32 replies to this topic

[Bishop Steiner]

Karl Streiger, on 11 March 2013 - 01:58 AM, said:

Sry...I know that I'm not polite now: But have you?
The PPC has a cool down of 3 rounds means in every 4th round the PPC can be fired means 1 shot per 10sec intervall.
The AC 5 and AC 10 have the same cool down...of firing every 2nd round - effective cooldown of 5secs

Same goes with every weapon - a much slower rate of fire.

The incredible high RoF and the stub of a heat system in MWO are a problem. That is a fact.
As Stromwolf mentioned it would be nice to be able to fire a weapon faster but only for the price of more heat.
For example your mech runs cool when you fire 3 PPCs each 10secs. But of course you can fire them every 5 seconds...but the heat burden has to disable your mech. (For example they produce for each second below the recommended fire rate 10% more heat)

Just curious, what was the ROF and Cooldowns in MW3? Anyone know? Cuz when I play it, I don't feel the combat is too slow, yet "Stock" models still are quite viable in the game. (And the biggest issues it had were jump snipers, and legging, not the actual weapons), and the heat system seems to work rather well overall.

Karl Streiger, on 11 March 2013 - 04:18 AM, said:

Well don't say that. Actually my Atlas is able to use its primary weapons for constant firing of 30secs. Enough damage to tear two assaults apart.

The Question i have quotet: was polite as it was right. - (none of those)


While rude I'm questioning your knowlege of Solaris VII rules. Because:
the slowest weapon cycle in MWO could be compared with the weapon cycle of 1 in Solaris...
AC 20 in MWO fires as fast as a AC 10 in Solaris
the PPC in MWO fires as fast as a AC 2 in Solaris
the fastest MWO weapon (without MG) is the AC 2 and its cycle time is 5times faster as it is in Solaris

true. But give MWO credit...it's the first Btech property to actually make the AC2 useful!

Karl Streiger, on 26 April 2013 - 04:34 AM, said:

Of course you have to modify the heat levels...

Alpha....
BAD THINGS HAPPEN
10sec waiting
Alpha
REALLY BAD THING HAVE HAPPEND
Now you are dead

So you have to carefully watch at your heat levels.... and consider you didn't alpha striked....and you opponent did...could you immagine how he feels when you are carefully aiming and place each shot for another in the target,

---

But I'm still asking myself how the topic could have appeard after nearly 2 Months... and i knew that Livewyr posted after the topic appeard at page one.......

topics seem to surface and top randomly, I have noticed in the new format. I have seen stuff that has not been commented on in days at the top

Joseph Mallan, on 26 April 2013 - 04:44 AM, said:

TT Cool down wasn't as long as the fluff said it was. Heat sinks need to vent faster. 5 seconds would be fast enough. You can fire at better cyclics and still worry about overheating cause the weapons cycle just a bit faster. These are by far the crappiest war machines I have ever seen.

Naw the crappiest would be if a 31st century War machine had to wait ten seconds to fire a canon a 20th century tank fired every 2-3 seconds.

[Joseph Mallan]

Bishop Steiner, on 26 April 2013 - 04:58 AM, said:

true. But give MWO credit...it's the first Btech property to actually make the AC2 useful!

Naw the crappiest would be if a 31st century War machine had to wait ten seconds to fire a canon a 20th century tank fired every 2-3 seconds.

To useful if you ask me, but it is nice to see!

If you are talking about the Abrams' main gun then it is every 6-8 seconds (8-12 rounds a minute)

[jay35]

kiltymonroe, on 10 March 2013 - 07:46 AM, said:

A turn in TT represents 10 seconds, so everything would have a 10 second cooldown. Which is dumb as hell.

This. Also, compared to other fps games and other "simulators", your mech survives quite well as it is now. The only way it doesn't is if you get shot in the cockpit. for obvious reasons. Most other games, you walk out in the open, you get put down fast.
Most casual players, which PGI is clearly desperate to attract, are going to be used to that from the other games they play, so the current durability of mechs is more than enough. What would really turn them off, though, would be if they slowed the gameplay down even further.

[Joseph Mallan]

jay35, on 26 April 2013 - 05:06 AM, said:

This. Also, compared to other fps games and other "simulators", your mech survives quite well as it is now. The only way it doesn't is if you get shot in the cockpit. for obvious reasons. Most other games, you walk out in the open, you get put down fast.
Most casual players, which PGI is clearly desperate to attract, are going to be used to that from the other games they play, so the current durability of mechs is more than enough. What would really turn them off, though, would be if they slowed the gameplay down even further.

10 seconds is your movement/Weapons fire/cool down Enemy movement/weapons fire/cool down combined. 10 seconds is the entire combat turn.

[Karl Streiger]

Bishop Steiner, on 26 April 2013 - 04:58 AM, said:

Just curious, what was the ROF and Cooldowns in MW3? Anyone know? Cuz when I play it, I don't feel the combat is too slow, yet "Stock" models still are quite viable in the game. (And the biggest issues it had were jump snipers, and legging, not the actual weapons), and the heat system seems to work rather well overall.

I don't have proof on this figures...just what i found during my researches:
The Large Laser in MW3 had a cylce time of 3.5 - with the "single" armor location it was so capable of dealing even more damage - in a shorter time period. It was just a blip of a beam...nothing too long. So you hit, or you miss - no spreading much damaga all over the target.

[Joseph Mallan]

Karl Streiger, on 26 April 2013 - 05:13 AM, said:

I don't have proof on this figures...just what i found during my researches:
The Large Laser in MW3 had a cylce time of 3.5 - with the "single" armor location it was so capable of dealing even more damage - in a shorter time period. It was just a blip of a beam...nothing too long. So you hit, or you miss - no spreading much damaga all over the target.

Which had its perks and short comings. I miss those days yet I like the feel of lasers in MWO too.

[Bishop Steiner]

Joseph Mallan, on 26 April 2013 - 05:01 AM, said:

To useful if you ask me, but it is nice to see!

If you are talking about the Abrams' main gun then it is every 6-8 seconds (8-12 rounds a minute)

Actually was referring to the Bofors 40 (aka AC2). And the Abrams might be faster if it has an actual autocannon, instead of being a manual cocker.

Karl Streiger, on 26 April 2013 - 05:13 AM, said:

I don't have proof on this figures...just what i found during my researches:
The Large Laser in MW3 had a cylce time of 3.5 - with the "single" armor location it was so capable of dealing even more damage - in a shorter time period. It was just a blip of a beam...nothing too long. So you hit, or you miss - no spreading much damaga all over the target.

And yet, durability never felt an issue, and there was no need to double armor, despite the weapons and armor being set to mimic table top values. What does that tell us?

[Joseph Mallan]

Bishop Steiner, on 26 April 2013 - 05:35 AM, said:

Actually was referring to the Bofors 40 (aka AC2). And the Abrams might be faster if it has an actual autocannon, instead of being a manual cocker.

K fair enough!

[Bishop Steiner]

Joseph Mallan, on 26 April 2013 - 05:32 AM, said:

Which had its perks and short comings. I miss those days yet I like the feel of lasers in MWO too.

totally agree about the "feel" of the new weapons format in MWO. I rather like the distinctive way each system does damage. I am more referring to the basic "number crunching", particularly in regards to Mech survivabilty and Heat management, which IDK what scale they used, but I could set my Blackhawk with 10 IS Medium Lasers, chainfire and essentially never overheat (Obviously one would eventually, but not til long after the other mech was dead).

Joseph Mallan, on 26 April 2013 - 05:37 AM, said:

K fair enough!

and actually, just watched a Bofors in full "auto" and it was firing a LOT like the AC2 recycle rate.
http://youtu.be/dSp7CipN1pw?t=1m58s

sexy

Edited by Bishop Steiner, 26 April 2013 - 05:41 AM.

[Karl Streiger]

Bishop Steiner, on 26 April 2013 - 05:35 AM, said:

And yet, durability never felt an issue, and there was no need to double armor, despite the weapons and armor being set to mimic table top values. What does that tell us?

I hadly played it in Multiplayer.... but as far as i could remember a couple of medium pulse lasers was for the most part more as capable of killing a Mechs Leg

[Bishop Steiner]

Karl Streiger, on 26 April 2013 - 05:47 AM, said:

I hadly played it in Multiplayer.... but as far as i could remember a couple of medium pulse lasers was for the most part more as capable of killing a Mechs Leg

correct (well, as long as the mech was a light. Mediums took a lot more, and usually I had to cycle about 6-7 PPCs to leg an Atlas). But the Legging mechanism is removed from MWO, and the mechs, nowhere near as static in movement. Of course, I am the heathen that feels there should be a small amount of slop in targeting, and that Joysticks should be competitive (cause they are just more fun).

That said, I am more tossing it out for debate. Also remember our lovely doubled armor. Not gonna leg an Annihilator very fast, but since I have seen Assaults (not head shot) cored front to back in ten seconds, is the survivability really better? (Aside from lights, who are, of course, much tougher to consistently tag in the same spot)

[Zyllos]

Bishop Steiner, on 26 April 2013 - 05:55 AM, said:

correct (well, as long as the mech was a light. Mediums took a lot more, and usually I had to cycle about 6-7 PPCs to leg an Atlas). But the Legging mechanism is removed from MWO, and the mechs, nowhere near as static in movement. Of course, I am the heathen that feels there should be a small amount of slop in targeting, and that Joysticks should be competitive (cause they are just more fun).

That said, I am more tossing it out for debate. Also remember our lovely doubled armor. Not gonna leg an Annihilator very fast, but since I have seen Assaults (not head shot) cored front to back in ten seconds, is the survivability really better? (Aside from lights, who are, of course, much tougher to consistently tag in the same spot)

It's really interesting on the light's perspective.

I tried building a scouting RVN-3L (who would have knew, a RVN scouting) with TAG/NARC and the 2x Medium Lasers and 1 SRM/6 for defense, but in doing that, it's impossible to fit in an extremely large engine so I only move 106 kph.

The difference between 106 kph and 152kph (which is typical of almost all lights), people almost never miss me. I always get legged like crazy.

Also, once I finally get into position to TAG/NARC targets, I still feel useless to the team because LRMs do so little. Or I try to NARC a target for someone to fire at and go TAG another and by the time I turn around, the NARC has already fell off due to damage or time.

But that argument is neither here nor there.

I do think RoF on weapons are too high for some and too low for others. The SRM/2 is a good example of having a too low RoF (it should fire faster than the SSRM/2) while the PPC has a too high RoF.

Other weapons only need minor tweaks in their RoF to get to the right point. But I don't think they need to be set to TT RoF.

Edited by Zyllos, 26 April 2013 - 06:47 AM.

[Bishop Steiner]

Zyllos, on 26 April 2013 - 06:46 AM, said:

It's really interesting on the light's perspective.

I tried building a scouting RVN-3L (who would have knew, a RVN scouting) with TAG/NARC and the 2x Medium Lasers and 1 SRM/6 for defense, but in doing that, it's impossible to fit in an extremely large engine so I only move 106 kph.

The difference between 106 kph and 152kph (which is typical of almost all lights), people almost never miss me. I always get legged like crazy.

Also, once I finally get into position to TAG/NARC targets, I still feel useless to the team because LRMs do so little. Or I try to NARC a target for someone to fire at and go TAG another and by the time I turn around, the NARC has already fell off due to damage or time.

But that argument is neither here nor there.

I do think RoF on weapons are too high for some and too low for others. The SRM/2 is a good example of having a too low RoF (it should fire faster than the SSRM/2) while the PPC has a too high RoF.

Other weapons only need minor tweaks in their RoF to get to the right point. But I don't think they need to be set to TT RoF.

I actually would not mind an extra 1 to 1.5 second cool down on my PPCs. I think it would actually improve the viability of the non boat models by improving their endurance. I like to run 2 ERPPCs in most of my "serious" builds, especially since I love my K2 and my Highlanders. And Funnily enough, running a balanced setup, for instance, 2 ER PPC, ac/20 and 3 SSRM, or 2 UAC5 and 3 SRM6 with 1 ERPPC on my 733C, or 2 ERPPC, 2 Mediums, and 3 SRM6 with a crazy big motor on my 733P, I seem to do better than the designated boats and Poptards, who seem largely unable to figure out how to fight once you take them out of "their" game. (Love jumping into the flank of a Hex Stalker, watch it futilely try to turn and blast me as I leapfrog him again (and at best tag my legs) then dump MY alpha in his face a second time. Or Poptart flanking.

Those "Pro-Gamer builds seem to work magic as long as you let them intimidate you into playing by their rules, but if you can split the OpFor, or even just kill a couple, where they can't focus so easy, they are **** poor at responding to changing battlefield circumstances.