1386 replies to this topic

[Keifomofutu]

Lord of All, on 30 April 2013 - 10:50 AM, said:

But this is by design. So don't use those chassis. They should not even have been introduced as they have no role.

Uhh they were introduced so? Ballistic flavored light mechs are an actual THING you know. The developer is even named after one for crying out loud. The irony of gimping their namesake mech is almost painful.

[Esplodin]

Lord of All, on 30 April 2013 - 10:50 AM, said:

But this is by design. So don't use those chassis. They should not even have been introduced as they have no role.

You HAVE to use those chassis if you want to max efficiencies. You have never known the grind pain of mastering a 5K. You know what? Neither do I, since I've been trying to master it SINCE IT WAS LAUNCHED. 10,000 XP to go! I actually apologize to my team when I drop with it for the 2 or 3 games I have sanity for.

Its in the game. No going back. Even if the 5K never existed, clown weapons have NO PLACE IN A GAME. Chekhov's gun FTMFW.

BALANCE BRAH. I WANTS IT!

[FupDup]

Lord of All, on 30 April 2013 - 10:50 AM, said:

But this is by design.

It's a bad design.

Lord of All, on 30 April 2013 - 10:50 AM, said:

So don't use those chassis.

The problems with that:
1. Elite and Master unlocks require at least 3 variants of each chassis (Cicadas have 5 variants but Ravens and Spiders only have 3, so you can't get out of it for the last two. Fleas will probably also have only 3 variants...).

2. It reduces the variety of mechs deployed in each match if the devs leave a small number of "competitive" builds viable without trying to make more than just a handful or two of viable builds.

3. Reducing light and some medium mechs to just energy and/or missiles provides less variety than having energy, missiles, and/or ballistics variants viable. A competitive lightweight ballistic gives an additional dimension to making variants of a light/medium chassis stand out from one another.

4. I can't control the mech choice of my teammates or enemies, meaning that there will sometimes be dead weight on my team or easy kills on the enemy team.

5. It doesn't solve the problem at hand. All it does is ignore it. Just because I don't personally use MGs anymore and am not affected by the issue doesn't make it stop being an issue.

Lord of All, on 30 April 2013 - 10:50 AM, said:

They should not even have been introduced as they have no role.

They would have a role if PGI had not chosen their current path for MG balancing (or lack thereof).

Edited by FupDup, 30 April 2013 - 01:33 PM.

[Esplodin]

FupDup, on 30 April 2013 - 01:12 PM, said:

They would have a role if PGI had not chosen their current path for MG balancing (or lack thereof).

With a decent MG, the 5K would be king light. I would drive it over my 5D depending on the buff to MG, since it has vastly superior hard points to anything but a Jenner. Can't have the competition chassis not have ECM, now can we?

[FrostCollar]

Esplodin, on 30 April 2013 - 01:58 PM, said:

With a decent MG, the 5K would be king light.

Not "king," but acceptable. PGI's not buffed the MG becase the think Spiders with MGs would be devestating. There's a worlds of difference between buffing a weapon to viability and buffing a weapon to being overpowered, and I'd sincerely like PGI to set aside their fears of the latter right now and bring on the former. Especially when it's a weapon with 90m range, 100% uptime requirement, etc.

[FupDup]

Esplodin, on 30 April 2013 - 01:58 PM, said:

With a decent MG, the 5K would be king light. I would drive it over my 5D depending on the buff to MG, since it has vastly superior hard points to anything but a Jenner. Can't have the competition chassis not have ECM, now can we?

Cravens would still have higher accuracy than a devastating MG Spider, letting it keep its place as the king of the lights.

Edited by FupDup, 30 April 2013 - 02:12 PM.

[80sGlamRockSensation David Bowie]

Niko, we don't blame you, you're just doing your job.

But since you're effectively our best connection to the devs outside the obscure twitter chat -- do everyone a favor.


Tell them Machine guns are giant piles of crap that need to be fixed. Preferably sooner than later. Thanks!

[Utilyan]

I like the idea of the armored vs unarmored target version the of the MG.

Vs ARMORED targets it behaves like it does now. Only being able to "HURT" armored pieces at 200m or closer.


Vs UNARMORED, It should be KING of Destruction. VS an unarmored target, meaing whatever doesn't have armor, wether it be a pick up truck, soldier, a mech's right torso that lost its armor, IT should kill with greatest efficiency.

Vs unarmored its RANGE should be across the map, Its damage should be like 1 point damage per bullet.


This keeps the theme of being worst vs armored, great vs unarmored.

====
====

AS IS MACHINE IS THE WORST VS UNARMORED TARGETS.

ITS the worst, very worst weapon that its "BEST" for.......LOL


IF MGs......shot PAINT BALLS......it would be a weapon 10x dangerous then what you have now, cause you might blind someone or offend someone with a dirty mech or graffiti.

If MGs......shot Bubbles like the kind you get kids at a grocery store.......... It would be a weapon 10x more dangerous then what you have now,...... cause the enemy might end up shooting at your bubbles instead of shooting you.

If MGs.......shot Mayonaise........ it would be a weapon 10x more dangerous then what you have now.....mechs could slip and fall.....Folks might decide to snow angels in the mayo...... You can paint things on buildings....

If MGs.......shot Paper Airplanes........it would be a weapon 10x more dangerous then what you have now...... you could blind folks , they could have school flash backs, they could get caught up in mechs joints.

If MGs......shot tennis balls........it would be a weapon 10x more dangerous then what you have now......it could be noisy bumps on the mech, they can slip and fall, some mechs might try to swing at it.

If MGs.......launched kittens.......it would be a weapon 10x more dangerous then what you have now........MEOW!

[stjobe]

Utilyan, on 30 April 2013 - 03:19 PM, said:

I like the idea of the armored vs unarmored target version the of the MG.

Sorry for cutting your post rather severely, but it was long and with lots of redundant examples.

Now, to your argument. MWO doesn't have, and according to the devs never will have, trucks or soldiers. It's 'mechs or nothing, so any weapon in MWO better be useful against 'mechs.

And here's where the MG falls short. As you say, MGs don't kill anything. It's as ineffective at killing un-armoured targets as it is killing armoured. And that's why I keep trying to tell PGI that their crit-experiment failed and they need to try something else to make the MG viable.

The only thing the MG currently IS good at is destroying internal components - which is a totally useless ability since it's always more effective to use a real weapon and kill the 'mech or at least blow an arm or torso off. You don't even get a reward for destroying a weapon, only for sections - which the MG do 0.04 per bullet against.

The crit buff idea may have looked good on paper, but it's seriously damaging the MGs viability and by extension all ballistic light 'mechs viability.

Edited by stjobe, 30 April 2013 - 03:31 PM.

[Lord of All]

Niko Snow, on 30 April 2013 - 04:46 PM, said:

Whoa what this is a job? I thought this was the line up for the Lady Gaga concert!

All major hot topics are raised to the devs in my reports. Most are already aware of the threads before I publish said reports. They are aware of your concerns and will make their decisions based on a combination of your feedback and telemetry and based on their schedule of priorities if they do decide to adjust them. Keep in mind right this second they are performing rocket science.

JJ's?

[Deathlike]

If the devs were ever truly aware of our concerns (like, reciting in detail), we wouldn't even have to create multiple threads/post stating blatant obvious things that have not been addressed. It is almost as if the forums would have to "burn" in order for someone to notice a fire just started.

All we ask in a dev response is that they address the most important points of our concerns instead of responding with a generic "everything is fine". If the devs can demonstrate that they have some VALID WISDOM in their decision, EVEN IF WE DISAGREE, these issues would not explode the way that they do. This is not limited to MGs.. but balance in general.

We are not looking for an immediate response to our demands. Frankly, we want WELL THOUGHT OUT RESPONSES that would require examples, comparisons, and REASONING to what is CURRENTLY HAPPENING. Many of the Ask the Dev responses are pretty much answers that one spent an hour answering (after combing through the answers you feel like answering). I would rather have someone tell me with some actual research (perhaps taking more hours than it should) and explain to me why such as "working as intended" if it were not so broken.

Right now the people that notice the MG being "useless" is because through experience and playing many matches, that the perception IS the reality. Maybe you aren't the one piloting the Spider-5K, but I've seen enough of them that I ignore AND actively tell others to ignore (unless they are capping) because they aren't a fighting threat. This is not heresy or anything.. just COMMON SENSE based on the CURRENT META. When was the last time did people were consistently going great with MGs? I simply cannot remember the last time. So, any time a dev response fails expectations in terms of SOLID REASONING, the people start to show their disdain. That's simply NOT A HEALTHY RESPONSE.

Edited by Deathlike, 30 April 2013 - 05:12 PM.

[Critical Fumble]

Niko Snow, on 30 April 2013 - 03:13 PM, said:

The amount of Ad Hominem taking place in this thread is too darn high.

I just read those edits. Now all you need is a way to attach a top hat and monocle to posts and we'll have ritzy threads all over [indubitably]

Lord of All, on 30 April 2013 - 10:50 AM, said:

But this is by design. So don't use those chassis. They should not even have been introduced as they have no role.

That's barely canonical, much less consistent with the game's development.

Just about every mech has a "role" listed in the fluff texts, but very few actually have to stay with that by virtue of the mechlab. The CAT-A1 is supposed to be a long-range support mech, but because of the mechlab there have been phases of SRM and SSRM boating A1s that were successful. There's also the "anti-aircraft" JagerMechs, but they're still viable even without aircraft to shoot down. Even the Spider 5D is listed as being for "anti-infantry" work because of the flamer mounted in the stock design; it can, however, replace that with another ML and not have to suffer for that. The only mechs that have this effect are the "anti-infantry" mechs that have MGs, but not enough tonnage to mount autocannons.

Its not really consistent with BT either, as any "role" you assign a mech may change based on the circumstances. For instance, if there are no assault mechs, an appropriate heavy mech fills in for the Atlas or Stalker you don't have. In the absence of heavies, mediums do it; and if there are no mediums, lights function that way. But ballistic boat lights can't match the firepower of energy boat lights because of how sad the MG is.

[Terror Teddy]

Esplodin, on 30 April 2013 - 01:58 PM, said:

With a decent MG, the 5K would be king light. I would drive it over my 5D depending on the buff to MG, since it has vastly superior hard points to anything but a Jenner. Can't have the competition chassis not have ECM, now can we?

This is a good point, lets look at chassis "roles" if MG's are buffed:

The current Spider "king" is the 5D with ECM and most energy points - so what would be changed?

SDR-5V
Role: Fast Scout
Why: Most jumpjets, +1 module

SDR-5D
Role: ECM Platform
Why: Eer...ECM?

SDR-5K
Role: Light "assault" mech
Why: Most hardpoints of all of them and fewest jumpjets - the tank so to speak

This would also affect Ravens but in their case I would make a slight switcheroo

RVN-2X [I would like to see JJ on this chassis to improve a scout role]
Role: Scout
Why: Average scout chassis but has no real edge apart from equal firepower to that of the JR7-D but lacks the jumpjets


RVN-3L
Role: ECM Platform
Why: Same as the 5D

RVN-4X
Role: Light attack scout
Why: Jumpjets, speed and plenty of weapons to choose from

The same goes for the "light" medium of the Cicada which has a wide range of chassis but would bump the 3C chassis to actually have any kind of firepower compared to the 2A.2B,3M or the X5.

If the 3C could have carried an ECM suite it would have been another issue but right now it's as crippled as the spider apart from it being able to have a larger energy weapon - or possibly ONE good ballistic weapon out of 4.

Edited by Terror Teddy, 30 April 2013 - 11:04 PM.

[Mechwarrior Buddah]

Xelah, on 09 April 2013 - 02:23 AM, said:

So basically you're locking this topic so that we can't start a "trend" that the devs are looking for and this will never be fixed?

precisely.

next problem?

[Terror Teddy]

Niko Snow, on 30 April 2013 - 04:46 PM, said:

Keep in mind right this second they are performing rocket science.

So you're telling us they are working on missile balance.

[FupDup]

Terror Teddy, on 30 April 2013 - 10:34 PM, said:

This is a good point, lets look at chassis "roles" if MG's are buffed:
...
This would also affect Ravens but in their case I would make a slight switcheroo

RVN-2X [I would like to see JJ on this chassis to improve a scout role]
Role: Scout
Why: Average scout chassis but has no real edge apart from equal firepower to that of the JR7-D but lacks the jumpjets

RVN-3L
Role: ECM Platform
Why: Same as the 5D

RVN-4X
Role: Light attack scout
Why: Jumpjets, speed and plenty of weapons to choose from

I hate to derail this, but the 3L is actually a vastly superior scout to the 2X and 4X due to having much higher speed and most importantly ECM. The radar invisibility helps a lot when sticking your neck out towards enemies at long range; if you try to peek out at people with the 2X or 4X, they're going to detect you and start shooting even if they can't see your mech's model. The speed helps you get into a good spotting position faster, run away from enemy fire better, and/or start capping the enemy oilrig faster.

The Craven is also better as an attacker than the 4X for reasons we already know...


Since ECM will always make the 3L a better scout no matter what changes are made to it (and possibly a higher engine cap forever as well, we'll see when Raven quirks are released), the 2X and 4X should be the designated "Battle Ravens" that pack more firepower than the 3L could ever hope to hold. On that note, they should each have 6-7 hardpoints (it's fair because the 3L gets speed and ECM). I'd suggest an additional energy point on the 2X and a ballistic on the 4X plus an MG buff (I avoided extra missile because that makes them into Jenners, although they'd still be slower and the 2X can't equip JJs).

Edited by FupDup, 01 May 2013 - 06:08 AM.

[HammerSwarm]

Niko Snow, on 30 April 2013 - 04:46 PM, said:

Whoa what this is a job? I thought this was the line up for the Lady Gaga concert!

All major hot topics are raised to the devs in my reports. Most are already aware of the threads before I publish said reports. They are aware of your concerns and will make their decisions based on a combination of your feedback and telemetry and based on their schedule of priorities if they do decide to adjust them. Keep in mind right this second they are performing rocket science.

Mr Snow, thankyou for being active in this thread.

Can we see the data they have supporting machine guns as "working" and "deadly" so that we can better understand the divergence between what we see when we play and the telemetry they rely on for decision making? Knowing what they see would go along way helping us make better suggestions.

Thanks.

Edited by HammerSwarm, 01 May 2013 - 08:11 AM.

[Wildstreak]

Some other time I will reply to anything I need to since I last posted in this thread but one item was how there were no options for Light Ballistic Weapons, so I started discussion on the CBT forums as shown here for anyone interested.

[Metalcell]

they can take their MGs crit seeking BS and just give me pure MGs damage!

[FrostCollar]

So, upcoming doubling of damage for MGs and a slight range buff. What does everyone think?

I still think it's too little. On the one hand, I'm very happy increases in damage are being considered. On the other, since the increases are still relatively modest I'm concerned that the devs will consider the job done and not revisit any further changes for quite some time, as it was when MGs got their elevated crit chance.