17 replies to this topic

[Karl Streiger]

Actual it seems so that when a weapon is less usefull like some state the LRM as it is actual. The obvious behaviour is to buff the damage or other abilitys.

But why not the other direction.
If a weapon is 15% as worse as a comperable weapon. For example the LRM 15 of the C1 vs the PPC of the K2.

If the PPC is clearly the better choice you can increase the damage of the LRM. But there are a lots of people that say the LRM is fine.
How could it be fine when all alternaive weapons are better?

Instead of increasing the damage or accuracy of the LRM a nerf of all other weapons would be a choice too.

[MustrumRidcully]

It all depends. If a problem of the game is that combat is too fast, and too many instant-kills / snipers are on the battlefield, nerfing damage across the board is a better choice then buffing the few weak weapons.

But if the pace of combat is slow or reasonably fast, then buffing weak weapons is preferable.

You definitely have to look at the context of the game, and the pace of combat you want.

I expect, for example, that Clan tech will raise the pace of combat, and that will prove troublesome. But in the table top I think Clan Tech (and LEvel 2 Tech) was introduced because combat seemed not fast enough* - mechs had less firepower overall when they were limited to single heat sinks and the standard auto-cannons.

*) Also, power sells best. You can put interestnig stories, quirky details and all that in sourcebooks. But little sells better than power ups. Until the point the power ups ruined the pace of your game and people get appalled by the power creep. Then it's usually time for a new edition.)

Edited by MustrumRidcully, 12 April 2013 - 01:10 AM.

[blinkin]

MustrumRidcully, on 12 April 2013 - 01:08 AM, said:

It all depends. If a problem of the game is that combat is too fast, and too many instant-kills / snipers are on the battlefield, nerfing damage across the board is a better choice then buffing the few weak weapons.

But if the pace of combat is slow or reasonably fast, then buffing weak weapons is preferable.

You definitely have to look at the context of the game, and the pace of combat you want.

I expect, for example, that Clan tech will raise the pace of combat, and that will prove troublesome. But in the table top I think Clan Tech (and LEvel 2 Tech) was introduced because combat seemed not fast enough* - mechs had less firepower overall when they were limited to single heat sinks and the standard auto-cannons.

*) Also, power sells best. You can put interestnig stories, quirky details and all that in sourcebooks. But little sells better than power ups. Until the point the power ups ruined the pace of your game and people get appalled by the power creep. Then it's usually time for a new edition.)

good point, and a similar point that i would like to make is:

people have many different base lines for what they define as a balanced weapon and they also vary quite a bit on how far a weapon must go to be unbalanced.

more often than i would prefer to see, people define the weapon they like most as balanced, and the weapon that kills them most or causes the most problems as unbalanced.

i will use myself as an example.

generally i don't see ECM as OP, but i also rarely use any weapon that requires any sort of lock. i have had very few experiences where ECM has hindered me in any way and often times it provides a nice proximity warning that allows me to hunt down certain mechs.

BUT

on the other hand i find streaks to be very OP because i tend to pilot jenners a lot, and those jenners tend to use mostly energy weapons (my ERPPC jenner builds being a prime example). i will stop here because if i don't i will begin ranting about streaks and will distract from the point i was making.


this is what makes forum debates about balance so difficult. if i say medium lasers are balanced and base my views off of that then i will have a completely different balance than someone who says that streaks are balanced and everything needs to be brought in line with them. we are arguing unrelated views on what the end product should be. (and to anyone who wants to use these words against me be prepared to defend the removal of aiming from the game)

[Karl Streiger]

focuspark did the big subjective poll. Its obvious that most people tend to think that lasers and gauss rifles are perfectly balanced.
LRM still are imbalanced same with Streaks.

Those figure with the countless topics and post for those both weapon systems you got the idea that SSRM are to powerfull while LRMs are too weak.
To give LRMs more power will not solve the problem of the SSRM - (i'm sure in combination with ECM used on light mechs)

But as it was said...the pace of MWO combat was increased with the introduction of Endosteel and DHS. And it will go up a second time with the light weight clan weapons (even when there other stats are the same as their IS counterparts)

[Mechteric]

I don't get the purpose of this poll, you can't compare LRMs directly to PPCs (apples, oranges, you get the idea)

[Mypa333]

I've seen different pilots driving C1 or the K2, each in its own style. I saw people that were terrible at aiming the PPCs and people that weren't able to hit a standing target with the LRMs.

I don't see the point of this poll. In this case, we should all play the AC20 or the Gauss.... and the rest of the weapons discarded.

And the answers for the poll force bad choices, for a "weapon is too weak" maybe from your point of view.

The LRM boats want greater damage, the PPCs pilots need less heat for the PPCs to fire more shots so this is not accurate.

Edited by Mypa333, 12 April 2013 - 06:38 AM.

[Karl Streiger]

CapperDeluxe, on 12 April 2013 - 05:21 AM, said:

I don't get the purpose of this poll, you can't compare LRMs directly to PPCs (apples, oranges, you get the idea)

Why not?
Both are weapons
Both have long range and both have same weight.

A LRM should be simmilar as effectiv as a PPC even when it achieves it in differnt ways.
Because there is always something you can compare.

You can compare the vitamin C of Aples wit Oranges or the sweetness.
You just have to abstract it a little bit and find the common denominator

[General Taskeen]

I will use the Stock K3 instead, because PGI's SHS are atrocious heat monsters.

[Karl Streiger]

General Taskeen, on 12 April 2013 - 06:37 AM, said:

I will use the Stock K3 instead, because PGI's SHS are atrocious heat monsters.

Meh...K3 is not an option....nor the C3
no body would use the C1 in 1vs1...but me?
Curious? I have jump jets - and more fire power at short range

Edited by Karl Streiger, 12 April 2013 - 06:45 AM.

[Mechteric]

Can PPCs fire indirectly? No. ok, thanks for playing "Is this thing like this other thing!"

[Karl Streiger]

CapperDeluxe, on 12 April 2013 - 06:49 AM, said:

Can PPCs fire indirectly? No. ok, thanks for playing "Is this thing like this other thing!"

Need PPCs a lock on - to hit a target with chance?

You say you can't compare them. I say you can compare them based on their stats.

Edited by Karl Streiger, 12 April 2013 - 07:01 AM.

[Deathlike]

Karl Streiger, on 12 April 2013 - 06:55 AM, said:

You say you can't compare them. I say you can compare them based on their stats.

In some cases, you can compare them (Raven-2X vs Jenner-K).

In the K2 vs C1 case, the K2 wins unless we are back in LRMaggeddon where the pair of LRM15 would probably be better.

LRMs vs PPC is a very subjective thing... and it's kinda directly related to how effective they are. PPCs are effective under most conditions (< 90m being the oddball case). LRMs are not effective under the current values (plus the CT locking nature of it changes the dynamics as well).

Come back to the discussion when LRMs don't always target the CT, and we can have a better discussion about them. A lot of the problems stem from poor behavior and design (see MGs when they first added the crit buff, which was incorrectly buffed in one direction). It is more difficult to judge them with broken behaviors.

You cannot use paper numbers to compare weapons of completely different types and function. That's just INSANE. If you want to compare LL to ML or PPC to ERPPC, we can have a decent discussion. PPC vs LRMs is a totally different discussion and are not directly comparable.

Edited by Deathlike, 12 April 2013 - 08:06 AM.

[Eddrick]

The Catapult-K2 is actualy my favorite Mech we have in this game. I would have no problem using it stock. The only issue I have with using it stock is the way MGs are.

One of the problems with weapon balance is each type uses a differant dynamic and multiple stats. It's hard to desides what should be adjusted. Even a number of suggestions I have seen was looking at the problem and/or solution in the wrong way. Both Catapult-K2 and A1 have been prime examples of the relationship between a Mech and it's weapon gone bad. No one knew if the offending Mech or Weapon should be nerfed. The end result turned out to be a nerf to both. I'm not sure if it was the right thing to do. But, that is what happened.

[Corvus Antaka]

havent driven my c1 with lrms since the hotfix. mounted dual ppc instead. LRMS are worthless right now. Taking them is like handicapping your team.

[Karl Streiger]

The question is:
are LRM worthless because you can not kill a target with a ton of ammunition?
or are they worthless because they don't deal any significant damage at all.

I have choosen the comparison between K2 and C1 because of reason.
With just 1t of ammo the C1 will hardly be able to kill another heavy mech - not even in TT.
But it can sand off all the armor at a target... use his supperior mobility...to get close...and the medium laser to finish that target off.

You have 100% controll over were your shots of the PPC will land on target...you have no controll over were the damage of your LRM will land.
So....all LRM go for CT and high point damage will result in a "no-skill" weapon - or "make" it random isn't a choice too.

That means...the LRM should remove any armor on target...that means you need lots of ammunition...because you have to remove almost every point of armor your target have.

[Randalf Yorgen]

hhmhmmmm touchy subject but LRM's aren't supposed to be straight line to target weapons. They have a trajectory like ballistic weapons so they can actually clear obsticals between the launcher and the target. That's the information that scouts with Tag and Narc and BAP and units with C-3 Slaves provide to the firing units. LRM's are supposed to "Rain Down" where a PPC is supposed to "Punch you in the face."

Also LRM's are supposed to be used like Artillery, they pound the target and soften it up so when the Brawlers are close enough to engauge there are weak points that can be exploited with the PPC. They track Kills and Kill Assists for some reason.

So to respond to your poll, which isn't a balanced poll. K-2 if you expect to be going head to head and C-1 if you are going to help out your team mates. As for weapon balance, make sure you are comparing apples to apples and not apples to squash before you start to buff things

[Deathlike]

Karl Streiger, on 15 April 2013 - 01:59 AM, said:

The question is:
are LRM worthless because you can not kill a target with a ton of ammunition?
or are they worthless because they don't deal any significant damage at all.

It's the latter. However, until they fix all locking missiles from targeting the CT, I'm not subscribing to any major changes in missile damage for the current system.

[Karl Streiger]

just as a reminder where did the MW3 lrm locked on. I know with TC it was somehow possible to lock them at a specific hit zone