9 replies to this topic

[rageagainstthedyingofthelight]

Remember back in the day when you were playing Quake 3 and some one got Quad Damage? If you saw that guy coming down the hall you got the heck away from them until it wore off.

Similarly, I was explaining to my son why I like the Atlas, and it was because when some one came around a hill and saw you they changed their course to avoid you. Some even just stop and go full reverse.

And you can tell in game how powerful a weapon is by how players respond to it. If you lock me and see that I have 2 PPCs, you know that I'm going to deliver a strong shot and that it will take several seconds to deliver a second one. A good pilot will just time his torso twist and close in, because PPC's are harder than other weapons at closer ranges.

If you see some on slinging LRM's all over the battlefield you take cover and try to close because your best change is to finish them in close.

If you see them bristling with lasers and SRM's you just lock and load and let the games begin.

But if you see a mech with dual guass, dual AC20's, 3 AC5's, or 2/3 UAC5's? You avoid them like heck and hope the first mech they kill will damage them enough that you have a shot at killing them.

And that is why I think ballistics (really more the fact that several mechs can hold several of them) are currently overpowered. Doesn't matter what mech you are in, a high ballistic mech can kill you, and it won't take them long. And you know this, because when you see one of those configs on the battlefield you treat them differently than any other. These are the BFG's of MWO. And you know that they are way more dangerous than the other mechs.

You just know.

[Tiamat of the Sea]

What this guy is saying.

All of it.

[Arnold J Rimmer]

So, wait, every 'mech capable of carrying ballistics should only be able to carry one of them? Your only problem with them seems to be that multiples of a thing is OP.

[Naduk]

i think ballistics are in a fairly good place right now
i dont think they are balanced but they are at least getting taken

back in closed beta it was rare to see any ballistic other than the gauss
after HSR came in we saw quite a rise in ballistic use

a ballistic weapon should be feared
they are very heavy and ALL use ammo and all ammo except for gauss explodes

i think they still need balancing but not a direct damage nerf
perhaps ammo should be more fragile (i have not seen a death by ammo explosion for a long time)
perhaps less ammo per ton is the answer
a heavier fall off for fired rounds (a sharper ballistic arc)

[rageagainstthedyingofthelight]

Ammo explosion risk actually might work. Just something to put the Jager's and Catafracts on the same ground as everyone else.

[redacted]

Edited by miSs, 15 September 2013 - 07:29 PM.
responding to deleted content

[Tyzh]

I think by and large ACs are in a really good place balance wise, with one exception.

AC/2s are in their best place since I played with them back in closed beta. I thought at the time that DPS just wasn't valuable enough over alpha to make up for their small damage per hit, but with state rewind and the netcode finally starting to shape up I can pick a location on a 'mech and start laying shots into it over and over. They can really tear things apart if they are given time. Their tonnage compared to other weapons makes their DPS fantastic, but their low alpha means that if you are engaged by them you can counter them by spreading the damage and breaking their line of sight.

AC/5s are still in a weird place. I've been seeing more of them, but there is still an odd sense of "Why not pay an extra ton for ultras?" They have great range, and a better alpha than AC2s while nearly matching them for DPS. They weigh a good bit more, though. The most you can boat them is 3 on an Muromets and they make for a decent 'mech. 15 point alpha isn't a lot, but it's the equivalent of a gauss rifle hitting you every 1.5 seconds. It can add up. I'm not sure AC5s are exactly where they need to be, but I think they are close.

AC/10s are in the best place they have ever been since the gauss nerf. They used to be a slightly lighter shorter range lower alpha gauss rifle. That was it. Now with gauss taking a DPS nerf, AC/10s have taken gauss' "I'm good at everything" role. AC/10s can reach out at range to hit things, and can still churn out a very heat efficient 4 DPS when you close to brawl. It's lower projectile speed limits it at range and it's lower alpha limits it in brawls. it's a jack of all trades master of none weapon.

AC/20s are still the king of brawler weapons. An AC/20 backed up by SRMs makes for one of the scariest brawler builds that can be put on a 'mech, and that's how it should be. You mention in your OP that you think AC/20 boats are... uh... OP. I'm really going to have to disagree with you there. It is a really high pinpoint alpha and that makes them scary. They can headcap you in one shot if you stand there and stare at them. Also scary. But ghost heat is reeeeaaally rough on a pair of AC/20s. A single AC/20 generates 6 heat. A pair generates ~23! The penalty they are being slapped with there demolishes the AC/20's otherwise high DPS. A CPLT with AC20's is slow, and a JM6 with AC20's is fragile. I can't remember the last time I was actually killed by one of those builds. They are very counter-able.

Gauss I know is controversial atm, but I actually like the changes. Gauss have spent almost their entire life in the game being too good at everything. High DPS, high alpha, long range, no heat... Dual gauss snipers are still very effective at range, they just aren't the be all end all of weapons now. The versatility they once enjoyed is now found on the smaller less powerful AC10. My friends and corp mates that run dual gauss K2s and Jagers are still consistently putting up scores with 600-700 damage.

UAC5s. UAC5s are the outlier I mentioned at the start of my post. They are much too strong right now. They can burst damage, they have insane DPS, range, and even running an XL engine you can stand still in a brawl and simply DPS down a real brawling 'mech. UAC5s are everywhere right now and it's not hard to see why. They have no real weaknesses. PGI is working on changing the jamming mechanic for them, so we'll have to see where that takes them.

tl;dr Ballistics mostly fine. UAC5 too stronk.

[Corvus Antaka]

just stay in cover fighting UAC/5 mechs. Otherwise you need to cripple them, rip a side torso off the remainder will jam and they'll have no dps left.

also moving is vital. uac/5 doesnt do well on moving targets, only stationary or stationary vectors. this is why so many complain over uac/5, cause they don't move around or twist much and just...die.

[DEMAX51]

Excellent summary, Tyzh. Sums up my feelings about ballistics perfectly.

[DEMAX51]

Colonel Pada Vinson, on 16 September 2013 - 10:28 AM, said:

just stay in cover fighting UAC/5 mechs. Otherwise you need to cripple them, rip a side torso off the remainder will jam and they'll have no dps left.

also moving is vital. uac/5 doesnt do well on moving targets, only stationary or stationary vectors. this is why so many complain over uac/5, cause they don't move around or twist much and just...die.

Couple things:

1, if you "just stay in cover" you can't do any damage whatsoever. When the only viable tactic for going up against a build is "hide" that's probably a sign that said build is too strong. This was the case with Streaks a while back when they would insta-core Lights - they had no counter, all you could do was run away and hide - and that's just bad design.

2. 95% of the time, if you side-torso a 3 UAC5 'Mech you're going to kill it, because it's running an XL engine. The problem is that the Ilya has pretty small side-torsos, so it takes a person with great aim to do this reliably. Admittedly, it's easier to do on Jagers with 3 UAC5s, but those are somewhat less common in my experience.

3. I have absolutely no problem hitting targets with UAC5s - even Lights. The bullet projectile speed is relatively high, and even if you hit a different location on the target 'Mech with each shot, you're still doing between 5-15 damage to a single component, which is pretty significant.

[Tyzh]

Colonel Pada Vinson, on 16 September 2013 - 10:28 AM, said:

just stay in cover fighting UAC/5 mechs. Otherwise you need to cripple them, rip a side torso off the remainder will jam and they'll have no dps left.

also moving is vital. uac/5 doesnt do well on moving targets, only stationary or stationary vectors. this is why so many complain over uac/5, cause they don't move around or twist much and just...die.

Hey, Colonel Pada Vinson! It's nice to see that you still post around here. I remember your contributions to the user.cfg thread during closed beta were super useful for me. In fact, if not for the frame-rate your suggestions helped me pick up, I wouldn't have been able to contribute to my Merc Corp winning the first RHOD tournament.

As for your post, I recognize that breaking line of sight and shouldering damage between shots are all important to beating DPS builds. (Essentially any type of movement that forces them to play an alpha game rather than let them take advantage of their DPS.) Even when using those strategies, however, I feel that UAC5s are just stronger than they should be. I think their ability to cut through 'mechs at nearly any range with no practical draw-backs is contributing to their ubiquity among 'mech builds in the current state of the game.

While I could be subject to sample size bias (with the teams I am matched with and against) and observer bias, I am confident in my assessment that they are being over-used. I suspect that PGI's data-mining will tell them the same thing I've been seeing and that changes will be made accordingly.