3 replies to this topic

[Victor Morson]

Hey everyone. I've noticed a general trend when we're talking weapon buffs/debuffs around here. Most everyone - including PGI's changes - tend to take the "Balance hammer & Nerf Bat" approach - namely in what they adjust.

To explain what I mean, let's look at what I believe are the three most requested changes to weapons:

- Increase Damage: An easy first place. The simplest thing to suggest buffing/nerfing is damage.
- Heat: The next obvious thing to adjust is heat, which may be a strong increase, or strong decrease.
- Rate of Fire: The simple rate a weapon recycles. Keep in mind that high recycle weapons, due to their tendency to spread damage, are almost always going to be primarily effective at shorter ranges.

However, when we are talking weapon balance, none of the below comes up very much - and is the key to fixing things without just playing musical chairs with guns:

- Velocity: Non-beam weapons have travel times. They very wildly. The AC/2 matches the PPC at 2000 (which is part of why the PPC is so powerful, not it's damage), but the speed falls dramatically to 1100 by the time you reach the AC/10. Velocity can radically change the usefulness of a weapon, for better or worse.

- Discharge Time: This one is for beam weapons. Simply put, the amount of time the beam is active and spreading it's full damage. For example, one of the reasons the ER Large Laser is terrible is that it has a 1 second discharge, which at extreme range is almost impossible to focus damage with. Discharge time is supposed to be one of the strengths of pulse lasers, but they haven't made enough disparity for it to matter. Shorter duration = more accurate punch!

- Ammo Consumption: I believe ammo consumption is something that could use another look as well. Weapons that are heavy due to necessary TT design could use a break by getting more ammo per ton, to allow their placement on more builds. There's a lot of hidden factors to ammo consumption - I'd argue that LRMs and light ACs both by design are going to miss a lot of shots, and LRMs get harder hit by ammo than some as they have the option to fire their limited ammo on 1/10 damage indirect fire; it burns it very, very rapidly.

- Falloff Rate: Most weapons do damage past their listed range, but the falloff and usefulness of this varies from weapon to weapon. Some weapons could use a drastically longer falloff than others, like the LBX/10, and it's a way to further differentiate weapons in a subtle fashion.

- Weapon Behavior: Generally speaking, high ROF, low damage weapons - unless the ROF is extreme - are always going to be bad. This is one of the reasons the MG is worthless; likewise, Flamers can't maintain contact long enough to be useful, leading to suggestions that flames cause lingering effects. These are just a few examples of how weapon behavior is sometimes a problem, and all the reasonable DPS in the world won't fix it.

-

Now, don't get me wrong. I'm not saying we should focus exclusively on Category B. I myself am calling for damage buffs, heat reductions and ROF changes in several threads. They're important factors.

The key, however, is that we need to do this in concert with the second category, which largely goes ignored by both the players and PGI.

The trick to fixing Pulse Lasers before wasn't to radically rework them as they did, but rather, to adjust their burn time. Now they need damage, heat and ROF fixes as well, when I really don't think they'd been very necessary before. Still, as they continue to buff and nerf these things, their firing durations remain untouched, which could be the Pulse Laser's greatest strength - one that fits with it's intended purpose: Higher heat, slightly more damage, but far easier to aim.

This is mostly a plea to not only PGI but the community to start looking at these factors, and blending them into your recommendations. Again I'm not saying "Don't ask for damage buffs!" I'm saying take this stuff into account, and maybe ask for less of a damage buff offset by a better velocity or discharge time next time?

[Miekael]

Good read OP, and I agree, changing the TT numbers hasn't done much beside over and under power weapons in the game. Missing TT game mechanics helped balance those numbers, and I think having things like convergence for ballistics, and a reworked heat scale would go a long way to balance those numbers together.

[Homeless Bill]

Where's convergence? I guess we're specifically discussion per-weapon factors.

I do agree that the secondary factors you mention are often overlooked. The projectile velocity of a few things needs some adjustment (PPC --> 1250m/s).

I also agree that the ER Large is a pretty pitiful sniping weapon due to its discharge time, but I'm wary to lower the duration due to impending Clan weaponry. Pulse lasers need a duration reduction across the board along with a few other things (perhaps 3x falloff?).

Face-your-opponent weapons are difficult to balance, but I don't think changing them to behave like everything else is a good solution.

Regardless of individual weapons and traits, without fixing the systemic problems this game has, playing whack-a-mole with various weapons will never work.

Edited by Homeless Bill, 01 July 2013 - 03:40 PM.

[Victor Morson]

Homeless Bill, on 01 July 2013 - 03:31 PM, said:

Where's convergence?

I left it off, primarily because I feel that is an entirely separate debate. Almost every convergence system I have seen suggested is at the mech level, not the gun level, relating to when you last fired weapons and such.

For purposes of clarity I focused this on the individual guns themselves.