58 replies to this topic

[MustrumRidcully]

Why worry about Clan PPCs if you can have Clan Gauss Rifles? Come on, the power of the current Gauss Rifle shrinked down enough that two can fit into a single side torso? How awesome is that? I tell you how awesome it is - as awesome as an Atlas with 2 Gauss Rifles!

[Roadbeer]

ForestGnome, on 24 April 2013 - 12:37 PM, said:

Ok, people really need to stop doing these stupid and biased polls. They only make people who actually think the PPC's need serious work look like fools.

Red letter day, FG made a post that doesn't accuse PGI of eating babies, and I agree with it.

[FrostCollar]

MustrumRidcully, on 27 April 2013 - 06:43 AM, said:

Why worry about Clan PPCs if you can have Clan Gauss Rifles?

Because people'll take both, that's why. And why not? The IS combination is powerful enough without the lower tonnage, space requirements, etc.

[Evax]

8-man set up that beat the crap out of us(twice): 4 732s, 2 ddc, 2 raven

We were told to L2p.

[KingCobra]

I started beta with joy at a new MechWarrior game and a bright future for what was left of the old Clan and innersphere players from MW2-MW4 but quickly I learned MWO was a shallow imitation of the past MechWarrior games with no social chat lobby or private matches. The graphics sound mech design and maps are ok the mechlab is ok except you cant save your configurations. The MM is totally stupid and the MM setup as a big FFA gets old real fast. So im pretty much done until they bring back the things that made the MechWarrior IP great as in lobby and private matches it is just to boring without true ladder or planetary leagues. But I found a new game that is quite fun and challenging come try it you might exleast have some fun.-------> [color="#b27204"]http://warthunder.co...free?r=glispa13[/color] [color="#b27204"]http://www.youtube.c...d&v=5BWqTXoNjtQ[/color]

[Iacov]

ppc's per se work fine and suit their role on any "sane"/balanced build...

the boats are a problem!
a mech that uses no weapon besides 6ppcs is just "not working as intended"...
sometimes i wish MW4s hardpoint system back

[Fiona Marshe]

The answers offered to each question aren't conceptually clear and contradictory in places.

[Teralitha]

KingCobra, on 27 April 2013 - 10:05 PM, said:

I started beta with joy at a new MechWarrior game and a bright future for what was left of the old Clan and innersphere players from MW2-MW4 but quickly I learned MWO was a shallow imitation of the past MechWarrior games with no social chat lobby or private matches. The graphics sound mech design and maps are ok the mechlab is ok except you cant save your configurations. The MM is totally stupid and the MM setup as a big FFA gets old real fast. So im pretty much done until they bring back the things that made the MechWarrior IP great as in lobby and private matches it is just to boring without true ladder or planetary leagues. But I found a new game that is quite fun and challenging come try it you might exleast have some fun.-------> [color=#b27204]http://warthunder.co...free?r=glispa13[/color] [color=#b27204]http://www.youtube.c...d&v=5BWqTXoNjtQ[/color]

This pretty much my sentiment as well. I dont want to play until the game is complete. I feel that being a beta tester was merely a perk and that beta test feedback from players was largely ignored.

[TheGreatNoNo]

No. That whole super LRM thing we had a few weeks was the real Apocalypse. Nothing like a LRM20 doing 180 a shot. Hell I remember being turned into a unarmored head by a volley of LRM10s that day, that an I do not see the devs saying "Oh ****! We ****** up! FIX IT FIX IT FIX IT!!" then nerfing PPCs into the ground until they can.

[Purplefluffybunny]

I think the question asked by the OP may be answered if we see the builds of the top scorers in this current tournament.

[Davers]

Boydsan, on 24 April 2013 - 03:44 PM, said:

I was tyhinking the same thing... i do not see many Gauss Rifles as PPCs. You do not see 6 Gauss Stalkers.

Anyone seeing 6 Gauss Stalkers should submit a ticket to support@mwomercs.com

KingCobra, on 27 April 2013 - 10:05 PM, said:

I started beta with joy at a new MechWarrior game and a bright future for what was left of the old Clan and innersphere players from MW2-MW4 but quickly I learned MWO was a shallow imitation of the past MechWarrior games with no social chat lobby or private matches. The graphics sound mech design and maps are ok the mechlab is ok except you cant save your configurations. The MM is totally stupid and the MM setup as a big FFA gets old real fast. So im pretty much done until they bring back the things that made the MechWarrior IP great as in lobby and private matches it is just to boring without true ladder or planetary leagues. But I found a new game that is quite fun and challenging come try it you might exleast have some fun.-------> [color=#b27204]http://warthunder.co...free?r=glispa13[/color] [color=#b27204]http://www.youtube.c...d&v=5BWqTXoNjtQ[/color]

How much does War Thunder pay you to advertise their game?

The question is whether we want to have effective snipers in this game or not. By effective I mean with the ability to kill/severely damage a mech at range. Because you cannot have both effective brawlers and snipers- the advantage will always be squarely in the long distance camp. Imagine a brawler with a 60 point alpha strike and a sniper with a 60 point alpha- the sniper gets to get his hits in several hundred meters before the brawler can respond. Or the brawler is forced to 'play smart' and use terrain and flanking to get in position, meaning that the sniper has controlled the entire flow of the battle, and then can STILL trade blows at equal damage with the brawler. To be equal the brawler must be able to do 2-3x the damage as the sniper when he gets into range, which is impossible with the weapons available.

[pencilboom]

the way it is now, there's no point in brawling really. not unless you're in TS against pubs anyway..

brawling = moving tactically under cover until you get an opportunity to strike the snipers, then move in to brawl. often, these snipers got each other's back with a pinpoint damage of 40-60. so it's still a hit or miss game.

sniper = get to your favorite camping spot, stand there and snipe people with 40-60 pinpoint damage from a safe distance. and stand there until the game ends.

there aren't really any rewards for the hassle the people gone through with brawling

KingCobra, on 27 April 2013 - 10:05 PM, said:

But I found a new game that is quite fun and challenging come try it you might exleast have some fun.-------> http://warthunder.co...free?r=glispa13 http://www.youtube.c...d&v=5BWqTXoNjtQ

damn..I'm actually going to be downloading this nao...

Edited by pencilboom, 28 April 2013 - 07:05 PM.

[MustrumRidcully]

Davers, on 28 April 2013 - 05:45 PM, said:

Anyone seeing 6 Gauss Stalkers should submit a ticket to support@mwomercs.com

How much does War Thunder pay you to advertise their game?

The question is whether we want to have effective snipers in this game or not. By effective I mean with the ability to kill/severely damage a mech at range. Because you cannot have both effective brawlers and snipers- the advantage will always be squarely in the long distance camp. Imagine a brawler with a 60 point alpha strike and a sniper with a 60 point alpha- the sniper gets to get his hits in several hundred meters before the brawler can respond. Or the brawler is forced to 'play smart' and use terrain and flanking to get in position, meaning that the sniper has controlled the entire flow of the battle, and then can STILL trade blows at equal damage with the brawler. To be equal the brawler must be able to do 2-3x the damage as the sniper when he gets into range, which is impossible with the weapons available.

Snipers should have sufficient damage so they can severely damage a brawler carelessly approaching them, and kill him before they themselves take serious (but definitely some) damage. A brawler carefully approaching the Sniper and only exposing himself once he's in optimal range should destroy the Sniper before he takes serious (but definitely some) damage.

Snipers need the skill to find spots that the brawler can't approach easily, the brawlers need skill to find the optimum route to the sniper without being hammered at range. They both will have to constantly evalulate the situation and find new spots and new routes to achieve their optimum result.

I think that's the objective in balacning snipers vs brawlers.

[Triggerhippy]

It's the heat system that's broken, if my mech is at 99% heat and I alpha my 6ER PPC's I over heat and shut down - wetf I have just pushed my heat to approx 160%! It should cause all my heatsinks to explode and an 80% chance of my reactor blowing up at that heat. Put this mechanic in and PPC's will calm down a good deal. (especially the 6ERPPC stalkers).

[GrimlockONE]

Triggerhippy, on 29 April 2013 - 02:24 AM, said:

It's the heat system that's broken, if my mech is at 99% heat and I alpha my 6ER PPC's I over heat and shut down - wetf I have just pushed my heat to approx 160%! It should cause all my heatsinks to explode and an 80% chance of my reactor blowing up at that heat. Put this mechanic in and PPC's will calm down a good deal. (especially the 6ERPPC stalkers).

I believe this is the best solution. Unfortunately PGI believes their system is not broken and will not add this. It makes the game too unfriendly to casual players and therefore makes them less money.

In your example of the hexaPPC stalker. If the pilot did an override before that final shot, they would surely cripple or destroy themselves, however, simply choosing a penalty of shutdown + X number of seconds of no movement, they remain on the battlefield with no real adverse effect.

[Jukebox1986]

The Cake Option 4 is a lie.

Edited by Janus Wealth, 29 April 2013 - 07:01 AM.

[Butane9000]

Oh yea, the second they gave PPCs the ability to nullify ECM they became the go to range weapon unless you wanted to maximize damage (then you're still using a Gauss).

I went into a match once and was staring over the "no mans land" and all I saw was blue lightning streaks one after the other all over the place. PPCs sadly need to be balanced by changing the way their heat works when boating and alpha striking.

Clan tech will be interesting. Ideally I understand that it's way more technologically advanced then IS stuff but implementing it in a way that isn't broken will be interesting. But I don't see much of anyone using IS tech anymore once Clan tech is in the game.

[Davers]

MustrumRidcully, on 29 April 2013 - 02:12 AM, said:

Snipers should have sufficient damage so they can severely damage a brawler carelessly approaching them, and kill him before they themselves take serious (but definitely some) damage. A brawler carefully approaching the Sniper and only exposing himself once he's in optimal range should destroy the Sniper before he takes serious (but definitely some) damage.

Snipers need the skill to find spots that the brawler can't approach easily, the brawlers need skill to find the optimum route to the sniper without being hammered at range. They both will have to constantly evalulate the situation and find new spots and new routes to achieve their optimum result.

I think that's the objective in balacning snipers vs brawlers.

Now how can we do that with Battletech weapons?

The gauss and ERPPC do the same damage that allows them to kill the brawler at range up close too. The PPC has a min range, but 90m is REALLY CLOSE. You literally have to face hug to avoid the damage. Even giving the gauss it's min range back won't really solve the problem.

In TT there are range brackets and very specific advantages and disadvantages to them. In MWO being closer just means a larger target.

Edited by Davers, 29 April 2013 - 04:16 PM.

[MustrumRidcully]

Davers, on 29 April 2013 - 04:13 PM, said:

Now how can we do that with Battletech weapons?

The gauss and ERPPC do the same damage that allows them to kill the brawler at range up close too. The PPC has a min range, but 90m is REALLY CLOSE. You literally have to face hug to avoid the damage. Even giving the gauss it's min range back won't really solve the problem.

In TT there are range brackets and very specific advantages and disadvantages to them. In MWO being closer just means a larger target.

It's not thtat difficult.

To deal 10 damage with a PPC, you need to invest 7 tons from a mech's available tonnage.
To deal 10 damage with medium lasers, you invest 2 tons from a mech's available tonnage.
If you invest 15 tons in 660m ranged weapons, you get 15 damage.
If you invest 14 tons in 270m ranged weapons, you can get 20 damge.

If you use short range weapons in battletech, you can get more damage for the same tonnage in Battletech. (Of course, the above numbers are simplified and ignore the tonnage you'd have to invest in heat sinks and ammo)

The minimum ranges the table top game has for some long range weapons (and hardly all. Gauss, AC/2, AC/5, LRMs, and PPC. ER PPC, ER Large Laser, Large Laser, Clan LRMs, they all don't have a minimum range). The real trick is to ensure that ton for ton, including ammo and heat sink cost, low range weapons are more efficient.

MW:O breaks this assumption by allowing us to deal burst damage inside the heat capacity that vastly exceeds anything possible in the table top, not requiring the right amount of heat sinks. (And it breaks on the other side by requiring a lot more tonnage for sustaining firepower then Battletech woul require).

[Davers]

MustrumRidcully, on 29 April 2013 - 10:21 PM, said:

It's not thtat difficult.

To deal 10 damage with a PPC, you need to invest 7 tons from a mech's available tonnage.
To deal 10 damage with medium lasers, you invest 2 tons from a mech's available tonnage.
If you invest 15 tons in 660m ranged weapons, you get 15 damage.
If you invest 14 tons in 270m ranged weapons, you can get 20 damge.

If you use short range weapons in battletech, you can get more damage for the same tonnage in Battletech. (Of course, the above numbers are simplified and ignore the tonnage you'd have to invest in heat sinks and ammo)

The minimum ranges the table top game has for some long range weapons (and hardly all. Gauss, AC/2, AC/5, LRMs, and PPC. ER PPC, ER Large Laser, Large Laser, Clan LRMs, they all don't have a minimum range). The real trick is to ensure that ton for ton, including ammo and heat sink cost, low range weapons are more efficient.

MW:O breaks this assumption by allowing us to deal burst damage inside the heat capacity that vastly exceeds anything possible in the table top, not requiring the right amount of heat sinks. (And it breaks on the other side by requiring a lot more tonnage for sustaining firepower then Battletech woul require).

Well then the question is whether or not the Devs will completely overhaul the heat system. I would say no, but they did drop R&R like a hot rock when they saw it wasn't working.

But assuming they don't do that, is there anyway of achieving that brawler/sniper balance?