190 replies to this topic

[TheRulesLawyer]

FWIW we can't change crits or tons. That would screw with way too many canon designs. Best place to address balance is in places not explicitly covered by the TROs.

[Nik Van Rhijn]

Which can be done when we get to play in Beta

[Victor Morson]

Karl Streiger, on 15 March 2012 - 05:02 AM, said:

Stop talking about reducing weight of light and medium AC's - they are fine as they are. Even in MW4 the AC5 was my fav weapon. It may be true that you are able to inflict serious damage to a light mech with a single ppc hit - but first you have to hit, second you need secondary armament like SRMs to finish it of - while the PPC is recharging. The AC5 is able to keep firing.

While RAC/5 were very good weapons in MW4, the standard AC5 was horrendous; even if you were able to make it work, a design without it would always be better in every way; even when you are talking about the Ultra this was the case. Simply put you could mount Gauss, ER lasers, X-Pulse, etc. and basically achieve similar results. If you're just worried about the finishing blow, a 'mech with PPCs and an LRM or XPLs handled that fine without the terrible drawbacks.

It's just a design that might have worked fighting public deathmatches but you'd never see it in League 1-life play.

Karl Streiger, on 15 March 2012 - 05:02 AM, said:

For example i have a Vindicator ...with a arm armor of 14 points. I need 3 shots to deal critical damage with a AC5 and 2 shots with a ppc...
In normal TT the AC 5 may be a bad choice, but in solaris games or in all current MW games the higher rate of AC 5 made it superior. I have shot of the Arm of the vindicator with the AC 5 while the PPC is still recharging for the second shot.

Balancing AC/5s around Solaris rules would be very interesting. Indeed, if you were able to fire an AC/5 that inflicts half the damage of a PPC per shot 3 times in the space of a single PPC recycle, it'd be extremely effective - possibly too much so.

Karl Streiger, on 15 March 2012 - 05:02 AM, said:

A higher rate of fire allow you to suppress a enemy - it allows you to hit faster mechs - you don't aim seconds till you are sure to land a hit after there is a new round in the chamber you hit the trigger.

The Grand Dragon or Zeus 6T while superior to their AC 5 armed brothers in normal TT games have a hard time with a smaller time scale.

If you are talking upgrading the AC/2 and AC/5 to fire so rapidly that they inflict 3-6 shots per time of cycling a single PPC while retaining their per-shot damage, then yes, they'd be effective weapons (in particular if cockpit rock was included). This would effectively turn them into the same niche as the RAC/2 and RAC/5 in MW4, which were very solid weapons - and a long ways off in the MWO timeline, so I would be alright with that.

So far all of the games that have increased AC ROF (MW2, MW4, MWLL) have also reduced the damage-per-shot to make their DPS roughly comparable to TT, meaning shots against 'mechs do very little damage despite the nearly automatic rate of fire. It would be interesting to see them retain their damage and make ammunition issues their drawback; the flip side being that UAC2/5 would likely become among the top-tier weapons in the game.

Edited by Victor Morson, 15 March 2012 - 10:57 AM.

[Orzorn]

Victor Morson, on 15 March 2012 - 10:55 AM, said:

It would be interesting to see them retain their damage and make ammunition issues their drawback; the flip side being that UAC2/5 would likely become among the top-tier weapons in the game.

I don't quite agree with that statement. Ammunition issues mean you have to stack up more ammo (or make great use of the amount that you do have), meaning you've got more juicy crits to have explode. So, while the weapon would compete with the heat-generating PPC, it would both suffer from ammo issues and have greater chance of ammo explosions. So, I suppose I do agree that they would be high tier weapons, but they would not have that position without some sort of danger.

I think that's fair trade.

[Outlaw2]

AC 2 and 5 sucked in MW4. You didn't play long enough if you really don't think this was the case.

I would hesitate altering their tonnage or crits since that affects the mechlab, and thats an area you want to avoid. Alter stats that have nothing to do with the mechlab: damage, ROF, heat, ammo amount, projectile velocity and arc, ect...This is a much safer route. Up these stats slowly until the AC2/5 are worth their tonnage.

Will weapons have differing convergence rates I wonder? If they do, what if the AC2 and AC5 had extremely fast convergence rates when targeting something within their "ideal range"...say 70-90% of their max effective range. They might not do a lot of raw damage, but they'll do more accurate damage at range.

Edited by =Outlaw=, 15 March 2012 - 05:13 PM.

[anglomanii]

i think we are also forgeting that MWO will have to deal with initial purchase, upkeep costs and maintenance costs. AC's are i would think rather low tech, hence easier and cheaper to maintain and find or make replacement parts, energy weapons may prove troublesome in these area's. and while energy weapons may not have to worry so much about ammo, parts will be damaged and wear out, from what i remember of BT cannon a side point to AC ammo is that even in caseless form KE munitions are fundamentally easier to produce and maintain than most energy systems.

[SnowDragon]

Oh noes! My AC2/5 broke! I'll just go to SpaceIKEA and get a new flatpack.

It'll extremely cheap to maintain and cheap to reload.

[Outlaw2]

anglomanii, on 15 March 2012 - 02:42 PM, said:

i think we are also forgeting that MWO will have to deal with initial purchase, upkeep costs and maintenance costs. AC's are i would think rather low tech, hence easier and cheaper to maintain and find or make replacement parts, energy weapons may prove troublesome in these area's. and while energy weapons may not have to worry so much about ammo, parts will be damaged and wear out, from what i remember of BT cannon a side point to AC ammo is that even in caseless form KE munitions are fundamentally easier to produce and maintain than most energy systems.

While this may prove useful while youre grinding and farming, it will mean little when playing in a competitive match that has a planet on the line. If you simply use out of game costs to balance the ACs in game, then you will hardly see them in competitive matches.

Of course with a BV system, AC2/5 could contribute a low BV to the mech, thus negating its crapiness.

Edited by =Outlaw=, 15 March 2012 - 03:03 PM.

[Pht]

Ac2s in the current timeframe of MWO are good weapons.

Later they will be useful due to their unique access to ammo types that other AC's simply cannot use.

If there is economy in the game, they should also be cheap. they should also be easy to find and replace out of battlefield leftovers.

They'll also be useful if they manage to get the penetrating hits system from the parent game into the video game.

They're not all that bad.

----


That aside, what is with this kneejerk reaction that all weapons must be "equal in being useful?"

How is that even valid?

[Outlaw2]

Pht, on 15 March 2012 - 05:09 PM, said:

That aside, what is with this kneejerk reaction that all weapons must be "equal in being useful?"

How is that even valid?

You mean having all weapons be viable options in competitive matches?
Is it not valid to have more diversity in gameplay?
Is it valid to be restricted to a narrow strip of the games content in order to be competitive?

Edited by =Outlaw=, 15 March 2012 - 05:18 PM.

[Pht]

=Outlaw=, on 15 March 2012 - 05:15 PM, said:

You mean having all weapons be viable options in competitive matches?

I can't think of a single weapon in the BTU that isn't a viable option in some competitive match or the other that could be realistically expected to occur.

Quote

Is it not valid to have more diversity in gameplay?
Is it valid to be restricted to a narrow strip of the games content in order to be competitive?

Red herrings.

[Victor Morson]

Pht, on 15 March 2012 - 05:09 PM, said:

Ac2s in the current timeframe of MWO are good weapons.

Even in 3025 AC2s were not good weapons. Niche, but generally terrible - you were almost always better off with PPCs or LRMs.

In 3049, Gauss is available. So most positively they, if they remain like they have been in past games or canon, are not good.

Pht, on 15 March 2012 - 05:37 PM, said:

I can't think of a single weapon in the BTU that isn't a viable option in some competitive match or the other that could be realistically expected to occur.

I can think of 2: AC2s and AC5s. Why they're being talked about here. They're outright terrible and result in the Dragon having the poorest tournament record out there back in CBT's prime days until the Grand Dragon came along.

Edited by Victor Morson, 15 March 2012 - 06:21 PM.

[Pht]

Victor Morson, on 15 March 2012 - 06:19 PM, said:

Even in 3025 AC2s were not good weapons. Niche, but generally terrible - you were almost always better off with PPCs or LRMs.

AC2s are not there to kill things; they're there to hit at extremely long ranges with ballistic damage and "find crits," and they do that quite well at peppering people to soften them up before they can get to you.

Every weapon does not need to be able to put down targets with extreme prejudice to be called "useful."

I still do not understand why people say they value diversity when everyone whines about how weapon (insert whatever here) can't kill stuff like a (insert massively damaging weapon here).

[Victor Morson]

Pht, on 15 March 2012 - 06:46 PM, said:

AC2s are not there to kill things; they're there to hit at extremely long ranges with ballistic damage and "find crits," and they do that quite well at peppering people to soften them up before they can get to you.

The fact that AC2s can be used for TAC finders (really just running away, cheesing shots and hoping that you get a 1 in 12 TAC on somebody, more or less) was addressed earlier; TACs will likely not be in this game, nor should they be.

Pht, on 15 March 2012 - 06:46 PM, said:

Every weapon does not need to be able to put down targets with extreme prejudice to be called "useful."

I still do not understand why people say they value diversity when everyone whines about how weapon (insert whatever here) can't kill stuff like a (insert massively damaging weapon here).

Because there is a difference between a niche weapon that fills a role and one that fills no role at all. AC2s and 5s fall into the later: They cannot do anything (at least as represented in past games and in CBT) that another weapon cannot do better. MechWarrior Living Legends got around this by giving them a purpose (anti-hovercraft, infantry, aircraft) that made then a viable weapon system despite being ineffective in 'mech combat.

Since we do not have those things in MWO, again, this isn't being upset because the weapon has a specialty role, but rather NO role. You are simply better off with LRMs, PPCs, Gauss, ER Large Lasers, or any slew of other weapon systems than an AC2 due to the low damage. It's hard to ignore "massively damaging weapons" when you can squeeze 15 times as much damage for same requirements, range be damned.

[Outlaw2]

Pht, on 15 March 2012 - 05:37 PM, said:

I can't think of a single weapon in the BTU that isn't a viable option in some competitive match or the other that could be realistically expected to occur.

Sorry but the reality is we are not talking about the nebulous "BTU". We are talking about the mechwarrior PC games, and in past mechwarrior games weapons that tried to adhere strictly to the TRO sometimes sucked because of it. Meet the AC2 and AC5.

Pht, on 15 March 2012 - 05:37 PM, said:

Red herrings.

Pot. Kettle. Black

Edited by =Outlaw=, 15 March 2012 - 07:40 PM.

[Pht]

Victor Morson, on 15 March 2012 - 07:26 PM, said:

The fact that AC2s can be used for TAC finders (really just running away, cheesing shots and hoping that you get a 1 in 12 TAC on somebody, more or less) was addressed earlier; TACs will likely not be in this game, nor should they be.

So, there should be no penetrating hits system, no way of damaging what's inside of a mech at all, until it's armor is fully stripped?

Quote

Because there is a difference between a niche weapon that fills a role and one that fills no role at all. AC2s and 5s fall into the later: They cannot do anything (at least as represented in past games and in CBT) that another weapon cannot do better.

Ac2's 5s, depending on the timeframe you're using them in, DO have a niche, of which I've already mentioned a few. If you disagree with them, you could actually list them and point out why they're not valid. In fact, this is a fairly ironic thing for you to be saying right after you point out that ac2s have a niche... in getting penetrating shots at long range...

Quote

Since we do not have those things in MWO, ...

You have the developers phone numbers or some such? How can you know what they're planning to eventually add?

Quote

...again, this isn't being upset because the weapon has a specialty role, but rather NO role.

You want a role that will fit what we could probably be called reasonable to expect to see in MWO at release? ... ok, long range damage on open maps in hot environments. LRMs, ppcs, ERLLs, and all the other weapons are going to be heat restricted, and not every mech out there can mount a gauss and even many of those that can cannot mount enough ammo to make the weapon useful.

Quote

It's hard to ignore "massively damaging weapons" when you can squeeze 15 times as much damage for same requirements, range be damned.

I guess damaging your opponents at extreme range doesn't count if it's not a knock-down shot, than? Nor any other factors beyond damage for weight/tonnage/heat... factors beyond those like cost, availability, and ammo types?

=Outlaw=, on 15 March 2012 - 07:39 PM, said:

Sorry but the reality is we are not talking about the nebulous "BTU". We are talking about the mechwarrior PC games,...

The BTU is not nebulous; it's all printed out and well known, and the MechWarrior video game genre, by definition, is all about the BTU.

Quote

"Way back when" some people decided it would be cool to "be" the MechWarrior themselves; and the most capable means they had at hand for suspending their disbelief for a bit of MW escapism were video games. This still applies to us today, in as far as there are still people who still understand what it is to "be" a MechWarrior and in that ... well, that's it's still, today, just as cool to simulate what it's like to be a MechWarrior in a video game format, maybe even more so due to the capabilities of gaming machines these days.

Just what does "MechWarrior" mean, by definition and in the context that it is used in?

"Mech" - In this case shorthand for BattleMech, an upright walking armed and armored combat unit from the Battletech Universe/Lore.

"Warrior" A person that makes war, usually by the means of combat.

So, "MechWarrior" means someone that pilots the aforementioned armored combat unit called a BattleMech in armed conflict.

Obviously, what follows, of necessity, from this definition and the motivation for making the MW video games in the first place is that an MW video game is a game built to simulate what it is like to pilot a BattleMech in combat, in such a manner as to give the player just enough suspension of disbelief so that they can have a good time by mentally "escaping reality" into the BTUniverse for a little while.

If a game claims to be a MechWarrior game but doesn't follow the above definition and pursue the above goal, it's not a MW game.

http://mwomercs.com/...post__p__107060

Saying that a MW video game has nothing to do with the BTU is fallacious (wrong).

Quote

Pot. Kettle. Black

Where have I been posting unrelated topics as if they were related to what's being discussed?

[Outlaw2]

Pht, on 15 March 2012 - 08:32 PM, said:

The BTU is not nebulous; it's all printed out and well known, and the MechWarrior video game genre, by definition, is all about the BTU.

Where have I been posting unrelated topics as if they were related to what's being discussed?

What part of BTU are you talking about? Thats pretty vague. Novels? TT? Mechwarrior? Mech Assault? Mech Warrior Tactics? They all handle BTU differently. Somethings don't translate one from the other. Be specific and don't derail discussion with kneejerk comments that "BTU" or "parent game" did everything right, just do it like that...you mean the TT. The Devs \ already said they won't copy/paste the TT, because again, somethings don't translate well. Im sure you noticed but the main reason we are all talking about this is so that the weapons are viable. Its on topic as you can get.

Edited by =Outlaw=, 15 March 2012 - 10:15 PM.

[Karl Streiger]

The AC 5 worked bad in the MW games?
In MW 2 the ACs where in general killing weapons, but the main problem was that you could hardly have enough ammunition. In MW-4 ammunition was never a problem even with the Heavy Gauss. There the AC 5 had the nice advantage to knock down the enemy aim its drawback was that it was hardly possible to kill a enemy with a clean headshot or in this case in a clean tripple shot - something that was possible in MW2 and MW3

Edited by Karl Streiger, 16 March 2012 - 02:14 AM.

[Pht]

=Outlaw=, on 15 March 2012 - 10:09 PM, said:

What part of BTU are you talking about?

http://www.sarna.net...Mech_Technology

There you go, the lion's share of it as directly relates to an MW video game. The link is in my signature on every one of my posts.

Quote

Thats pretty vague. Novels? TT? Mechwarrior? Mech Assault? Mech Warrior Tactics? They all handle BTU differently. Somethings don't translate one from the other.Be specific and don't derail discussion

I didn't derail anything.

You'd like specificity?

http://mwomercs.com/...post__p__107060

Another of my sig links.

Quote

with kneejerk comments that "BTU" or "parent game" did everything right, just do it like that...you mean the TT. The Devs \ already said they won't copy/paste the TT, because again, somethings don't translate well.

I can't see how you could possibly have any valid reason from anything I've posted in this thread to say that my comments were kneejerk.

I suspect you won't put in the time to wade through either of those links, and I bet that won't stop you from making comments that are wrong.

Edited by Pht, 15 March 2012 - 11:52 PM.

[Yeach]

Not a fan of the AC2. Sure you can plink people from far away, but all that does is give your position away.

AC5 needs a boost in range; it only has a 3 hex range advantage over the AC10. Need to at least give it the range of the regular PPC.
Tonnage and crits not withstanding, i don't think IMO the various ACs (compared to each) have been well balanced to each other.
If ACs damage goes up exponetially: 2 -> 5 -> 10 -> 20,
Range should have also have gone up exponentially (from larger ACs to smaller);
AC5 should have 4 times the range of the AC20 instead of the 2x it has now.

Edited by Yeach, 16 March 2012 - 01:04 AM.