22 replies to this topic

[Livewyr]

Suggestion: Reduce the over-range for ballistics (currently at 3x) down to 2x. (similar to lasers)
With one exception: Gauss Rifle

Logic:
Piece one: It (currently) further invalidates lasers by comparison, for ranged action.
Piece two: The ballistics already have some impressive range (270-720) and 3x O-R invalidates the "short-range" weakness of the stronger ACs (AC10/AC20)
Piece three: Some how, the AC20 does better damage than the AC10, at the AC10s optimum range, beyond the AC20s range. (This makes the AC20 always a better option than the AC10 if you can fit it on your mech.)

Exception: The Gauss Rifle- It has been given a charge-up mechanic (pseudo hold-breath) in order for it to act more like a sniper rifle. I'm ok with this concept as it diversifies the weapon's role and further defines a sniper role within role warfare.

Because of this, I would keep the GR's range at triple O-R (use the charge-up as lore based reason if need-be) and I would also increase the charge-hold time to allow it to actually serve as a sniper rifle. 3-4 second hold would be good- if need be, bump the charge time up towards 1 second...

thoughts?

(edited for clarification)

Edited by Livewyr, 25 September 2013 - 04:08 AM.

[Lord Ikka]

I think the range reduction wouldn't be a bad thing- but would say no to upping the charge time of the gauss.

[Joseph Mallan]

I agree with everything you said BUT the Gauss. And only because... We don't need a game mechanic to simulate holding our breath. I mean really? Part of the reason BattleTech had such silly short ranges was that the maps would have to be huge o sim the present day ranges, and that would make the movement seem... insignificant.

Shorter ranges would also give the "I wanna Brawl" crowd a feeling of victory.

Edited by Joseph Mallan, 25 September 2013 - 04:12 AM.

[Alistair Winter]

I'm a fan of realism. I can accept some degree of sillyness for the sake of staying true to Battletech, but I think MWO should aim to be slightly more realistic than its predecessors. I'm already rather unhappy with the fact that the biggest cannons in this game have the shortest range. And the range is, of course, downright ridiculous. 270 meters? I'm pretty sure a medieval catapult has longer range. But ok, I can live with it, it's not going to change anyway.

If, on top of that, cannon shells are going to disintegrate right outside their optimal range, I think we're pushing it a bit too far. I think other ways of achieving balance would be better. There are some good arguments purely from a gaming perspective, but for me, realism is an equally valid counterargument at this point.

[Joseph Mallan]

You should talk to Dave MacCullock. He is one of the writers... I have read posts by him where he has evil minions^™ Cutting the parachutes off the Gauss slugs so they can travel further than 660M.

[Livewyr]

Mallan, charge up wouldn't have been my first choice either- but I'm not upset about it (for reasons stated in the OP)

Alistair Winter, on 25 September 2013 - 04:19 AM, said:

I'm a fan of realism. I can accept some degree of sillyness for the sake of staying true to Battletech, but I think MWO should aim to be slightly more realistic than its predecessors. I'm already rather unhappy with the fact that the biggest cannons in this game have the shortest range. And the range is, of course, downright ridiculous. 270 meters? I'm pretty sure a medieval catapult has longer range. But ok, I can live with it, it's not going to change anyway.

If, on top of that, cannon shells are going to disintegrate right outside their optimal range, I think we're pushing it a bit too far. I think other ways of achieving balance would be better. There are some good arguments purely from a gaming perspective, but for me, realism is an equally valid counterargument at this point.

I'm a fan of realism too, however:
When you have maps as small as they are (I mean come on, when a "long range" map is 5k) having realistically long range weapons would invalidate the need for moving other than LoS.
Making the maps larger would make Assault mechs pointless as they wouldn't be able to get across the map inside of the match length..

I love realism, but it doesn't fit in many places in this game...

[Joseph Mallan]

I agree the charge up is a good way to apply a 60M min range. But a seriously stupid mechanic for a "Sniper Weapon"

[OneEyed Jack]

I say get rid of the over-range for everything, completely! Let's get up close and personal! Then we can get rid of the stupid Gauss charge, because there'd be no arguing that it a "sniper" weapon in a game about walking tanks. And we could get rid of ghost heat, because if you wanna run 4-6 PPCs that max out at 540 meters, more power to ya!

Otherwise, leave it alone, in my opinion.

[Ghengis Cohen]

Ranged ballastics add a really nice element to the game. At distance, the ACs need adjustment for veleocity loss, which brings skill and experience into the picture. And anybody willing to stand still and fire a Gauss at 1000m or more has my admiration. Lets keep as much diversity in weapons range capability as possible.

[Alistair Winter]

Livewyr, on 25 September 2013 - 04:29 AM, said:

I'm a fan of realism too, however:
When you have maps as small as they are (I mean come on, when a "long range" map is 5k) having realistically long range weapons would invalidate the need for moving other than LoS.

In my opinion, this is not simply because maps are small, but also because they suffer from poor design.

But anyway, while realistic range is problematic, low damage reduction beyond optimal range is not quite as problematic.

Livewyr, on 25 September 2013 - 04:29 AM, said:

Making the maps larger would make Assault mechs pointless as they wouldn't be able to get across the map inside of the match length..

And this, in my opinion, is simply a result of poor design in game modes. Ideally, you would have at least one game mode that were long enough for people to get into position on larger maps, and at least one game mode where heavy mechs started closer to the enemy, with peripheral objectives for light mechs to go after. Conquest kind of works like the latter, but not really.

[DaZur]

I'm okay with the suggestions... Only caveat I'd add is a longer dwell-time on the charge. I can't enumerate the number of times I've focused my reticle on a moving target, released the shot to realize I timed-out and spoiled the shot.

I wish we could rather invoke a "cocking" mechanic so we could essentially hold that charge until such time it needs to be fired. With this mechanic, I would not have an issue of extending the charge time...

Sadly, alpha abusers would simple "lock the firing mechanism" and fire in group-alpha with PPC or whatever, defeating the logic of the implementation in the first place.

Edited by DaZur, 25 September 2013 - 04:49 AM.

[Joseph Mallan]

DaZ, I practiced the charge/Alpha with a Gauss on the Training ground, I just need to apply it v moving targets now to see how well I can perform in combat.

[DaZur]

Joseph Mallan, on 25 September 2013 - 04:51 AM, said:

DaZ, I practiced the charge/Alpha with a Gauss on the Training ground, I just need to apply it v moving targets now to see how well I can perform in combat.

I have as well... I've actually progressed to "acceptable" while firing on the move. Problem is when you're engaging another moving target, you charge-up, either via a terrain jostle, another mech crossing your path or some other minor interruption... It never fails that the shot expires.

What rubs my rhubarb is if the charge just lasted like a half-second longer... 90% of these spoiled shots would be valid.

[OneEyed Jack]

DaZur, on 25 September 2013 - 04:46 AM, said:

Sadly, alpha abusers would simple "lock the firing mechanism" and fire in group-alpha with PPC or whatever, defeating the logic of the implementation in the first place.

[DaZur]

OneEyed Jack, on 25 September 2013 - 05:27 AM, said:

"Faulty" logic is still logic regardless of how it's applied...

[Karl Streiger]

DaZur, on 25 September 2013 - 05:05 AM, said:

What rubs my rhubarb is if the charge just lasted like a half-second longer... 90% of these spoiled shots would be valid.

I'm pretty sure 250ms would be enough...i often release the trigger just when charge is gone.



Well the additional range for ballistic isn't that bad:

No ballistic weapon can compete with the ER-PPC (only the AC 20 up to270m) - guys that say its to hot should really start to look at the stats... the only moment the AC 5 or the Ultra 5 deal more damage is somewhere at 1580m - and the damage of all weapons is clinical at best.

The PPC is better as the AC10 up to 678m (althoug the 90m) are a problem

Next to that the ballistics are more effective than the smaller counterparts for much wider distances at the effective range.
so the AC 20 deals the same damage as the AC 10 at 578m (~ 7.8)
AC 10 can compete with a AC 5 to 1100m

[Livewyr]

Kevin Storm, on 25 September 2013 - 04:43 AM, said:

Ranged ballastics add a really nice element to the game. At distance, the ACs need adjustment for veleocity loss, which brings skill and experience into the picture. And anybody willing to stand still and fire a Gauss at 1000m or more has my admiration. Lets keep as much diversity in weapons range capability as possible.

There would still be a diversity in weapon ranges:
90-180m MGs
90-180m SLs
90-180m SPLs
90-180m Flamethrowers
180-360m MPLs
270-540m MLs
270-540m AC20s
270-270m SRMs
270-270m SSRMs
300-600m LPLs
450-900m AC10s
450-900m LLs
(90) 540-1080m PPCs
540-1080m LB10-Xs
600-1200 UAC5s
620-1240 AC5s
660-1980 GRs
675-1350 ERLLs
810-1620 ERPPCs
(180) 1000m LRMs

Alistair Winter, on 25 September 2013 - 04:44 AM, said:

In my opinion, this is not simply because maps are small, but also because they suffer from poor design.

But anyway, while realistic range is problematic, low damage reduction beyond optimal range is not quite as problematic.


And this, in my opinion, is simply a result of poor design in game modes. Ideally, you would have at least one game mode that were long enough for people to get into position on larger maps, and at least one game mode where heavy mechs started closer to the enemy, with peripheral objectives for light mechs to go after. Conquest kind of works like the latter, but not really.

(Firstly: Poor map design is a matter of opinion- start locations could be changed, but I don't see any particularly badly designed maps)

I think the base ranges are fine, since they scale well with mech movement. I do like where PGI went with adding beyond-optimal-range ability with diminishing damage. It was a clever departure from previous titles where standing at 800 meters made you invulnerable to most things. However, I don't understand the arbitrary 3x B-O-R for ballistics. (If anything, lasers (being light) would be more of a candidate than ballistics..) and that BOR invalidates a major weakness of the heavier ballistics.. and makes the AC20 better than the AC10 at the AC10's range...which is just plain silly.

Karl Streiger, on 25 September 2013 - 05:35 AM, said:

I'm pretty sure 250ms would be enough...i often release the trigger just when charge is gone.



Well the additional range for ballistic isn't that bad:

No ballistic weapon can compete with the ER-PPC (only the AC 20 up to270m) - guys that say its to hot should really start to look at the stats... the only moment the AC 5 or the Ultra 5 deal more damage is somewhere at 1580m - and the damage of all weapons is clinical at best.

The PPC is better as the AC10 up to 678m (althoug the 90m) are a problem

Next to that the ballistics are more effective than the smaller counterparts for much wider distances at the effective range.
so the AC 20 deals the same damage as the AC 10 at 578m (~ 7.8)
AC 10 can compete with a AC 5 to 1100m

(Gauss outdoes the ERPPC at every range, despite ERPPC having a longer range.)

(And yes, AC20(270m) deals the same damage as the AC10 (450m) at 578, while doing more damage (13 or so) where the AC10 is doing a max of 10...at 450

That is absurd and is the biggest reason AC20 is taken over AC10 if it can be fit.

[Livewyr]

---------------------------

This would also deal with the Dual AC20 builds far better than Ghost Heat...

Wanna bring two AC20s? Great.. enjoy doing 20 damage at 400 meters..

[Xanquil]

I agree ranges (energy and ballistic) need to be toned down a bit. The GR charge up mechanic did something vary important It made it made it harder to snap shoot, giving counter snipers a chance to see where the shot came from. (ie less poptarting, more aimed sniping) It didn't get rid of the poptart just made it harder to do without being open to counterattack.

[Firewuff]

Karl Streiger, on 25 September 2013 - 05:35 AM, said:

I'm pretty sure 250ms would be enough...i often release the trigger just when charge is gone.



Well the additional range for ballistic isn't that bad:

No ballistic weapon can compete with the ER-PPC (only the AC 20 up to270m) - guys that say its to hot should really start to look at the stats... the only moment the AC 5 or the Ultra 5 deal more damage is somewhere at 1580m - and the damage of all weapons is clinical at best.

The PPC is better as the AC10 up to 678m (althoug the 90m) are a problem

Next to that the ballistics are more effective than the smaller counterparts for much wider distances at the effective range.
so the AC 20 deals the same damage as the AC 10 at 578m (~ 7.8)
AC 10 can compete with a AC 5 to 1100m

Sorry but on a DPS and range basis the UAC5 will out shoot a PPC any day of the week and is even better than an ER-PPC. The double tap (shot ->0.5 sec -> shot) gives 10 dmg with a recycle half the PPC. Even against an ER-PPC it is great out to 1km