1386 replies to this topic

[General Taskeen]

Bishop Steiner, on 21 October 2013 - 06:00 AM, said:

*golf clap*

and? Seems of late it is your way or the highway. MGs in previous MW titles were also amongst the most abused and boated of weapons. Yeah, that'd be great to bring back too.

IMO, while not perfect, PGI's idea to give different weapon types differing damage mechanics and roles to define them is one of the best things they have done. I'm fine with them as is, and mount them in many of my mechs because they are effective.

Guess what MW3/4 had: almost unlimited customization

Guess what MWO has, at most 4 ballistic slots on some Mechs, 6 ballistic slots on 1 Mech. Unlimited slot customization does not exist, 12 or 20 MG's not possible

Oooo, so sssscury.

PGI's differentiating "stuff" is one of the worst things they could have done, because there is no consistency.

A. Some Light Mechs need them, a Light Mech is a casual cheap Mech

• Problem, if the MG is meant to be some sort of "pseudo" niche weapon for "skilled" players, that doesn't bode too well for new players does it with weapons like flamers and mg's that are borderline useless for those players.
  
• I can get better mileage with a ****** *** 20mm gun in World of Tanks on a freakin' Panzer II.

B. Other weapons like "gauss" have a "charge up" meant for "skill."

• Ok? So another "skill" thing for players to learn.

Golf Clap.








Note that 2 MG's are incredibly useful in stock configuration in MW3. Amazing that they actually are as damaging as they should be.

In MWO its a JOKE.

Rhialto, on 21 October 2013 - 08:45 AM, said:

Same here... I'm having a lot of fun with my CDA-3C.

Geesh, those 2 video posted by General Taskeen are horrible! I mean both games look awful.

Golf Claps all around. 5 star post.

Of course you think its awful, you kids are spoiled but such classical "graphical" games such as Call of Duty and other such, and yet you take no consideration to test previous games for balancing ideas, MW3 had one of the best balanced heat systems for any Mech Warrior game period. I've played MW3/4 and Living Legends. Some people here even played Mech Warrior 2 - I never did.

Instead, what do you say, "looks bad, lol." How original.

Edited by General Taskeen, 31 October 2013 - 06:07 AM.

[stjobe]

Now that we've had the "new and improved" MG in-game for a while, and also a new ballistic light (LCT-1V), I think it's clear that the MG still needs a bit more lovin'.

Since we're unlikely to see a damage or crit buff again, I suggest we do as Amsro suggested above (and many others, including me, have begged for many, many times) and remove the Cone of Fire on them.

Let me hit what I aim at, please.

[Joseph Mallan]

A rapid fire Machine Gun hitting what it's aimed at isn't the same as a single shot rifle St. I know you hate these, but go to just before the 3 minute mark, watch the impact area surrounding the target. It's 4 times as wide as the target. CoF.

[Amsro]

PGI should toss the same cone of fire on all other weapons in the game for a day, then we'll see how fast they drop that !@#%#$ {Scrap}.

I can just imagine it now. HAHAHA DrunkWarriorOnline, shots going in random directions around the target.

[stjobe]

Joseph Mallan, on 31 October 2013 - 06:25 AM, said:

A rapid fire Machine Gun hitting what it's aimed at isn't the same as a single shot rifle St. I know you hate these, but go to just before the 3 minute mark, watch the impact area surrounding the target. It's 4 times as wide as the target. CoF.

You know, I love GAU-8s just as much as the next guy, but they're utterly and totally irrelevant to MWO gameplay.

The MG has a theoretical DPS of 1 against armour; but in practice it has a lot less, since random spread means not all projectiles will hit, and the continuous-fire mechanic means that even a 0.1-second lapse in your aim means another projectile misses.

If CoF isn't an issue, let's see it on the other weapons. I abso-freaking-lutely guarantee you there would be an uproar the likes of which you've never seen.

But since it's on a MG, it's okay?

Double standards much?

[Bishop Steiner]

General Taskeen, on 31 October 2013 - 05:45 AM, said:

Guess what MW3/4 had: almost unlimited customization

Guess what MWO has, at most 4 ballistic slots on some Mechs, 6 ballistic slots on 1 Mech. Unlimited slot customization does not exist, 12 or 20 MG's not possible

Oooo, so sssscury.

PGI's differentiating "stuff" is one of the worst things they could have done, because there is no consistency.

A. Some Light Mechs need them, a Light Mech is a casual cheap Mech

• Problem, if the MG is meant to be some sort of "pseudo" niche weapon for "skilled" players, that doesn't bode too well for new players does it with weapons like flamers and mg's that are borderline useless for those players.
  
• I can get better mileage with a ****** *** 20mm gun in World of Tanks on a freakin' Panzer II.

B. Other weapons like "gauss" have a "charge up" meant for "skill."

• Ok? So another "skill" thing for players to learn.

Golf Clap.










Note that 2 MG's are incredibly useful in stock configuration in MW3. Amazing that they actually are as damaging as they should be.

In MWO its a JOKE.



Golf Claps all around. 5 star post.

Of course you think its awful, you kids are spoiled but such classical "graphical" games such as Call of Duty and other such, and yet you take no consideration to test previous games for balancing ideas, MW3 had one of the best balanced heat systems for any Mech Warrior game period. I've played MW3/4 and Living Legends. Some people here even played Mech Warrior 2 - I never did.

Instead, what do you say, "looks bad, lol." How original.

yes, so because MG were ridiculously abused on MW3, we should definitely followed that example.

Also, MW4 (well REAL MW4, possibly not the mektek abortion) had sized hardpoints, and 4 different types, energy, ballistic, missile and omni. And still became a lame boring poptart fest. MW· was a joke from the competitive side because the open customization made 90% of chassis utterly pointless, because SMART players would discern which had the most favorable hit box in any weight class, then simply load that chassis up with whatever, and the rest became irrelevant and obsolete.

Aka, it made for less diversity, because once the meta and best hitbox combo was determined, that was all that was run, as the concept of roles disappeared. But by all means, keep looking at the world through those rose colored glasses big fella, wouldn't want reality to affect your view of Camelot.

I'd address your issues with skill, but well, I guess those are self apparent?

Edited by Bishop Steiner, 31 October 2013 - 07:47 AM.

[Bishop Steiner]

stjobe, on 31 October 2013 - 06:02 AM, said:

Now that we've had the "new and improved" MG in-game for a while, and also a new ballistic light (LCT-1V), I think it's clear that the MG still needs a bit more lovin'.

Since we're unlikely to see a damage or crit buff again, I suggest we do as Amsro suggested above (and many others, including me, have begged for many, many times) and remove the Cone of Fire on them.

Let me hit what I aim at, please.

I'm of mixed opinions on this dude.

I still see 4MG spiders tear the guts right out of assaults the moment their armor is breached. 3-4 MG seem to be the magic number, as 1 is nearly useless, and 2, well, not bad on my HBK, not great either. But I have to ask myself how great does a .5 ton no heat, dang near never run out of ammo gun need to be?

I actually have grown to like the concept PGI has for the MG, even if I agree it's still off, just a little. The straight damage is kind of boring, and PGI clearly defining the damage mechanisms between weapons in this game is IMO, one of the better decisions they made.

As for CoF, well, weapons on full auto, vehicle mounted or otherwise have spread. Simple fact. It can be the GAU-8, a Browning Ma Deuce, whatever. And at 500 yards, full auto the spread several feet, sometimes more. I'm all for CoF implementation in other weapons. Unfortunately, really only 2 might qualify ATM, the AC2, and the UAC5.

IMO; the CoF concept is fine, the implementation, somewhat generic. For one, the CoF IS far too big on the MG, especially considering it's range. Secondly, if you single or double tap (kinda pointless with the MG, but whatever) the CoF should be non existent. Three things should affect CoF. Your speed, aka, running 75% or more throttle should degrade accuracy some. Duration of fire. The longer you full auto, the bigger the CoF should spread, within a defined minimum and maximum.
And range.

They doubled and tripled actual effective ranges in MW:O. My proposal (which will effect poptarts the most, oh darn) is that a CoF is used after their ACTUAL TT effective ranges. Aka, the Large Laser in TT had a max range of 450 meters. in MWO it has 900. From 450-900 it should have a gradually increasing CoF. I would say nothing extreme, enough where 95% or so off shots at max range stay on target, just maybe not in that one location. And lasers should be minimal due to the nature of beam weaponry anyhow. PPCs on the other hand should largely be treated like ballistics for CoF, since they are a pinpoint weapon.

With Ballistics (and so many are whining about the poor little ballistic meta, funnily enough usually people who gleefully metaraped the PPC/Gauss combo) you have 3 times the range. So, using the ac 10 as an example, it too had a table top range of 450 meters. Max effective in MWO is 1350. So from 0-450, no CoF, unless movement dictates. From 450-900. moderate CoF, again where maybe 95% of shots stay on target, but might miss by a full location size cone. (and yes, the Locust and Spider would be more likely to be missed than an Atlas with the CoF, I know this). From 900 to 1350, it should become quite a bit bigger, as the shot is take at 3 times the range the targeting computer was designed to handle. I would say at 1300 meters a CoF with a potential 33-50% miss rate makes sense.

I know the "skill" players are already crying at the concept, but truth is, real skill is knowing the practical limitations of a weapon system and working around it. Clciking a mouse on a pixel is not skill. Especially with the dpi control and such most modern gaming mice have.

Carlos Hatchcock had more real skill than anyone playing this game, and variables indeed effected his precision. The difference was he was skilled enough to compensate for it. He also knew that one didn't use a full auto weapon for precision shooting.

[Joseph Mallan]

stjobe, on 31 October 2013 - 07:23 AM, said:

You know, I love GAU-8s just as much as the next guy, but they're utterly and totally irrelevant to MWO gameplay.

The MG has a theoretical DPS of 1 against armour; but in practice it has a lot less, since random spread means not all projectiles will hit, and the continuous-fire mechanic means that even a 0.1-second lapse in your aim means another projectile misses.

If CoF isn't an issue, let's see it on the other weapons. I abso-freaking-lutely guarantee you there would be an uproar the likes of which you've never seen.

But since it's on a MG, it's okay?

Double standards much?

The only people who would go crazy are the arm chair experts St., and CoF makes perfect sense on a weapon firing that fast.

Kudos for recognizing what skill really looks like Bishop.

Edited by Joseph Mallan, 31 October 2013 - 08:35 AM.

[Adridos]

General Taskeen, on 31 October 2013 - 05:45 AM, said:

...and yet you take no consideration to test previous games for balancing ideas, ...

Testing previous Mechwarrior games for balance ideas is a pretty bad idea, though. The only thing that came close to balanced was MW:LL and quite frankly, that's not even a Mechwarrior game.

First Mechwarrior was dominated by none other than our beloved Locust-1V in stock.
Yes, you heard right. Even in a game with no customization, there was still a mech that was miles better than the rest (quite the achievement in a game with 8 mechs in total... but hey, it didn't have MP and we are talking about a game from '89, so...).

Mechwarrior 2 and Mercs was no better. No restrictions in customization meant people got a taste of the "thousand bee stings" effect in full force. One MG does measly 2 damage... but those things weight only .5 tons... I wonder how much damage can you cram into a mech before you run out of critical space.

(Just a little tip: mute the music in advance)


Mechwarrior 3... same, except now destroying a leg meant GG for the pilot. We all know how well that turned out...

Mechwarrior 4 had a tiny resemblance of some balance going on, but it was quickly squashed once people found out about pop-tarting. There was literally no other way to play MP in that game.

[stjobe]

Bishop Steiner, on 31 October 2013 - 08:27 AM, said:

I'm of mixed opinions on this dude.

Oh yeah, me too. But trying to Master the LCT-1V has forced me to conclude that even with four of them, it's not quite enough. Mounting just two is pointless.

So let's have a slight buff; a nudge in damage, or a nudge in crit chance, or at least a reduction of the CoF if they can't stomach removing it completely.

Joseph Mallan, on 31 October 2013 - 08:31 AM, said:

CoF makes perfect sense on a weapon firing that fast.

Then I suppose you are all for CoF for the ACs as well? The "basically giant machineguns" firing "streams of bullets" in "10-100 round bursts"?

Can't have it both ways.

[Nothing Whatsoever]

stjobe, on 31 October 2013 - 09:05 AM, said:

Then I suppose you are all for CoF for the ACs as well? The "basically giant machineguns" firing "streams of bullets" in "10-100 round bursts"?

Can't have it both ways.

Indeed, if MG's retain their spread (cone), then there should be spread when using the rest of the ballistic weapons.

[Bishop Steiner]

stjobe, on 31 October 2013 - 09:05 AM, said:

Oh yeah, me too. But trying to Master the LCT-1V has forced me to conclude that even with four of them, it's not quite enough. Mounting just two is pointless.

So let's have a slight buff; a nudge in damage, or a nudge in crit chance, or at least a reduction of the CoF if they can't stomach removing it completely.


Then I suppose you are all for CoF for the ACs as well? The "basically giant machineguns" firing "streams of bullets" in "10-100 round bursts"?

Can't have it both ways.

Thing is, I feel the Locust is a poor choice to compare, because we already know they are ...er... mediocre against armor. The Locust exacerbates the issue by packing only a medium laser with 4MG and such ludicrous armor that it gets killed before it can really do anything.

the 4MG Spiders, packing ER Large Lasers seem to clean up, in part because the large laser allows them to do much more to get to the tender insides, and because JJs and twice the armor allow them them to survive to inflict longer.

So that's the balance issue.... what works horrible in the locust works wonders in the Spider. Ids the weapon the issue, or the Chassis... or a little of both?

Right now, I wish my lil 1V was better, but the last dang thing this game needs is Spiders getting another buff. And realistically, the Locust should really only clean up on a battlefield as a carrion mech, or generously against mechs of similar weight. We have talked the Light/Assault Disparity before, but never has that been more the case than when the Locust or honestly any 20 tonner is mentioned. Of course, that comes down to roles and or the current perceived lack thereof, but I have found some success with my Locust. Boring success, oft times, but I usually scout, capdance, spot (I do enjoy dropping arty and airstrikes on entrenched poptarts now that those do real damage), and after the fighting is good and hot, sneaking in and with MGs going nonstop and looking for any tender internals to snatch. My best match was 3 kills with a measly 180 damage in the 1V, which is not terribly impressive, but IDK, I don't feel the LCT is meant to be a game breaker, lol.

Praetor Shepard, on 31 October 2013 - 09:15 AM, said:

Indeed, if MG's retain their spread (cone), then there should be spread when using the rest of the ballistic weapons.

Which other ballistics are firing full auto?

A case could generously be made for the UAC and maybe the AC2, though since they finally redid the UAC "correctly" it is hardly full auto, but I would be OK with a CoF on the Second shot. The AC2 does fire fast enough to almost count, and I could see a CoF that gradually got worse as you kept the trigger down.

[Nothing Whatsoever]

Bishop Steiner, on 31 October 2013 - 09:25 AM, said:

Which other ballistics are firing full auto?

A case could generously be made for the UAC and maybe the AC2, though since they finally redid the UAC "correctly" it is hardly full auto, but I would be OK with a CoF on the Second shot. The AC2 does fire fast enough to almost count, and I could see a CoF that gradually got worse as you kept the trigger down.

Well, I feel that the firing style we have with ballistics is a tad unrealistic being big single rounds compared to examples we have from lore where they fire smaller rounds that equal their listed damage.

With how we have them in MWO, they can put out high Damage and high DPS; and even if they feel right, it can be argued that they perform too well, so having something else available to balance against the other weapon systems is why I'd like to explore the idea of using something like spread (or a cone).

[stjobe]

Praetor Shepard, on 31 October 2013 - 10:04 AM, said:

Well, I feel that the firing style we have with ballistics is a tad unrealistic being big single rounds compared to examples we have from lore where they fire smaller rounds that equal their listed damage.

With how we have them in MWO, they can put out high Damage and high DPS; and even if they feel right, it can be argued that they perform too well, so having something else available to balance against the other weapon systems is why I'd like to explore the idea of using something like spread (or a cone).

Or burst fire? 3-5 rounds in very quick succession, then cooldown.

[Nothing Whatsoever]

stjobe, on 31 October 2013 - 10:11 AM, said:

Or burst fire? 3-5 rounds in very quick succession, then cooldown.

That's fine with me.

Just gotta get that test server running to be able to test the possible weapon tweaks.

[Bishop Steiner]

Praetor Shepard, on 31 October 2013 - 10:04 AM, said:

Well, I feel that the firing style we have with ballistics is a tad unrealistic being big single rounds compared to examples we have from lore where they fire smaller rounds that equal their listed damage.

With how we have them in MWO, they can put out high Damage and high DPS; and even if they feel right, it can be argued that they perform too well, so having something else available to balance against the other weapon systems is why I'd like to explore the idea of using something like spread (or a cone).

So, I 120-200 millimeter cannon is "unrealistic" firing a single shot (which, for the record, is what Tanks do now, and the most popular and respected bore size is 120mm, which is the same bbore listed for the GM Whirlwind AC5 used by the Marauder), but they should somehow be firing full auto bursts out of these weapons with shells weighing about 18 kg apiece?

I would agree that would incur CoF, but the fluff was always, to put it gently, kinda idiotic in describing weapons fire. But even with super future magic armor, the sheer impact from a stream of these shells, and BIGGER would not only knock the target right off their feet (and the impact scramble everything inside) but the recoil on the shooting mech would at most generous, have major muzzle lift and CoF, more likely shake the whole thing to pieces.

[C0VVB3LL]

Bishop Steiner, on 31 October 2013 - 08:27 AM, said:

Carlos Hatchcock had more real skill than anyone playing this game, and variables indeed effected his precision. The difference was he was skilled enough to compensate for it. He also knew that one didn't use a full auto weapon for precision shooting.

Not contradicting your whole post, lots of good stuff there but I wanted to point out that Hathcocks longest confirmed kill was with a Browning M2 .50BMG machine gun he had rigged a 10x Unertle scope onto. Effectively using a full auto weapon for what stood as the longest confirmed kill in history until this past decade or so by Canadian and British troops respectively in Afghanistan. Cary on.

[Bishop Steiner]

C0VVB3LL, on 31 October 2013 - 10:20 AM, said:

Not contradicting your whole post, lots of good stuff there but I wanted to point out that Hathcocks longest confirmed kill was with a Browning M2 .50BMG machine gun he had rigged a 10x Unertle scope onto. Effectively using a full auto weapon for what stood as the longest confirmed kill in history until this past decade or so by Canadian and British troops respectively in Afghanistan. Cary on.

I don't believe he fired it full auto though, unless I am mis-remembering the account? They did not really offer bolt action or man pack 50 BMGs in Vietnam, after all.

[Nothing Whatsoever]

Bishop Steiner, on 31 October 2013 - 10:19 AM, said:

So, I 120-200 millimeter cannon is "unrealistic" firing a single shot (which, for the record, is what Tanks do now, and the most popular and respected bore size is 120mm, which is the same bbore listed for the GM Whirlwind AC5 used by the Marauder), but they should somehow be firing full auto bursts out of these weapons with shells weighing about 18 kg apiece?

I can see mechs like the Marauder or King Crab able to hand the recoil on rounds that size as tanks can, but humanoid mechs don't seem as capable of managing that kind of recoil.

And there was a variety of ballistics within the different classes. So an AC/20 on a tank could be a single shell, but an AC/20 on a humanoid mech might be a burst of smaller rounds instead.

Quote

I would agree that would incur CoF, but the fluff was always, to put it gently, kinda idiotic in describing weapons fire. But even with super future magic armor, the sheer impact from a stream of these shells, and BIGGER would not only knock the target right off their feet (and the impact scramble everything inside) but the recoil on the shooting mech would at most generous, have major muzzle lift and CoF, more likely shake the whole thing to pieces.

I at least want to see more variety with ballistics and have the weapons balanced accordingly with these kinds of factors in mind, the more realistic the weapons the better; but I can at least live with them being balance for gameplay.

[C0VVB3LL]

Bishop Steiner, on 31 October 2013 - 10:28 AM, said:

I don't believe he fired it full auto though, unless I am mis-remembering the account? They did not really offer bolt action or man pack 50 BMGs in Vietnam, after all.

You are correct, he would load 1 round and squeeze the butterfly. I'm just saying a full auto weapon is what he used and although not in that capacity it was precise enough... not that that somehow discounts your points from earlier, but did merit some mention.