29 replies to this topic

[Saltychipmunk]

A game is seriously in trouble when the average player can recite from casual memory all the good weapons the game has.

in mow's case that list is excessively short.

energy weapons
medium and large lazers
ppc

ballistic
ac20
gauss rifle

missles
streak srm2


That is the list in its entirety , now some people have made extremely specialized builds that work but those are more because the player in question is bored than it is that the weapons they use are good.


but look at that, of all the weapons in the game 6 , just 6 are considered good.


no wonder everyone is getting bored.

what the hell happened to the good old days
when srms and lrms were useful?

when will pulse lazers ever be good? (they arent not even large pulse lasers)

why do the machine guns and flamers exist?

what the hell?

[Lefty Lucy]

The UAC5 is also a good gun for ballistics.

[Prophetic]

SRM 6s + Art still work.

[Mister Blastman]

Lefty Lucy, on 07 May 2013 - 12:03 PM, said:

The UAC5 is also a good gun for ballistics.

When the stinking thing doesn't jam.

[MechWarrior849305]

You forgot med pulse lazorz. They are pretty much better for a fast light due to shorter beam duration.

[Soy]

Surprisingly legit post

[WhiteRabbit]

Lefty Lucy, on 07 May 2013 - 12:03 PM, said:

The UAC5 is also a good gun for ballistics.

God i love those things...i bought the 733C just so i can put two of them into that arm (sad thing is...in the current sniper-ppcs heavy matches, weapons that rely more on dps than instant-dmage are ...kinda sub-par)

[Lefty Lucy]

WhiteRabbit, on 07 May 2013 - 02:46 PM, said:

God i love those things...i bought the 733C just so i can put two of them into that arm (sad thing is...in the current sniper-ppcs heavy matches, weapons that rely more on dps than instant-dmage are ...kinda sub-par)

The thing is the UAC5 is kind of a hybrid DPS/alpha gun, because it can spit out two shots super fast, and when it jams you take cover like you do with most alpha guns.

[WhiteRabbit]

true this double-nature is one of the reasons i like them so much. Nevertheless if you use them like this (for more than the odd 2-3 mins) you go through an insane amount of ammo leaving you without the necessary reserves to get through a prolonged brawl (though those don't really happen anymore)

[NinetyProof]

I pair my UAC5 with a Guass ... same fire group ... then just hold down the mouse. It just spits out a steady stream of intimidation and doesn't hardly jam.

The only times I have problems is when I let up on ballistics fire for some reason, then start again, then, I sometimes get a jam (expected).

As far as the OP? You list out, for the most part, the hardest hitting weapons ... and yes, that is *all* of them. It's not hard to learn what the hardest hitting weapons in a game and it has no bearing on the state of the game or the community.

The reality is that there is not a lot of room to have more weapons, even if canon allowed it. AC20, AC10, AC5, AC2 ... so you want say an AC18? or an AC3.5? Or you want a 7 damage LarMed Laser to bridge Large and Medium Laser choices?

No, the mix is pretty good ... there might be room for a couple more weapons, but the challenge is in making them "Different" enough to actually mean something. Otherwise, you might as well just have a "slider" on a weapon that allows you to just choose.

ie: Laser: Top End, 9 points ... Bottom End 3 Points ... you can slide in increments of .5 making a total of 8 options ... and the slots / weight / etc would change as you slide.

And that, if I do say so, would be a terrible idea. Sounds cool, would allow for massive customization, but would end up being way confusing in the build area of the game.

[Farpenoodle]

Most of the other weapons are pretty viable if you decide to take them. They're usually not an automatic "I lose" button. So I wouldn't say the weapon balance is absolutely terrible. It just the nature of min-maxing that you're going to see more of the most effective weapons.

As weapon balance goes it's no worse than the other MWs. I mean really can you remember a time an AC/2 was ever considered anywhere near a viable weapon in a MW game?

[Alistair Winter]

Saltychipmunk, on 07 May 2013 - 11:49 AM, said:

That is the list in its entirety , now some people have made extremely specialized builds that work but those are more because the player in question is bored than it is that the weapons they use are good.

This is the most important and valid part of your post. It's also the part everyone will ignore.

Saltychipmunk, on 07 May 2013 - 11:49 AM, said:

what the hell?

I'll explain.

Some players feel that it's logical that since every weapon and upgrade is available immediately, they should all be equally viable choices. A mech with large lasers shouldn't be better than a mech with AC5s, for example. These players ususally also believe that all mech classes should be equally viable choices. It shouldn't be a given that an Atlas is better than a Hunchback, otherwise everyone would choose the Atlas.

Other players have a different take on the situation. They feel that Battletech lore dictates that some weapons should be better than other weapons, and some mechs better than other mechs. MGs, flamers and small pulse lasers should be useless according to these players, because they're not primarily anti-mech weapons. Mechs don't need to be balanced. It's fine if the PPC stalker is the best build in the game, and the Spider 5V is useless. Because the game shouldn't twist everything to make an even playing field. Double heat sinks are supposed to be better than single heat sinks, because they're more advanced, and in the Battletech lore, they're a pure upgrade, not merely a different alternative.

The last group is the one PGI agrees with. That's why they're not too worried about making all weapons balanced. That's why flamers suck, always have and always will. That's why single heat sinks serve no purpose in this game, except to force new players to grind C-bills so they can buy DHS.

The first group is the one who can put 2 and 2 together.

Hopefully, this should clear things up.

[Corbon Zackery]

FASA in 1980 balanced all these weapons before the game was even created if you only know how to use 6 of those weapons systems then your a pretty armature Battletech player.

All the Battletech weapons have a reason, and a purpose in the game.

Your not going waste a AC 20 shot on a platoon of infantry with laser rifles. No your going to mow them down with MG.

Your evaluating the weapons based on Mech vs. Mech combat most of the time its mech vs. tanks or infantry. Its rare that over 10,000,000 C-bills are deployed to the battle field.

The hard point system is what messes up most of the best builds.

[jeffsw6]

Corbon Zackery, on 07 May 2013 - 04:14 PM, said:

FASA in 1980 balanced all these weapons before the game was even created if you only know how to use 6 of those weapons systems then your a pretty armature Battletech player.

A first-person shooter has an interesting feature which is not found in the table-top game. Perhaps you've heard of it? Aiming.

The ability to aim invalidates the "but TT/lore has it this way" arguments, which are idiotic.

[General Taskeen]

Lefty Lucy, on 07 May 2013 - 12:03 PM, said:

The UAC5 is also a good gun for ballistics.

And only because of the very short-sighted "double shot" mechanic. As I've predicted before, UAC/10 and UAC/20's are going to exaberbate the issue 10-fold if they do not rethink AC's, but mainly UAC's in general. And if they don't change it, they'll just tack on the even more frustrating "roll and determine if you shoot" mechanic.

[Khobai]

Quote

FASA in 1980 balanced all these weapons before the game was even created if you only know how to use 6 of those weapons systems then your a pretty armature Battletech player.

All the Battletech weapons have a reason, and a purpose in the game.

The weapons in battletech were far from balanced. The entire reason FASA had to add a battle value system is because they weren't balanced. Gauss, PPC, and medium lasers were the best weapons by far. Nothing else even came close.

[Liberator]

Khobai, on 07 May 2013 - 07:51 PM, said:

The weapons in battletech were far from balanced. The entire reason FASA had to add a battle value system is because they weren't balanced. Gauss, PPC, and medium lasers were the best weapons by far. Nothing else even came close.

Then add battlevalue to the matchmaking system in addition to tonnage. Done.

[General Taskeen]

Liberator, on 08 May 2013 - 05:39 AM, said:

Then add battlevalue to the matchmaking system in addition to tonnage. Done.

Indeed, I think that's been suggested many times. If weapons can have BV applied to them, the match maker would also determine the BV level of the player's Mech to match an opposing player's actual loadout value. Essentially 'weaker' type stock builds would then (in theory) match up against one another.

[3rdworld]

General Taskeen, on 08 May 2013 - 05:49 AM, said:

Indeed, I think that's been suggested many times. If weapons can have BV applied to them, the match maker would also determine the BV level of the player's Mech to match an opposing player's actual loadout value. Essentially 'weaker' type stock builds would then (in theory) match up against one another.

That doesn't really fix anything. Everyone runs heavy mechs with gauss & ppcs now. With a BV system, people will still run those mechs.

Besides that it is more of a band-aid than anything, not actually correcting the games issues. It's just letting you drop against someone else that seems to be ignorant or apathetic to the games balance.

[General Taskeen]

3rdworld, on 08 May 2013 - 05:55 AM, said:

That doesn't really fix anything. Everyone runs heavy mechs with gauss & ppcs now. With a BV system, people will still run those mechs.

Besides that it is more of a band-aid than anything, not actually correcting the games issues. It's just letting you drop against someone else that seems to be ignorant or apathetic to the games balance.

I'm not saying it is a complete fix. The game has serious flaws in balance with many bandaids.