206 replies to this topic

[Gremlich Johns]

Don't nerf damage, make the loadouts on mechs make sense. A raven with an XL300? really? The engine almost as big as the torso. 3xSSTRK2 on a commando? ammo takes up space, make it realistically sized.

Edited by Gremlich Johns, 27 April 2013 - 07:34 PM.

[Maxx Blue]

I would be on board with no convergence, or at least fixed convergence on torso weapons. Maybe don't have them all firing parallel to each other but at a fixed angle so they hit the center of the reticle at max range for the weapon. You might even be able to cut down on dynamic convergence in mechs with no elbows as well ( cat, jaeger, cicada, etc.), but I don't think it would be necessary. That way even perfect aim doesn't mean you land all the damage on the exact same hit box. You could still make a 4-pc atlas rs and a few other arm snipers, but it should generally help with being able to boat long range sniper weapons. Heat damage on overheat would also help by making high heat alphas more dangerous. It would make my hbk-4p even more of a ***** to play, but I can live with that!

[TheSteelRhino]

Definitely the state rewind changed the game along with the net code fixes.

The problem with the weapons balancing they have been doing all along is that everything was based off bad data.

1). Raise heat on ER PPC and PPC. Look... if you are running more than 3 of these and you alpha. Your mech should basically just explode from heat. Not really, but you get the point.

Inner Sphere ER weapons are HOT. (at least in the Battletech universe)

2). Raise heat on er large laser. Again..should be VERY hot.

3). Large lasers, probably should be a bit hotter.

4). Gauss rifle. Look..it's a COIL GUN. (Similar to rail gun in that it uses magnetics to accelerate a metal slug to very high speed)That metal slug is supposed to be accelerated to insance speeds. At minimum it should be close to PPC speed. With the low health on the weapon and a chance of explosion (which should probably be lower than currently set) it already has some disadvantages.

-> Now before you say it..yes..I realize this is a buff. It's a 15 ton weapon. You can only carry so many, and it's a longish reload cycle. But if you make this monster of the battlefield a bit more viable then maybe you'll see less of the 4 and 6 PPC/ERPPC builds.

5). AC5. Look..this thing sucks. Buff the damage to 6 or 7, and lower recyle to 1.3 or 1.25. Still not as fast as Ultra ac5, but a little more reasonable.

6). LBX...add slugs

7). AC10. Pump the range a bit ABOVE that of the LBX. LBX is lighter, so AC10 needs a buff. Or lower recycle time a bit.

Other weapons aren't that bad...(OK missiles ,but that's a work in progress already)


Honestly ballistics heat is probably a little high comparied to energy weapons, but I think energy weps should adjusted upward and not downward.

Edited by Rhinehardt Ritter, 28 April 2013 - 06:14 AM.

[TseTse]

I think they are trying to balance weapons around an unbalanced system. They are trying to balance them around the fact that you can cram 2 Gauss/AC 20s into heavy mechs. Not to mention being able to shove multiple PPCs onto a number of chassis.

[jeffsw6]

Rhakhas, on 27 April 2013 - 06:44 PM, said:

I think the only thing that needs to happen (outside of the missile fixes), is that Center Torso armor ought to be increased. With the exception of lights and fast mediums, right now there's essentially no reason to aim for anything but the CT.

SuomiWarder, on 27 April 2013 - 07:29 PM, said:

The only real partial answer is something most people don't want - to ditch the pin point accuracy ability to damage one body part.

I don't agree, and touched on this in my original post. If internal structure -- not armor -- were simply buffed, then it would be more difficult to blast off an entire arm (or blow up the engine) but the opponent's weapons would be damaged just as easily as they are today. This would increase the reward for smart aiming -- observing the opponent paper-doll and shooting an Atlas in his AC/20 to reduce his DPS output; but it would also allow players to live longer, even though they may be less effective.

I am not saying this is definitely a good idea. It's a possible alternative to overall reduction in DPS, dramatic changes to the heat system, large adjustments to the weapons, or buffing armor. It is worth discussion.

[KingCobra]

And Russ is right Damage is to high but you have to ask why? and many in this thread have some good ideas but lets look back at MechWarrior itself. In Mechwarrior2 and expansions the mechs were slow ponderous tanks that took about 6-20 shots to kill a lot depended on your loadout and aiming skills. In MechWarrior3 they tried the exact opposite the mechs were very fast hard to hit which made it fun but the Boat Weapons era had started.Mechwarrior4 was a blend of both games Mechs were semi fast but could take 4-8 hits to kill a lot depended on the latency and the pilots skill.IN MW3 and MW4 mechs could actually dodge incoming fire and move into cover fast enough in MWO mechs are very slow moving they cant dodge incoming fire very well and it takes only 2-4 hits to kill a mech in most battles. Many Players have suggested fixes that are correct and would work but I don't think PGI knows or cares to listen to anyone anymore.So im off playing WarThunder until PGI can make a true MechWarrior game. 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"][color="#b27204"]http://warthunder.co...free?r=glispa13[/color][/color] [color="#b27204"][color="#b27204"]http://www.youtube.c...d&v=5BWqTXoNjtQ[/color][/color]

[EvilCow]

I could only agree on the statement if it was: "the overall pinpoint damage is too high".

Right now we are already at the point where even the most powerful weapon is useless alone. The armor values are already too high and there is no balance between weapons and armor effectiveness.

You need to use lots of pinpoint weapons in order to penetrate the armor.

Fix pinpoint accuracy and the game will be balanced much more easily.

[White Panther]

EvilCow, on 27 April 2013 - 10:52 PM, said:

I could only agree on the statement if it was: "the overall pinpoint damage is too high".

Fix pinpoint accuracy and the game will be balanced much more easily.

My opinion and feel for this situation is the same as yours. I don't believe the issue is the weapons or mechs themselves (although some weapons need a buff like ac5, ac10, lbx10) but the fact that its way too easy to put alot of pinpoint damage on a single box. Look at the highlander, its a joke. You can put 3ppc's and a gauss basically pinpoint while jumping. What are we playing here? mw4 again?

I would like to see the game favor skill players more by making the shooting harder in some way, it wont make bad players good or vice versa.

[Fate 6]

AC, on 27 April 2013 - 03:51 PM, said:

The thing that frustrates me is that if PGI thinks damage is too high, then they are not paying attention. I have said this numerous time, it is NOT the weapons. It is the mechs. Balance breaks when they release a new mech that can boat weapons. Remember back to closed beta? The only mech that got a lot of attention was the K2 Gausapult. Why? Because PGI has a terrible slot system that lets you put gauss where Machine guns should go. Streaks were broken because of the SplatCat, AC20 is broken because of the Jagger, PPC is broken because of the stalker. It is the mechs themselves that break balance, NOT the weapons. Fix the slot system on the mechs and weapons balance will be simplified and overall game balance will be much better off.

It really is the boating that makes things broke. Mechs with balanced loadouts are balanced. I have yet to see an OP mech that works at all ranges (other than PPC/Gauss mechs).

What we need is not necessarily a slot limitation but something to deter boating. That is honestly the problem with things like the A1, although the A1 just has poorly designed hardpoints so you pretty much have no choice but to boat. I think the way to solve this is to make mechs meant for boating (4P, A1, 8Q, etc) have a quirk that makes the boating drawback affect them less.

[jeffsw6]

Fate 6, on 27 April 2013 - 11:36 PM, said:

It really is the boating that makes things broke. Mechs with balanced loadouts are balanced. I have yet to see an OP mech that works at all ranges (other than PPC/Gauss mechs).

I think the same thing, and that is why I suggested that range adjustments be made to PPC, both PPC and ERPPC have heat raised, and Gauss have ammo/ton reduced. That would hugely nerf them for brawling, where those weapons should be ineffective. For long-range sniping, though, there would still be a variety of effective armament choices.

[Vapor Trail]

Rhinehardt Ritter, on 27 April 2013 - 08:01 PM, said:

4). Gauss rifle. Look..it's a RAIL GUN.

No.

The Gauss Rifle is a COILGUN.

Railgun.


Coilgun.

[Tor6]

Gremlich Johns, on 27 April 2013 - 07:33 PM, said:

Don't nerf damage, make the loadouts on mechs make sense. A raven with an XL300? really? The engine almost as big as the torso. 3xSSTRK2 on a commando? ammo takes up space, make it realistically sized.

First: The Raven CAN'T fit an xl300. Second a raven is actually much larger than it appears in game. The light mechs models were shrunk significantly to make them harder to hit. Because if the lights were all the size of hunchbacks they'd explode 2 seconds into a fight. In canon (and reality) a mech that weighs 35 tons and is as lithe as the raven is is gonna be like 70% or so as tall as an atlas.

Second: Ammo already takes up space in the form of crit slots. The missiles used in battletech aren't very large or heavy.

[TheSteelRhino]

Vapor Trail, on 28 April 2013 - 12:08 AM, said:

No.

The Gauss Rifle is a COILGUN.

Railgun.


Coilgun.

Fine. Nit picking mode on

Most ppl don't know what a coil gun is. Principle and more importantly point is same. It is a kinetic weapon as the dmg comes from the force of the projectile hitting the target. Updating original post

Keep discussion on track ease and dont get so **** retentive you cannot understand the overall point. Physics in the battletech universe is a bit wonky anyways. Sheesh.

[AndyHill]

I agree with everyone who mentioned the pinpoint alpha damage as the source of the problem. The solution can be very simple (although somewhat drastic): remove alpha and only allow chain fire - with longer cooldown times for all weapons. Any changes to weapons will simply change the weapon that is to be boated. Lowering damage for all weapons will of course make 'mechs last longer, but the gameplay will still be dominated by pinpoint alpha builds and there's of course the thing with ranged weapons being nerfed if they're not able to do enough damage before the enemy closes the distance.

[SGT Unther]

Is this actually constructive discussion? Where did the MWO forums go?

Okay all joking aside, I am still of the opinion that arm weapons should get the fastest automatic convergence if they have a full set of actuators. Remove the the lower one for bigger weapons and the convergence time should increase dramatically. Torso mounted weapons should have the slowest convergence speed of them all.

Edited by SGT Unther, 28 April 2013 - 06:50 AM.

[MustrumRidcully]

Victor Morson, on 27 April 2013 - 03:52 PM, said:

I don't think it's a dangerous way to think.

If they did a blanket across the board damage reduction, I would be OK with it (aside from the still needed rebuffs); but it's something that isn't that easy to do. A lot of factors that aren't even statted to the public (like discharge times and such) get rapidly impacted by damage, as does ROF and heat; even if it was an even every weapon lowering situation.

Actually, it seems rather easy to reduce the damage across the board. Take all the current damage values, and lower them to half. (Or whatever factor they deem appropriate).


But the real problem the game has is, I think, not the general damage output over time. It's really the burst damage potential that's too high. A 4-6 PPC Sniper Mech can put out a lot of damage in 5 seconds, but the damage they put out in 20 seconds is not 4 times as high. The problem is basically the distribution of damage over time. Too much of it is upfront. Main culprit here is the heat capacity that allows large energy alphas. It's easier to build large alphas if you get to use energy weapons, but it's a lot harder with ballistics, since they need a lot of critical slots and tonnage that won't fit so easy. The ballistic builds would be much more sustainable, since ballistics produce less heat, but they always have to pay for this advantage in tonnage and crit slots, and the alternative to paying for heat efficiency with crit slots and tonnage is to use a tactical approach that gives you the option to cool off between salvos.
At low range, that tactical approach doesn't work so well, since the enemy requires the same time to follow you into cover as you take to get into it, but for long range weapons, it works, because the enemy usually has to take a longer route to find you behind your cover while you can switch behind (your) cover quickly. Hence we now have the snipers and poptarters that don't worry about sustainable damage output, only about alphas and ways to get into cover.

And of course, an additional factor is the damage possible by focused fire. It's a difference whether 3 enemy snipers need to fire 2 salvos each to amass enough damage to kill you, or only one. The more salvos it take, the better your chance to react in some manner. Worst case is the 1-salvo death, that leaves you no reaction time, only precognition time - you must know before turning a corner whether it will expose you to snipers or not. Since there aren't any ways to find mechs behind cover without exposing yourself to them in kind.. Good luck, Recon 1.
With 45 to 60 damage alphas, we've reached the threshold where a group of snipers can kill one enemy before he can react (effectively).

[Adridos]

There are basically 3 solutions I know of to this problem.

The first is limitting the customisation to somehwo hinder boating, altough if they then add some Clanny mechs, even that won't help as they would have to alter their basic configurations.

The second one is adding a mode with removed customisation, MW:LL style. That one would, however, require a bit of a rebalance and still doesn't deal with the fact of Clan boats.

The third one is changing convergence by different means from having the arms converge only at X meters and closer/further targets need recalibration, or compensate for the innacuracy to not allowing fixed weapons any convergence at all.

[Roadbeer]

So, Jeff, No plans on changing your OP to reflect the contextual errors that were pointed out to you?

That's cool, I get it, shouting fire in a theater always gets the intended results.

[MustrumRidcully]

Roadbeer, on 28 April 2013 - 07:55 AM, said:

So, Jeff, No plans on changing your OP to reflect the contextual errors that were pointed out to you?

That's cool, I get it, shouting fire in a theater always gets the intended results.

I don't think it was an Ask the Dev thread either. But I remember someone saying they said it at some place - twitter? Reddit? That doesn't mean that source actually exists, but if it was misinformation, it did probably not come from jeff.

[Roadbeer]

MustrumRidcully, on 28 April 2013 - 08:02 AM, said:

I don't think it was an Ask the Dev thread either. But I remember someone saying they said it at some place - twitter? Reddit? That doesn't mean that source actually exists, but if it was misinformation, it did probably not come from jeff.

As was pointed out on the first page..

ssm, on 27 April 2013 - 03:56 PM, said:

It's not ATD, Bryan Ekman said something along those lines on Reddit AMA:

Q: Does PGI ever plan to balance weapons by changing their weight and/or damage? So far only missiles have had their damage changed throughout the beta and everything else except MGs have their TT damage values.
A: Possibly. We're looking at overall DPS right now, which is too high overall with the new HSR fixes. It's super risky, so we're not jumping in head first with any DMG changes yet.

Edited by Roadbeer, 28 April 2013 - 08:10 AM.