is still a net-buff I'm sure, but as Kroete said it won't do a thing versus the hiders).

LRMs needs to have better lock acquisition and retention if it were to be adequate on it's own and go toe-to-toe somewhat versus other DF weapons, as opposed of being parasitic as we generally frowned with it.

Edited by The6thMessenger, 26 January 2019 - 05:00 PM.


#12 justcallme A S H

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • CS 2020 Referee
  • CS 2020 Referee
  • 8,987 posts
  • LocationMelbourne, AU

Posted 28 January 2019 - 04:23 PM

View PostThe6thMessenger, on 26 January 2019 - 04:22 PM, said:

ASH is quick to dismiss that 1v1 part, if he only knew that it's not about the 1v1 itself, but to demonstrate the ease of breaking locks. And sure, on 12v12, there's other targets, but trying to land a volley of LRMs would mean an attention somewhat like that of 1v1, i mean you can't just launch one volley to one mech and then lock another, that would mean that the volley you previously launched won't home and thereby land.


Of course I am. It is not representative of normal gameplay in a 12v12 environment what-so-ever.

To use that as a basis for a argument is just plain wrong and one dimensional. Like many of his videos which spout incorrect information or quite simply an opinion that is, largely, wrong.

Why would anyone change locks if you have a solid one, which you do in just about every QP game.

I see targets with radar derp out there all the time. I know which ones they are as it's easy to spot. Does it save them in normal 12 v 12 gameplay? Not even close to what this video suggests it does.

#13 The6thMessenger

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Nova Captain
  • Nova Captain
  • 8,045 posts
  • LocationFrom a distance in an Urbie with a HAG, delivering righteous fury to heretics.

Posted 28 January 2019 - 05:02 PM

View Postjustcallme A S H, on 28 January 2019 - 04:23 PM, said:

Like many of his videos which spout incorrect information or quite simply an opinion that is, largely, wrong.


Whether it's incorrect or not, that's what our critical thinking is put to use. But enough about that.

What do you have against him? I mean this sounds more like you having an issue with him as a person, than what he said, which explains more why are you quick to dismiss than deal with what he said. I mean what the **** does his other videos have anything to do with right now? Our topic is about the PTS LRMs, and he is specifically critiquing the information warfare.

Could we just ******* not?

View Postjustcallme A S H, on 28 January 2019 - 04:23 PM, said:

Of course I am. It is not representative of normal gameplay in a 12v12 environment what-so-ever. To use that as a basis for a argument is just plain wrong and one dimensional.


Oh it's not a testament to the LRM's potential, sure, because you can always just find better targets to deal with. It's only wrong and one-dimensional to judge LRM's capacity to contribute to the team.

What is it representational is how flimsy the lock can be, and how hard it is. And again, trying to land a volley would mean a lot of attention, it's not like you just deal damage instantly when you're in range and have LOS, you need constant to devote constant attention cause LRMs are just slow for their range and there's a lot that could happen in between.

12-v-12 only increases the wealth of the target, which also increases the availability of potential damage. Still, I concede, there is such a thing as "spotting-assists", something the flankers or dedicated spotters can do, and quite possibly focus-firing in a coordinated team.

But once you're dealing with one, the "12-v-12 argument" becomes somewhat irrelevant, because what he is describing in that 1v1 is what happens in between the Targets and the Launcher with live perspective on both, which would have been consistent mechanically with 12v12 because you would have dealt with the same hurdles in between anyways, just as the spotters would have to deal with Radar-Derp. Regardless of one target, or another target -- there is still that flimsy lock you have to deal with, and when you're lurming you just gotta find the less flimsy lock of all.

Take account of the enemy doing positioning and cover right, while not exactly always happening on QP, it's not exactly a plus to the LRMs if it only works well with people's mistakes. Didn't we got pounded with LRMs to learn positioning at Tiers 4 and 5? LRM users have that to work against with on higher tiers.

And now lets put that into context of the PTS, as in the PTS which supposedly encourages the use of LRMs in DF and for us to get our own locks. If there's someone's spotting for the LRM user, that somewhat defeats the point of getting our own locks, the DF low-angle flight is only relegated to less time to target -- time you have plenty of when someone's spotting for you -- and being able to fit to small spaces.

View Postjustcallme A S H, on 28 January 2019 - 04:23 PM, said:

Why would anyone change locks if you have a solid one, which you do in just about every QP game.


Because it's not a solid-lock. Likewise, possibly, there's hard cover in-between, or AMS in your way.

View Postjustcallme A S H, on 28 January 2019 - 04:23 PM, said:

I see targets with radar derp out there all the time. I know which ones they are as it's easy to spot. Does it save them in normal 12 v 12 gameplay?

Not even close to what this video suggests it does.


Well, LRMs have LOTS of missiles, quite simply they compensate with poor hit-rate, with a lot of missiles to match, isn't that the point in the first place? That small hits compound into large ones?

Likewise, it's not that Radar-Derp makes people impossible to touch with LRMs, rather it's hard for the Lurmer to touch everyone else once it's in effect. Or at least that what it sounded to me.

And then there's ALSO an issue of OTHER builds they have to deal with that doesn't need a lock to actually hit the target, it's not like everyone just brings LRMs, disregarding the part where there's maps that LRMs are actually either easy to use or hard to use.

So this specific part of your argument, isn't just everywhere, it's also not even tacking what Kanajashi said with nuance.

Edited by The6thMessenger, 28 January 2019 - 05:44 PM.


#14 Void Angel

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Marauder
  • The Marauder
  • 6,573 posts
  • LocationParanoiaville

Posted 28 January 2019 - 07:41 PM

View PostTesunie, on 25 January 2019 - 08:54 AM, said:


Actually, from everything I've experienced, Radar Deprivation is more powerful than Adv. Target Decay.

Since it's inception, once you got maxed Deprivation, it completely cuts off locks as soon as you get into cover (100% deprivation). That's 100% even with Adv Target Decay going into effect.


I haven't tested it in the skill tree, but in the module days they stacked additively - so you still got the extra from Advanced Target Decay. It should still stack additively, but then, so should Cooldown reduction, so it very well may not. >(

#15 Tesunie

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Seeker
  • The Seeker
  • 8,575 posts
  • LocationSeraphim HQ: Asuncion

Posted 28 January 2019 - 09:22 PM

View PostVoid Angel, on 28 January 2019 - 07:41 PM, said:

I haven't tested it in the skill tree, but in the module days they stacked additively - so you still got the extra from Advanced Target Decay. It should still stack additively, but then, so should Cooldown reduction, so it very well may not. >(


As I experienced back in the module days, I had many targets flicker in and out of lock, sometimes for little apparent reason other than the game decided that I shouldn't have a lock on a target with completely no cover. Anyway, back in the module days, I always brought ATD on my missile mechs (as is reasonable). Even with ATD, I still could tell those with maxed RD, as I would instantly (100% lock drop is always 100%) lose lock as soon as I lost sight of said target, as though ATD wasn't equipped.

I will add, I was told on the forums that it should not be showing that kind of behavior, and it should act as you have described (where ATD and RD cancel each other out producing normal target decay). I'm just saying that what I have clearly experienced in the past (it's harder to tell now, as fewer people take maxed RD) did not match the provided description of how it was suppose to operate. As it is now, I can tell very easily when someone is running maxed RD, and I still run my LRMs with max ATD, and I still lose locks instantly upon those players. (And before anyone asks, no. ECM was not in effect in these cases...)

I'm merely posting that my experience does not match the provided description of what is "suppose" to happen. My experience was also not a "this happened once", but "this happened consistently every time these situations occurred without fail".

Edit: Grammar issues and general typos.

Edited by Tesunie, 28 January 2019 - 10:52 PM.


#16 Reno Blade

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Blade
  • The Blade
  • 3,456 posts
  • LocationGermany

Posted 29 January 2019 - 01:11 AM

Regarding

View PostVoid Angel, on 28 January 2019 - 07:41 PM, said:

I haven't tested it in the skill tree, but in the module days they stacked additively - so you still got the extra from Advanced Target Decay. It should still stack additively, but then, so should Cooldown reduction, so it very well may not. >(

Afaik: The Modules were additive (+/- seconds), but the skills now are not for Radar Deprivation.

As stated on the RD skills, they give 20% each. This completely removes the lock instantly when breaking LoS with 5/5 skills (100% RD).

I would prefere the previous version of having additive seconds, because that way you can "counter" this with Target Decay.

Having Information Warfare with different target profile and sensor strengths would make this mechanic and the RD/TD skills much more interesting... sigh

#17 The6thMessenger

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Nova Captain
  • Nova Captain
  • 8,045 posts
  • LocationFrom a distance in an Urbie with a HAG, delivering righteous fury to heretics.

Posted 29 January 2019 - 02:11 AM

View PostReno Blade, on 29 January 2019 - 01:11 AM, said:

Regarding

Afaik: The Modules were additive (+/- seconds), but the skills now are not for Radar Deprivation.

As stated on the RD skills, they give 20% each. This completely removes the lock instantly when breaking LoS with 5/5 skills (100% RD).

I would prefere the previous version of having additive seconds, because that way you can "counter" this with Target Decay.

Having Information Warfare with different target profile and sensor strengths would make this mechanic and the RD/TD skills much more interesting... sigh


The RD doing % seemed to me that it does affect the TD, cause after all, percent.

PGI should have at least made it flat, like if Decay time is 1.00s, then -0.2s could be counteracted by the +0.3s of the TD.

But it just seems to be not the case.

Edited by The6thMessenger, 29 January 2019 - 02:12 AM.


#18 Void Angel

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Marauder
  • The Marauder
  • 6,573 posts
  • LocationParanoiaville

Posted 29 January 2019 - 05:57 PM

Well, it's generally better to have stuff normalized for returns, rather than for percentages - but that's not always intuitive to people. Damage reduction percentages in MMORPGs come to mind.

A lot of players would mistakenly assume that armor "wasn't as good" as you added more of if, because the % of damage reduction gained per point of armor decreased with higher armor values. What was really happening was that your % reduction was scaled on a curve so that any given point of armor added would add the same amount of time to kill. Meaning, just in case this is unfamiliar to someone in the audience, that if you doubled your armor class, it would take twice as long to kill you at any given rate of DPS.

So the proper way to scale Target Decay is to increase or decrease the duration that an acquiring unit can hold target locks, but unfortunately this is not the case (cooldown reduction is also off, though the difference is minor there.) At least, I think so; but alas, I was Not Consulted. Posted Image

Edited by Void Angel, 29 January 2019 - 05:57 PM.


#19 The6thMessenger

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Nova Captain
  • Nova Captain
  • 8,045 posts
  • LocationFrom a distance in an Urbie with a HAG, delivering righteous fury to heretics.

Posted 29 January 2019 - 07:27 PM

View PostVoid Angel, on 29 January 2019 - 05:57 PM, said:

Well, it's generally better to have stuff normalized for returns, rather than for percentages - but that's not always intuitive to people. Damage reduction percentages in MMORPGs come to mind.

A lot of players would mistakenly assume that armor "wasn't as good" as you added more of if, because the % of damage reduction gained per point of armor decreased with higher armor values. What was really happening was that your % reduction was scaled on a curve so that any given point of armor added would add the same amount of time to kill. Meaning, just in case this is unfamiliar to someone in the audience, that if you doubled your armor class, it would take twice as long to kill you at any given rate of DPS.

So the proper way to scale Target Decay is to increase or decrease the duration that an acquiring unit can hold target locks, but unfortunately this is not the case (cooldown reduction is also off, though the difference is minor there.) At least, I think so; but alas, I was Not Consulted. Posted Image


Kinda like Putting some point in the survivability tree for armor and structure seem pointless to me.

#20 Khobai

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Elite Founder
  • Elite Founder
  • 23,969 posts

Posted 30 January 2019 - 12:25 PM

radar derp and ecm stealth should just be removed from the game. even AMS is arguably too good at countering LRMs for its tonnage.

LRMs are crippled enough on their own without needing additional ways to counter them.

View Postjustcallme A S H, on 25 January 2019 - 06:06 AM, said:

Then we hear: Radar Derp doesn't cost anything. What? It costs skill points. Skill points are important. 16 points for 100% radar derp that, if there is a single mech spotting, is totally neutralised and a waste. You need hard cover, thats the only solution.


the problem is LRMs are bad even before people start taking radar derp and ECM. Its simply not necessary for skills/equipment to exist in the game that makes bad weapons even worse.

also regardless of how many skill points I spend I cant counter other weapons like lasers or ballistics. Why are LRMs the only weapon thats singled out in that regard? that just puts LRMs at even more of an inherent disadvantage to other weapons for no good reason. LRMs arnt good weapons theres no reason they need so many ways to counter them.

whats actually needed is a tutorial on how LRMs work and how to dodge LRMs. PGI never added that. So they keep LRMs in a perpetually crippled state because theyre afraid new players wont be able to deal with them when their own tutorial completely fails to teach anything about them. amazing PGI. truly.

Edited by Khobai, 30 January 2019 - 12:39 PM.






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users