57 replies to this topic

[Bishop Steiner]

Primez, on 19 September 2013 - 09:28 AM, said:

Oh I also forgot that with ammo there is always the chance of explosions. Wolfways, you can boat lasers it's usually effective on assault mechs that have the slots and tonnage for DHS and energy weapons. Blue Hymm, if your in an awesome and face check the corner into 3 heavy mechs I would expect to be melted quickly aswell regardless of what loadouts they had.

I think ballstics are relatively balanced right now maybe some minor minor buffs such as the ghost heat on ac2s. Ballstics are in a good spot right now because they can be used with any wieght class of mech and be used effectively boating wise or non boating.

I find though that energy weapons do seem to be lacking and need a buff. My personally view is instead of trying to nerf everything to the ground. Look at what needs to be buffed. Granted sometimes nerfing is required, in this case I don't believe so.

is interesting the number of mechs at the end of matches running like little girls because their ballistic or missile only mech is outta ammo. Haven't seen too many laser/PPC mechs with that problem.

Yet I see both overheated and shutdown pretty frequently. (Unless it's a Gauss mech, then I see them having their gun blow up a lot)

[Wolfways]

Primez, on 19 September 2013 - 09:28 AM, said:

Oh I also forgot that with ammo there is always the chance of explosions. Wolfways, you can boat lasers it's usually effective on assault mechs that have the slots and tonnage for DHS and energy weapons. Blue Hymm, if your in an awesome and face check the corner into 3 heavy mechs I would expect to be melted quickly aswell regardless of what loadouts they had.

I think ballstics are relatively balanced right now maybe some minor minor buffs such as the ghost heat on ac2s. Ballstics are in a good spot right now because they can be used with any wieght class of mech and be used effectively boating wise or non boating.

You say boating lasers is possible in an assault where you have the weight to use many DHS, and using ballistics is possible on any weight class and used effectively boating wise or non boating.
How is that balanced?

Quote

I find though that energy weapons do seem to be lacking and need a buff. My personally view is instead of trying to nerf everything to the ground. Look at what needs to be buffed. Granted sometimes nerfing is required, in this case I don't believe so.

I'd rather weapons were nerfed than buffed as buffing would decrease the kill-time in the game. Matches are short enough as it is.

[MilkAndWookies]

I don't know if this has been suggested before, but is there any bullet drop in MWO? It seems to me that there is none. If there was bullet drop then ballistics would be much harder for getting hits at long range. Most of my complaints are of the pinpoint accuracy at long range.

[GRiPSViGiL]

Wolfways, on 19 September 2013 - 08:26 AM, said:

I see, but can't the same argument be said for any equipment you put in your mech?
I usually play heavy mechs though and speed is a minor consideration for me. I equip what i want and then fit an engine. Then i consider whether the mech is too slow and i need to exchange/remove something.

Yes, but I will take speed over another weapon usually. I mean 10KPH is a big difference to me. Whether that be moving at 79KPH or 89KPH, I would rather move 89KPH and then throw speed tweak on top of that and you have a significant difference in speed allowing you mobility. In my eyes the game is all about mobility and positioning to stay alive and create the best angles of engagement.

[Primez]

Wolfways, on 19 September 2013 - 01:28 PM, said:

I'd rather weapons were nerfed than buffed as buffing would decrease the kill-time in the game. Matches are short enough as it is.

In essence that what this boils down too is the TTK time. TTK meaning Time To Kill. I happen to enjoy where the TTK is right now I like the quick kills and shorter matches especially consider how much lower the cbill gains are now since beta.

If they were to nerf everything into the ground and produce a longer TTK, matches would be longer and in essence less cbill gain. I don't want to make mechwarrior into a grindfest, it slightly feels that way now. Hence I'm sticking by my decision to buff lasers and other weapons that need buffing and stop the nerfing. Though I do respect your viewpoint on longer matches.

Not to mention I'm not really looking on the effects of a longer TTK that would buff light mechs a lot, considering where the netcode is with lag shields and HSR. This would also change the dynamics of conquest greatly.

Edited by Primez, 20 September 2013 - 02:22 AM.

[Amsro]

Primez, on 20 September 2013 - 02:19 AM, said:

In essence that what this boils down too is the TTK time. TTK meaning Time To Kill. I happen to enjoy where the TTK is right now I like the quick kills and shorter matches especially consider how much lower the cbill gains are now since beta.

If they were to nerf everything into the ground and produce a longer TTK, matches would be longer and in essence less cbill gain. I don't want to make mechwarrior into a grindfest, it slightly feels that way now. Hence I'm sticking by my decision to buff lasers and other weapons that need buffing and stop the nerfing. Though I do respect your viewpoint on longer matches.

Not to mention I'm not really looking on the effects of a longer TTK that would buff light mechs a lot, considering where the netcode is with lag shields and HSR. This would also change the dynamics of conquest greatly.

Your analysis would be correct if hit detection wasn't erratic, too many packets have a tendency to get lost, once this code is fixed you will notice mechs dropping %30-%50 quicker I feel.

Depending on this single variable I can have a 500dmg match and the very next a 150dmg match doing the EXACT same thing usually on the very same map even. The game outright looses packets and doesn't care .

[Wolfways]

Primez, on 20 September 2013 - 02:19 AM, said:

In essence that what this boils down too is the TTK time. TTK meaning Time To Kill. I happen to enjoy where the TTK is right now I like the quick kills and shorter matches especially consider how much lower the cbill gains are now since beta.

If they were to nerf everything into the ground and produce a longer TTK, matches would be longer and in essence less cbill gain. I don't want to make mechwarrior into a grindfest, it slightly feels that way now. Hence I'm sticking by my decision to buff lasers and other weapons that need buffing and stop the nerfing. Though I do respect your viewpoint on longer matches.

Not to mention I'm not really looking on the effects of a longer TTK that would buff light mechs a lot, considering where the netcode is with lag shields and HSR. This would also change the dynamics of conquest greatly.

Yeah i can see there are reasons people prefer different game lengths.
I prefer very long games, but i'm used to "respawn" games where people can join and leave matches as they please, like the Battlefield series. Before Blizzard nerfed it i once had an 8 hour battle in the Alterac Valley battleground. Now that was fun

That's why MWO needs more game modes.

[Amsro]

Wolfways, on 20 September 2013 - 09:34 AM, said:

Yeah i can see there are reasons people prefer different game lengths.
I prefer very long games, but i'm used to "respawn" games where people can join and leave matches as they please, like the Battlefield series. Before Blizzard nerfed it i once had an 8 hour battle in the Alterac Valley battleground. Now that was fun

That's why MWO needs more game modes.

As long as you continue to accumulate c-bills and xp I would play a hour or longer match.!!

[Shadey99]

Wolfways, on 20 September 2013 - 09:34 AM, said:

Yeah i can see there are reasons people prefer different game lengths.
I prefer very long games, but i'm used to "respawn" games where people can join and leave matches as they please, like the Battlefield series. Before Blizzard nerfed it i once had an 8 hour battle in the Alterac Valley battleground. Now that was fun

That's why MWO needs more game modes.

This is when I miss earlier mechwarrior games... I remember when mechwarrior had sweeping epic battles using combined infantry forces in multiple engagement zones. Needing to take out an artillery emplacement with a lance with a regiment of fortified infantry and a force of vehicles guarding it and after you strike a enemy mech lance swoops in forcing you to pull back...

[Foxfire]

I recently converted my Illy from using AC's to mounting 2x LL's, 1 LPL, and 3 MG's and have found a lot of success with it. I don't have as many 4+ kill matches with it due to not having burst weapons.. but I do find myself getting more 600+ damage matches.

[Johnny Reb]

Veranova, on 18 September 2013 - 05:46 AM, said:

Does anyone else feel that Ballistics are kinda the new cheese build?

I'm not saying they're massively OP.
But AC40 Jaegers are a force you don't want to contend with, within 400 metres.
UAC5's were the new meta for a while there, and now that's going to shift to AC2's which are arguably worse to have as a meta, because of their longer range and faster fire rate.
Energy weapons on the other hand are as usable as ever, but don't have the advantage of scaring the hell out of anyone getting hit by them.

This I feel is the major advantage Ballistics get. The fact they cause enemy mechs to shake, and often obscure their vision too. It breaks moral and makes aiming difficult.
Obviously a great tactical advantage, however these weapons can sustain a higher DPS than lasers on top of this, and ammo limitations don't seem too much of an issue as half your team is dead by the time ballistic builds run out and switch to secondaries..

What does everyone think?

Well since I don't see a specific type just ballistics, I ask what meta build?

[Anjian]

Every game I go now has tons of Jagers and Cataphracts, in particular the Ilya and the 4X variety, along with K2s. It just seems that the games are now being decided who has the most of these.

[Veranova]

I feel like a great solution would be to add recoil to ballistics.
This would create a great quirk for Lasers, where they do slightly less damage but you get more mech stability as a result.

Ballistics get spammed a lot, and it's very hard to even see what you're doing when you've got AC2's hitting your CT constantly. It makes sense that the spammers would also start to lose their vision a bit from the vibrations, and it would be more immersive too.

[ArchSight]

Yup, I do think high DPS ballistics are the new meta. The energy and missiles are not fast enough in fire rate to keep up with just two ac 5's. When I find a good dps build with energy and/or missile hardpoint mechs I'll let you know. I'm looking into boating energy and/or missiles that have low cool down to reach the same 15 seconds 100 damage of two ac 5's without overheating on a medium mech.

Edited by ArchSight, 22 September 2013 - 10:44 AM.

[The Boz]

ArchSight, on 22 September 2013 - 10:32 AM, said:

Yup, I do think high DPS ballistics are the new meta. The energy and missiles are not fast enough in fire rate to keep up with just two ac 5's. When I find a good dps build with energy and/or missile hardpoint mechs I'll let you know. I'm looking into boating energy and/or missiles that have low cool down to reach the same 15 seconds 100 damage of two ac 5's without overheating on a medium mech.

Impossible task is impossible.
Also, AC2s are better because of both DPS and bullet speed, meaning it's much easier to hit with them. They are also less slot-heavy, meaning you can fit more heat sinks. The weapon has ~no downside.

[Zordicron]

meh ballistics are fine.

you guys need to cool off till they fix hit detection. Hitscan and multi hit(like missiles) are still at a big disadvantage with the detection stuff. Ballistics have some too, but in general have been much more reliable in a "in game" practical sense.

SRM are probably fine too, but they have terribad detection right now,, at least for me.

[Bishop Steiner]

The Boz, on 22 September 2013 - 12:00 PM, said:

Impossible task is impossible.
Also, AC2s are better because of both DPS and bullet speed, meaning it's much easier to hit with them. They are also less slot-heavy, meaning you can fit more heat sinks. The weapon has ~no downside.

ridiculous heat and low damage per shot, so you have to stay exposed to return fire is a considerable downside.

[Zanathan]

While I agree flamers need some love, but have you had them used against you on a night map? Constant flaming makes you see jack .. situational but still useful sometimes.