7 replies to this topic

[Summer Gleeson]

Greetings warriors, Summer Gleeson here with a point of interest.

Launch is around the corner and one of the biggest issues we have in terms of the balance scale is that of weapons. Those currently under the most scrutiny being PPC's and LRM's (are they too strong? or just too common?). I would like to point out that those are not the only usual suspects that we see game after game.

Generally games have an abundance of PPC's LRM's, Gauss Rifles, AC 2/5's, large lasers, and in some regards its pulse counter part. All long range weapons and all having a dominate presence over the short range lists, however none besides the PPC and LRM's currently receive all that much attention despite the abundance of their use on the field.

Barring the argument of high pin point damage alpha's for just a moment why is it that long range weapons are the typical 'go to' platforms?

This perhaps maybe just an opinion warriors and I know it, but let's explore for just a moment. What is the disadvantage to them? Minimal. With perhaps the exception of heat on the higher damage weapons with all the upgrades we can do to any chassis and coolant flushes and weapon grouping all those weapons are just as effective at close range as they are at long and in some cases even more so.

Longer range weapons means the ability to engage much sooner even at a damage penalty for extreme ranges. Not to mention rates of fire or the like.

For example an AC 10 may in turn be better in terms of single shot damage, 2 of them can be brutal! But an ac 2 or 5 with the range at which they can engage and it's rate of fire and the fact that it is just as damaging at 10 meters as it is at 600 at the end of the day out performs nearly all the time. 2 of them? 3? What ac 10's?

Medium lasers are rather common sure, but over the performance and ability of the PPC or Large lasers lately is falling short of viability. They are good weapons no doubt but the general attitude is why mount mediums when I can mount larges or PPC's? They both do more damage and they can strip you before you are in range to engage? I'd add small lasers into that list but at this point i almost feel like asking "what are those?"

Long range weapons in general, whether they are high damage or low damage are simply more desirable to equip and with good reason. I'm not saying the short range weapons are useless, in fact brawler builds with close weapons are brutal and I personally don't think there are any real problems with weapons as a whole barring perhaps tweaks rather than all out nerfs.

What I am saying is that MW:O by design (being maps like alpine for example, and none restricted mech customization) has been the paramount culprit in promoting the long range, or high damage loud outs.

Long range weapons are simply more versatile and desirable than their shorter range counter parts by almost every single variable and as a result it's no wonder we see them dominating the game.

PGI's solution to boating high alpha's and to create more conservative builds was an 'aggressive approach' in regards to heat penalties. Although this system certainly has had an effect on boating and in many ways it's reception among the community has been both positive and negative (we really won't get into that as it is another topic really) it didn't do anything to solve the favoritism for the long range game.

4 PPC stalkers for example have adapted by just making 2 PPC and 2 LL's as a commonality or grouping fire accordingly.....in other words, still long range high damage weapons.

I think it is important for MW:O to be balanced and despite the high tempers of many of our community we all do actually feel the same way.

This is of course only my perspective as a 'something to consider' point of interest, and either you will agree or disagree. To each their own but what can PGI do to make the short range weapons just as viable a choice as the long? Or, how can PGI balance the field if you will regarding certain load outs to have as many disadvantages as advantages thus, promoting broader builds between long and short range weapons and game play?

Let's keep in mind warriors that at this point PGI can not overhaul a feature 100%, so with what we do have in place, what can they do that would help achieve that balance regarding the variety of weapons on the field with at the most moderate re-programming?

Suggestions?

Let's keep in constructive warriors, there's enough vitriol on the boards.

Summer Gleeson
Merc Net News.

[verybad]

Well, for long range weapons, the main deal in pin point damage. It reduces your risk if you can fire and forget a large amount of damage downfield. PPCs and Gauss lead here because of their no time during fire. This increases accuracy, reduces risk. Simple solution (though one that few would like) Make firing those two weapons take some time from pulling the trigger to them firing.

[Summer Gleeson]

verybad, on 27 July 2013 - 10:12 AM, said:

Well, for long range weapons, the main deal in pin point damage. It reduces your risk if you can fire and forget a large amount of damage downfield. PPCs and Gauss lead here because of their no time during fire. This increases accuracy, reduces risk. Simple solution (though one that few would like) Make firing those two weapons take some time from pulling the trigger to them firing.

So a Firing delay? Dramatic licence involved to simulate the need to power the magnets of a gauss rifle to launch its projectile, or the obvious high particle buildup of a PPC? Interesting approach, by creating the need to "stay on target" while not nerfing the ability of the weapons. Not bad, and probably not a lot of work.

[Odins Fist]

Summer Gleeson, on 27 July 2013 - 09:15 AM, said:

Barring the argument of high pin point damage alpha's for just a moment why is it that long range weapons are the typical 'go to' platforms?

As you have mentioned the reason they are the "Go to" platform for weapons is the fact they can be used to wear down an enemy, and also used in extreme close range (except LRMs), and they do good damage.

It all comes down to using the right tool for the job, I don't think anyone that wants to drive a nail into a board would use a screwdriver when a hammer is needed.

Weapons balancing is always tricky, you will always have people believing that "this" weapon is OP compared to "that" weapon, and this is usually an opinion formed by (2) dimensional thinking... I will explain.

Now let us say that someone is playing a different FPS game, and they look at stats of weapons (fire rate/damage/range), and say they look at a 9mm submachine gun (MP-5), and a battle rifle 7.62x51 (G3A3).. <--more power than 7.62 x39 (AK-47 type)

The MP-5 on paper looks pretty good for ammunition capacity (MP-5, 30 rounds versus G3A3, 20 rounds), and a higher rate of fire, and easier handling (less recoil), which the player deems a good thing, but they do notice the MP-5 doesn't have the range or raw power of the G3A3. The player decides to try both, and notices that he can put more rounds into targets at close to medium ranges, and that he is more accurate with the MP-5 overall, and gets more kills in situations he likes to play (gaming style)..
A few matches later he is being picked off by an enemy equiped with the G3A3 , and as a matter of fact he finds it difficult to kill the player with the G3A3, after several "failed" attempts to counter the player with the G3A3, the player using the MP-5 starts ranting that the G3A3 is way too OP..

Next the MP-5 guy decides to equip the G3A3 and struggles with it, finds it difficult to use with his/her gaming style like before, and starts saying things like "No Way.!!", and "Hack/Aimbot", he is then joined by other gamers in the forums for that game complaining about the G3A3, and the developer of that game decides to NERF the G3A3 after a few weeks.

Now, the G3A3 had it's damage and range reduced before the numbers were looked at correctly, and 3 months later the developers say "Wait a minute" the ranges weren't extreme for that weapon, the ranges at which most kills were made were not sniper weapon ranges, they were mostly medium to long range kills, and the weapon already suffers disadvantages that other weapons do not suffer from like, lower ammunition capacity, slower reload time, MUCH higher recoil, and the inability to mount a high powered scope for sniping.... Hmmmmm.... The G3A3 wasn't designed as a close quarters weapon, it's big, unwieldy, but is able to mount short to medium range optics.. Then the developers boost it's range and damage back up, (BUT NOT) to it's original stats, and again the short-bus, I mean short range crowd complains again with the resurgence of other players willing to use the G3A3..

At this point it was quite obvious that a large number of players had learned poor gaming habits before the G3A3 had been nerfed, blamed the weapon, and after the weapon was nerfed continued with the poor habits, and then were totally surprised when the G3A3 was buffed closer to it's original stats compared to the useless state it was in for 3 months. The short bus crowd was unprepared and suffered due to their own (2) dimensional thinking, both before the nerf and after, and that is no fault but their own.

I understand mechanics, and weapon loadouts etc, etc, etc, are all different from that game and MWO, but I see the same cycle happening in MWO... (NERF, TWEAK, UN-NERF, TWEAK, etc, etc, etc)

ALL these games have the same features in common, (POINT-AIM & CLICK) (W-A-S-D, move/use cover, target, etc, etc, etc,), and I find it amazing that so many people have a hard time understanding these unarguable facts.

You can either try to force eveyone to be put on equal footing, and punish smarter players, or you can let them deal with the situation themselves, and NOT hand them participation trophies for (2) dimensional thinking.

In other words (not to sound mean), you should let people come to the realization that a Daisy Red Ryder .BB gun is not going to be as effective as a my Savage Model 99e .308...

The whole boating issue doesn't need to be brought into it though, everyone should know that having more of something will multiply firepower or killing/damage efficiency, and they have already put in heat penalties to help counter this (even if one of them is so absurdly implemented that it defies logic on a 2 weapon loadout with those weapons being spread apart by the width of a Mech)..

There are two sides to the argument, one side wants everyone/everything to be equal, the other side realizes that equality is a myth. Some nerfs or tweaks being tantamount to handing low skilled players a participation trophy, is quite transparent to intelligent people.

I'm not going to get into which issues I believe are PTs for low skilled players displaying (2) dimensional thinking, I will just say that there have been a few things that qualify as such, and that is pretty sad.

Edited by Odins Fist, 27 July 2013 - 12:00 PM.

[Levi Porphyrogenitus]

Decreasing RoF on long-range weapons would help to give close-range weapons an advantage in sustained brawling without significantly decreasing the efficaciousness of long-range weapons at long range.

However, the biggest issue is one of accuracy and precision. Current long-range, high-damage weapons offer superior pin-point firepower even at very long ranges. The AC2 and AC5 (and UAC5) are less of a problem in this regard, as is the LL and ERLL. The PPC, ERPPC, and Gauss, however, all deliver their damage in a single precise point all at once. LRMs are only a problem in so far as they lump their damage on the CT (which is a known issue).

The reduction in RoF for Gauss and the PPCs was a step in the right direction, but the PPC weapons could stand to have a bit longer of a cool down (Gauss is pretty good right now due to its unique weaknesses, like blowing up at the drop of a hat). Aside from that, some system to limit sustained pin-point damage would be very helpful to gameplay (my preference is to tie it to the heat scale and have graduated penalties to movement, maneuverability, and accuracy).

[Summer Gleeson]

Odin: I can't find anything wrong with your analogy, well written. Except for the fact that poor game mechanics are as much responsible for poor habits as players are.

I'd like to see MWO defeat that by (4) dimensional thinking from the developers rather than the same old same old we likely have both seen in countless titles before it.

We as players in many ways see much more than any developer, and I can't see you believing that the current MWO gameplay regarding weapon balance is perfect. So what would you like to see, what would you suggest?

Edited by Summer Gleeson, 27 July 2013 - 03:25 PM.

[Odins Fist]

Summer Gleeson, on 27 July 2013 - 03:16 PM, said:

Odin: I can't find anything wrong with your analogy, well written. Except for the fact that poor game mechanics are as much responsible for poor habits as players are.

I completely agree with you on the game mechanics being a factor if they are not good.

And you are correct, I do not see the mechanics/weapons balance as perfect, but the DEVs have acknowledged this..
As to what can fix weapons balancing is debatable, but one factor (HIT registration) is also important IMO currently..

Weapons balancing will to be ongoing for a while, so I will just see where that ends up near release before I make any judgements, but I will say that attempting to make everyone "equal" on the battlefield is a poor idea (if it goes that way), some weapons are supposed to be better than others at certain roles, and they should reflect that.

[Tangelis]

Odins Fist, on 27 July 2013 - 08:24 PM, said:

but I will say that attempting to make everyone "equal" on the battlefield is a poor idea (if it goes that way), some weapons are supposed to be better than others at certain roles, and they should reflect that.

I don't think The OP's point is to make everything equal. She has a point that the long range meta is predominate out there though. Mediums and Lights I think are viable if you know how to really use their strengths, but most people are following the: If you can't beat them, join them mentality. Making the other roles this game has to offer sub-par, if not nearly all together frowned upon which is what leads us to seeing games populated by mostly assaults and heavies.