55 replies to this topic

[HiplyRustic]

Jackpoint, on 12 June 2013 - 02:56 AM, said:

What the mans trying to say is how is it ballistics can do more damage faster than his 2ppcs+3xsrm6s can, 640 armoured 100t assault versus 300 armoured 65t heavy, the assault should win hands down in a face off. In raw numbers of dmg - dps its implausible the heavy could win.

He may be trying to say that, but he would trying to say something that isn't correct. SRMs are a shotgun, so figure maybe 25% (if he's realllly lucky) of their potential damage gets focused where he would like it. It was basically 4 AC/5s against 2 PPCs...and we don't know the range. Too close and the PPCs were doing nothing. Too far and the SRMs were spread too far to do much of anything. The ACs should win this fight...without solid piloting in the form of constant movement/twisting on the part of the Atlas pilot...pretty much every time...unless the Atlas pilot is in solid PPC range and is head or side-torso focusing the Jager. Even then it's not a pre-decided fight.

He's lucky he didn't do this against someone with a 2 AC2/2 UAC5 build who got lucky with UAC jams and got 6-7 solid seconds of burst from them.

Edited by HiplyRustic, 12 June 2013 - 05:14 AM.

[Budor]

[Zyllos]

Who would have knew..."duck taped" weapons killing some of the largest mechs in the game in a few salvos.

If that 4x AC/5 Jager salvo's did not all hit the same location, that Atlas would have not dropped that quickly.

This 100% falls back to what Paul suggested to fix the problem would do nothing for and displays the main reason why the game is feels off and unbalanced because weapons fire all hits a single location when fired.

[MeiSooHaityu]

There is no problem, the OP was focus fired and died by a high damage output mech. If he played smarter and was more aware of his enemy, he wouldn't have gotten so torn up.

He just wants nothing to be able to hurt his Atlas.

[PanzerMagier]

sounds like another QQ thread about someone who's disappointed that they can't faceroll everything with their atlas.

Honestly if a jager beats your atlas, the fault clearly lies with your piloting skills. Even a duel ac20 jager can be brought down by an experienced atlas pilot. Just focus on ONE side torso. he can't really twist out of the way. And you have 2 side toros and a CT to offer for his armouring chewing ridiculousness...

[IceSerpent]

Relic1701, on 12 June 2013 - 04:55 AM, said:

OmniMechs, a concept introduced by the Clans and later adopted by the Successor States of the Inner Sphere, feature hardpoints with interchangeable weaponry whereas classic BattleMechs have a fixed configuration.

The rules covering modding & building were conjectural/advanced/optional.

You really, really need to work on your reading comprehension - in a sentence "OmniMechs feature hardpoints with interchangeable weaponry whereas classic BattleMechs have a fixed configuration." what do you think that "fixed configuration" part refers to?

[Shae Starfyre]

Galenit, on 12 June 2013 - 03:26 AM, said:

4x5 damage in tt every 10 seconds, thats 20 damage.
4x5x6,5 damage damage in 10 seconds, thats 130 damage.

2x armor but 6,5x damage ....

Its like your atlas have less then 1/3 of its original armor against ac5.

But thats not that bad, compared to a ac2 witch does 20 times the tt damage against double armor.
Thats like having only 1/10 of the original armor.

Did i mention that we have pinpointdamage on top of this insane damage increase, dont know the hitting rules of the tt. This means the original damage would spread over different parts of your mech and not hit the the same position.
In tt you get 5 damage to 4 parts in 10 seconds from 4 ac5, in mwo you get 130 points of damage to 1 part in 10 seconds against 2x the armor.

Rework that with the potential for movement and twisting. Not to belittle the notion, but I am curious if the numbers fall in line a little more with the idea of spread damage (130 in one point means your not moving at all). Such as divide 130 by the 4 parts is 32.5 in theory. That's, what, 60+% greater damage than the TT rules? That's a huge increase still, and a good observation.

Wait, would you then cut that in half do to double armor, and now it is less than the TT rules?

We need an increase in ballistic damage!!!!! Alert!!! Alert!!!

Edited by Aphoticus, 12 June 2013 - 07:45 AM.

[Galenit]

Aphoticus, on 12 June 2013 - 07:43 AM, said:

Rework that with the potential for movement and twisting. Not to belittle the notion, but I am curious if the numbers fall in line a little more with the idea of spread damage (130 in one point means your not moving at all). Such as divide 130 by the 4 parts is 32.5 in theory. That's, what, 60+% greater damage than the TT rules? That's a huge increase still, and a good observation.

In tt each of the 4 parts is hit for 5 damage, hitting 4 parts each for 32,5 is a little more then 60%.
32,5 is 650% of 5, as i showed above, 6,5 times the damage....

But lets say you hit with each of your 6,5 shoots a different of the 8 parts of the mech.
Thats 20 damage only but its still 400% of the original damage against 200% armor.
In the end its 4 to 6,5 times the damage against only 2x armor for this example.

The larger the caliber the lower is the difference,
the AC20 does 2,5 times the damage, the AC2 20 times the damage.

Edited by Galenit, 12 June 2013 - 08:04 AM.

[DaZur]

Nuff said...

[Jman5]

Look OP, at the end of the day individual pilot skill is the most important factor of who wins an engagement. Not the mech you are using and not the weapons you are carrying. You can't create a good mech simulator (shooter) and make the rules hard and fast like: Atlas beats Jager every time. That is absolutely boring and would lead to everyone piloting the biggest mech they could find. If you want a turn based dice rolling game of hard values, then Mechwarrior online is not for you.

As you said, you have significantly more armor and probably more firepower than a jager ever will. If he beats you 1v1, then either you were hurting beforehand, or you got outplayed. There is nothing wrong with being outplayed (I get outplayed all the time), but it's important to recognize it. Focus on finding solutions with your gameplay instead of obsessing about perceived balance problems you can't change. One is a constructive endeavor, while the other is pointless venting.

Edited by Jman5, 12 June 2013 - 08:16 AM.

[Bilbo]

Most people will tell you that if you are staring down an Atlas in a lighter mech, you are doing it wrong. This is true. It is also true that if you are staring anything down in an Atlas, while not actually firing a weapon, you are doing it wrong. The only way that thing beats you is if you give it your torsos while waiting for weapons to recycle.

[Joseph Mallan]

Relic1701, on 12 June 2013 - 04:55 AM, said:

OmniMechs, a concept introduced by the Clans and later adopted by the Successor States of the Inner Sphere, feature hardpoints with interchangeable weaponry whereas classic BattleMechs have a fixed configuration.

The rules covering modding & building were conjectural/advanced/optional.

And yet there are pages of how to build/mod a Mech in the actual mechanics section of the core rule books. They also existed in CBT before the Clans came to the Canon. Shorty Snede has a FrankenMech that needed to have a special entry in a Scenario pack just so it could be played. Custom Rides are a part of every TRO... Including 3025!

[Volthorne]

IceSerpent, on 12 June 2013 - 07:39 AM, said:

what do you think that "fixed configuration" part refers to?

It refers to IS 'Mechs having nigh-*******-impossible-to-modify weapons loadouts. Why do you think there are so few "custom" variants?

[PhoenixFire55]

@OP Sorry to say dude, but my x3-UAC5 Ilya can drop an Atlas in 6 seconds.

[IceSerpent]

Volthorne, on 12 June 2013 - 08:50 AM, said:

It refers to IS 'Mechs having nigh-*******-impossible-to-modify weapons loadouts. Why do you think there are so few "custom" variants?

Because mechs are expensive to modify. And regular mechs are not impossible to modify - it just takes time and money. Omnies, on the other hand, allow for very quick swapping of weapon pods (assuming that you have those pods at hand), but modifying virtually anything else turns them into regular battlemechs.
The fact that there are custom variants of non-omnies pretty much blows your argument out of the water all by itself.

[verybad]

Blufocus, on 12 June 2013 - 02:37 AM, said:

Pull out the table top rules, read them...OBEY them. Otherwise, I want my money back...

It's not TT. If the armor were as weak as in tabletop, you've have been dead in 5 seconds. Obviously you're in some sort of denial however. Go back to dice if you can't handle real time.

[verybad]

MeiSooHaityu, on 12 June 2013 - 05:41 AM, said:

There is no problem, the OP was focus fired and died by a high damage output mech. If he played smarter and was more aware of his enemy, he wouldn't have gotten so torn up.

He just wants nothing to be able to hurt his Atlas.

'Zactly. He probably stood there or just moved foreword while it was pumping bullets into his torso.

[Screech]

Staring at the person shooting at you open mouth is not a great tactical maneuver.

Edited by Screech, 12 June 2013 - 09:30 AM.

[Triple Patte]

Also, 4xAC5 jagers tend to either be slow as hell or have almost no armor. They pretty much suck.

[Kitane]

verybad, on 12 June 2013 - 09:26 AM, said:

It's not TT. If the armor were as weak as in tabletop, you've have been dead in 5 seconds. Obviously you're in some sort of denial however. Go back to dice if you can't handle real time.

If game values were based on TT, it would take a 4 AC5 Jager at least 40 seconds to kill a typical Atlas with all damage assigned to CT.

No other weapon class in the game was buffed as much as autocannons. AC2 damage was increased 20 times! AC5 ~7x times! PPC only 2.5 times for a comparison...

It is then hardly surprising when a weak ballistic boat becomes a death reaper with unexpected monstrous firepower.

Edited by Kitane, 12 June 2013 - 09:43 AM.