408 replies to this topic

[Lefty Lucy]

General Taskeen, on 31 October 2013 - 06:10 AM, said:

And yet the heat sink system doesn't not allow TT efficient AC/2 to exist in MWO with Single Heat sinks. Remarkably not better off.

You're looking at "heat efficiency" incorrectly. Yes, it only generates 1 heat per turn. However, it also only does 2 damage per turn. This makes the AC2 the least heat-efficient ballistic weapon available in TT, because it has a 2/1 damage/heat ratio where the AC20 is 20/7 the AC10 is 10/3, the AC5 is 5/1, etc. When you combine this with its also very low damage/ton ratio, it's clear to see why the AC2 is so widely disparaged for mech-vs.-mech combat.

Mordin Ashe, on 31 October 2013 - 06:11 AM, said:

WTF?! AC2 pathetic, AC5 bad? Oh gods, please have mercy on his soul. Right now you can have only two or thee of these weapons and you should generally be capable of dealing over 500 damage in any match. Those two are the workhorses or most ballistic builds...

EDIT: UAC5 still very bad? You, sir, are the troll master.

As the others have noted: my post was an exercise in comparing balance in the TT game for the 3050 time period for IS powers. I posted this because many, many people make the mistake of claiming "it's worked this way in TT for 30 years!" means that the TT game is actually balanced during the time period. This is simply not true. Medium lasers and PPCs are dominant anti-mech weapons, with AC20s, LRMs, and SRM6s having niche uses, and all other weapons are largely useless "flavor" weapons.

[Roland]

mike29tw, on 31 October 2013 - 08:50 AM, said:

I said spreading damage. Where in my post did I mention hitscan ?

That's exactly my point.

You are ignoring the huge advantages that lasers have currently, by virtue of being hitscan weapons.
You want to remove one of the chief advantages that ballistics currently have, but leave in place their deficiency in terms of accuracy. That doesn't work.

Quote

This is where you need to manually compensate for the convergence by aiming HIGHER than you normally do, aside from leading the target. I don't see how this is relevant to the discussion.

You don't understand the issue I presented there.
There are certain situations where it is literally impossible for you to hit a fast moving target due to convergence issues. There is no way to compensate for it. At some point I may make a more detailed post showing the math, but if you consider the issues at hand you can derive it yourself without too much trouble.

The reason this is relevant is that this limitation does not exist for laser weapons, since they are hitscan weapons. This is why you cannot simply ignore the fact that lasers are hitscan. You trade instant damage for instant hit. You can't just take other weapons and make them DOT, but leave them as travel time, because then suddenly lasers become clearly superior, just like they were in prior incarnations of MW, where all the weapons were instant damage, but only lasers were instant hit.

mike29tw, on 31 October 2013 - 08:50 AM, said:

So I guess no further changes to ballistic weapons are required unless everyone runs with only ballistic weapons right?

There are many changes that need to be made.. LBX, for instance, needs to be buffed significantly.

But your change suggestions are poorly planned. You propose to try and make ballistic weapons more like laser weapons, but in such a way that just nerfs them heavily. Your proposal will just make folks abandon them and only use laser weapons.

The only real reason for using ballistics at this point is for point damage. If you take that away, then they turn into crappy, heavy, huge lasers with limited shots.

If you question how important that one factor is when deciding between ballistics and lasers, consider the flip side of the argument. What would happen if you removed that difference going the OTHER way? If you made it such that lasers functioned like they did in MW4, where they just did all of their damage in one burst.

Do you believe that anyone would be using ballistics? I can pretty much GUARANTEE you that they would not. Lasers would instantly become the dominant weapon, due to their hitscan nature. All of the heat issues would become absolutely trivial by comparison.

And that's exactly why removing the direct damage aspect of ballistics will result in the same thing. Because the other advantages of ballistics are effectively trivial by comparison.

You are starting with a situation where people run both types of weapons, and you are proposing to remove the primary advantage of ballistics... There is no way that won't result in total domination by lasers.

[General Taskeen]

Lefty Lucy, on 31 October 2013 - 08:58 AM, said:

You're looking at "heat efficiency" incorrectly. Yes, it only generates 1 heat per turn. However, it also only does 2 damage per turn. This makes the AC2 the least heat-efficient ballistic weapon available in TT, because it has a 2/1 damage/heat ratio where the AC20 is 20/7 the AC10 is 10/3, the AC5 is 5/1, etc. When you combine this with its also very low damage/ton ratio, it's clear to see why the AC2 is so widely disparaged for mech-vs.-mech combat.

I'm not looking at it incorrectly all. The Ac/2 (ac/5) are considered 'poo' weapons in TT, I already know that. What I'm saying is that in an attempt to directly copy certain weapons from TT, in this case autocannons, with near exact damage values and heat values, in combination with their heat system - it is in fact skewed in comparison.

I entirely "get" that an AC/2 or AC/5 are nearly 7 or 20 times more powerful in MWO in comparison to TT, but that is only because they left the damage the same. Everything else was skewed in the process.

What I mean by "heat efficient" is barely producing any heat or excess heat in TT terms. For instance, a Jager could fire all its Autocannons every "turn" and not produce any excess heat since the single heat sinks kept it perfectly cool. This is skewed in MWO due to the heat system in combination with attempting to copy damage/heat values and then simply adjusting fire rates. That in effect, is the heart of the problem.

Do we all agree that getting popped in a tin can Locust isn't fun when getting hit by a shell that does straight up TT 20 Damage? I know it can't be fun for the Locusts I popped. Or that getting hit with 2xAC/20 definitely shaves a lot of health for pin point damage? Other issues abound such as extremely hot running AC/2's that actually require Double Heat Sinks to work - the opposite of what they should be in equivalent terms (a extremely fast firing, low damage autocannon that produces negligible heat).

That in essence is the problem with this game as a whole. There is no coherent vision. On one hand, it is an attempt to almost directly copy TT values at least 90% of the time (except the flamer and MG), throw in the segmented armor sections, a heat system that only works by TT standards (rolling dice, 10 seconds), and then pretend it all works in a game where you aim, instead of roll. This goes even beyond just Autocannons.

Basically if we want TT, then MWO would need to be straight up TT with randomness. Since it is not, there are issues when not letting go of those TT values. Instead we have a whole series of issues.

Roland, on 31 October 2013 - 09:04 AM, said:

You are starting with a situation where people run both types of weapons, and you are proposing to remove the primary advantage of ballistics... There is no way that won't result in total domination by lasers.

But Lasers are not pin point and they have a duration (requiring you to face the target). Hence, they would be nothing like an Autocannon even if the Autocannon was a burst duration, because it is still using shells that travel very fast and apply that damage instantly. In other words, all you have to do to shoot an AC still is fire (all shells shooting at once), turn to avoid damage, then turn back to fire again.

So if an AC/20 were to shoot 4 Shells all at once, just an example, doing 5 damage each, with the same velocity speed, that's still going to do the same damage against a sitting target, against a moving target the damage would definitely be spread "like a laser" but for a helluva lot more instantaneous damage.

Edited by General Taskeen, 31 October 2013 - 11:38 AM.

[mike29tw]

Roland, on 31 October 2013 - 09:04 AM, said:

That's exactly my point.

You are ignoring the huge advantages that lasers have currently, by virtue of being hitscan weapons.
You want to remove one of the chief advantages that ballistics currently have, but leave in place their deficiency in terms of accuracy. That doesn't work.

Not remove it, but lessen it. And if you're good at tracking target, focusing 4 shells, each dealing 5 damage, in one body part in let's say 0.5 sec should still be a lot easier than focusing lasers.

Also, deficency in accuracy? Don't kid yourself. This game extremely forgiving in terms of aiming skill. There's no recoil, there's no random cone of fire, you compensate for the difference between your arm and cockpit and lead your target. The skill in this game lies mostly in positioning and maneuvering.

Roland, on 31 October 2013 - 09:04 AM, said:

You don't understand the issue I presented there.
There are certain situations where it is literally impossible for you to hit a fast moving target due to convergence issues. There is no way to compensate for it. At some point I may make a more detailed post showing the math, but if you consider the issues at hand you can derive it yourself without too much trouble.

The reason this is relevant is that this limitation does not exist for laser weapons, since they are hitscan weapons. This is why you cannot simply ignore the fact that lasers are hitscan. You trade instant damage for instant hit. You can't just take other weapons and make them DOT, but leave them as travel time, because then suddenly lasers become clearly superior, just like they were in prior incarnations of MW, where all the weapons were instant damage, but only lasers were instant hit.

Despite that AC20 is still the no.1 threat against light mechs than any laser combinations.

And again, burst fire != DoT. Making them burst-fire doesn't suddenly turn them into lasers.

Roland, on 31 October 2013 - 09:04 AM, said:

But your change suggestions are poorly planned. You propose to try and make ballistic weapons more like laser weapons, but in such a way that just nerfs them heavily. Your proposal will just make folks abandon them and only use laser weapons.

The only real reason for using ballistics at this point is for point damage. If you take that away, then they turn into crappy, heavy, huge lasers with limited shots.

If you question how important that one factor is when deciding between ballistics and lasers, consider the flip side of the argument. What would happen if you removed that difference going the OTHER way? If you made it such that lasers functioned like they did in MW4, where they just did all of their damage in one burst.

Do you believe that anyone would be using ballistics? I can pretty much GUARANTEE you that they would not. Lasers would instantly become the dominant weapon, due to their hitscan nature. All of the heat issues would become absolutely trivial by comparison.

And that's exactly why removing the direct damage aspect of ballistics will result in the same thing. Because the other advantages of ballistics are effectively trivial by comparison.

I can guarantee you after ballistics are made burst-fire, they will still be the king in both alpha strike and sustain-fire department, just like they are right now.

Roland, on 31 October 2013 - 09:04 AM, said:

You are starting with a situation where people run both types of weapons, and you are proposing to remove the primary advantage of ballistics... There is no way that won't result in total domination by lasers.

Again, it doesn't remove the advantage, only lessen it. You're correct that people run both types of weapons though, but lasers are mostly there to fill the tonnage. Pure ballistic boats are prevalent, but where are pure energy boats? People base their build on the combinations of ACs/PPCs, and then fill the rest of the tonnage with lasers. That alone should speak for how good lasers are atm.

Edited by mike29tw, 31 October 2013 - 11:24 AM.

[Wolfways]

Khobai, on 31 October 2013 - 07:10 AM, said:

Which makes no sense because it weights 14 tons plus another X tons for ammo. And the lasers are 4 tons and X tons for heat sinks. The AC/20 should rightfully be better.

Fixed that for you

[Nik Van Rhijn]

What would be the objection to reducing max range of ballistics to 2x ?

[mike29tw]

Nik Van Rhijn, on 31 October 2013 - 11:33 AM, said:

What would be the objection to reducing max range of ballistics to 2x ?

None. There's no reason for AC2 to have a max range of 2160m, and the AC20 to deal more damage at AC10's optimal range.

[stjobe]

Nik Van Rhijn, on 31 October 2013 - 11:33 AM, said:

What would be the objection to reducing max range of ballistics to 2x ?

PGI's unwillingness to admit they goofed on that one.

[FerrolupisXIII]

Roland, on 31 October 2013 - 05:55 AM, said:

Dude, you're comparing 6 tons of weapons to 16 tons of weapons.

If they were equivalent, then NO ONE would ever take the 16 ton option.

they don't need to be equivalent. they need to be closer. right now those 16 tons are laughably better than the 6. and thats not even getting into hotter energy weapons like LL or PPC. my post was in response to you saying "20 heat sinks lets me use my energy hardpoints just fine!" when in reality you get only 3 shots with your praised load of 6 mediums, another example you gave.

[Roland]

General Taskeen, on 31 October 2013 - 11:19 AM, said:

But Lasers are not pin point and they have a duration (requiring you to face the target). Hence, they would be nothing like an Autocannon even if the Autocannon was a burst duration, because it is still using shells that travel very fast and apply that damage instantly. In other words, all you have to do to shoot an AC still is fire (all shells shooting at once), turn to avoid damage, then turn back to fire again.

So if an AC/20 were to shoot 4 Shells all at once, just an example, doing 5 damage each, with the same velocity speed, that's still going to do the same damage against a sitting target, against a moving target the damage would definitely be spread "like a laser" but for a helluva lot more instantaneous damage.

Dude, having the AC20 fire out 4 rounds is exactly the same thing a laser does.

It means that you will have to continually hold the reticle on target, and face the target, while the firing duration takes place.

You're just turning it into a laser. The fact that the animation is different doesn't change the fact that you are making the mechanics the exact same. You are turning it into a DoT weapon, just like lasers.

Quote

Not remove it, but lessen it. And if you're good at tracking target, focusing 4 shells, each dealing 5 damage, in one body part in let's say 0.5 sec should still be a lot easier than focusing lasers.

You're basically just turning it into a really big PULSE laser then.

But again, what you describe here does not compare favorably to simply taking a bunch of medium lasers.
In half a second, the medium lasers are gonna do have the damage, exactly as good as the AC 20 with the stats you describe.. only they only weigh 4 tons, and have infinite ammo. The damage spread will be EXACTLY the same for that half second.

Quote

Also, deficency in accuracy? Don't kid yourself. This game extremely forgiving in terms of aiming skill.

I've seen a lot of folks say this, and then I've seen those exact same folks in game, and seen that they have terrible, terrible aim.

But hey, go prove me wrong dude. Go make some videos of you nailing everything with your AC20, and never missing your shots against fast moving mechs. Prove me wrong.

[Tombstoner]

but turning the Ac series of weapons is what the game needs. and would partially eliminate the need for ghost heat and it directly rewards player skill. it would how ever necessitate a complete reworking of heat, tonnage and ammo. but the game really needs to depart TT in this area badly

I see the games weapons breaking down into this

direct damage - energy - PPC,
direct damage ammo - gauss
hit scan energy - lasers
hit scan ammo - auto-cannons.

and then make 2,5,10,15,20 damage versions for all categories. yes that's right a PPC-2 or a laser 20 plus many other non TT weapons gauss - 5 or gauss -20, but one could claim that they all existed at some point but are just lost tech. o btw i would treat the mg as an ac and the flamer as the energy equivalent. this adds in more design options. each category has different inherent advantages but the similarity allows for better balancing of tonnage, crit space. ammo needs and hs needed for max rate of fire.

i see ammo based weapons having high damage but low heat constrained by ammo and energy weapons being constrained by how many HS you carry.


4 5 point shot for the ac-20 i think is too few i would have it do 10 - 2 point shots to match the ac-2. personal i would like to treat auto cannons as small, large, huge versions of the a-10 avenger cannon and mini guns in general. pulse lasers would be treated the same and fire as long as the trigger is held down. pulse laser would become very efficient in terms of heat generated vs. damage done.... the ppc is all or nothing. lasers get partial hits. the pulse laser the fires only when the trigger is down lets the player cut short shots they know will miss.

Edited by Tombstoner, 31 October 2013 - 02:05 PM.

[Bront]

Roland, on 30 October 2013 - 07:26 PM, said:

Also, while folks seem to be thinking that energy weapons are so much hotter than balistics, this seems to be missing the fact that I've got TWENTY free heat sinks just sitting in my engine..... So you basically can take a bunch of energy weapons for free anyway.

The problem is that 3MLs is enough to eventually overun 20 standard heat sinks.

In TT (yeah,not always a good comparison, but to compare/contrast), those same 20 heat sinks ment you could fire 2 PPCs all day and not build up any heat unless you moved (and then you'd simply only fire 1 every few rounds). In MWO, those 20 heat sinks will have your mech shut down after firing 2 PPCs 3 times. Without moving.

It doesn't help that SLs and MLs had a heat increase from TT (sure, MLs got a damage increase as well, but seriously, they run too hot right now).

[BrockSamsonFW]

Roland, on 30 October 2013 - 09:30 PM, said:

Actually, each ERLL has a DPS of 2.12, so with 4 of them you are putting out a DPS of around 8.5 (although DPS is a fairly meaningless statistic in mechwarrior). I'm not sure exactly where you came up with the 3.9 number.

I came up with 3.9DPS because that is what 22 DHS will limit you to and most mechs can only carry a total of 18-22 DHS.

In fact if you do the math you will find that most mechs reach a hard cap of 3.75 to 4.25 DPS when using only energy weapons. If you take smaller more efficient lasers you run out of hardpoints and the lack of weapons is what limits you. If you take a few larger weapons you run out of critical slots for heatsinks and that limits you. If you try to balance the weapons and heatsinks you run out of tonnage because you can't take an XL or endo-steel.

[Roland]

FerrolupisXIII, on 31 October 2013 - 01:09 PM, said:

they don't need to be equivalent. they need to be closer. right now those 16 tons are laughably better than the 6.

lol?
Oh man, you mean 16 tons of weapons, not including ammo, is better than 6 tons of weapons? No {Scrap}, really?

FerrolupisXIII, on 31 October 2013 - 01:09 PM, said:

my post was in response to you saying "20 heat sinks lets me use my energy hardpoints just fine!" when in reality you get only 3 shots with your praised load of 6 mediums, another example you gave.

Oh man, only 3 shots with no extra weight in sinks at all? ONLY 90 damage? Yeah dude, that's pretty terrible.

On some level, I can't even believe how crazy your position is. "Why isn't my 6 tons of guns equal to 16+ tons of guns??" Because that would be ******** if it were true. "Why can't I do more than 90 points of damage without waiting to cool off, with my 6 tons of guns??" Because, again, that would be ******** if you could.

[Roland]

BrockSamsonFW, on 31 October 2013 - 04:31 PM, said:

I came up with 3.9DPS because that is what 22 DHS will limit you to and most mechs can only carry a total of 18-22 DHS.

Er... that's not really how DPS calculations work. Heat efficiency is a separate calculation, because it's dependent upon the environment, and it's not a hard limit on damage output. That is, hot configs can put out spike damage. Overall sustained damage over time really isn't a useful metric in Mechwarrior, because we don't just walk into the open and stare at each other while shooting as fast as our weapons recycle, until the other guy is dead.

The DPS for the loadout you specified is about 8.5, not 3.9.

I mean, honestly, if you believed that heat efficiency was somehow crippling your damage output to 3.9, then that would make your weapons loadout totally nonsensical, since you could instead just run TWO lasers and have far better heat efficiency, and just TWO large lasers will give you a DPS of 4.24.

BrockSamsonFW, on 31 October 2013 - 04:31 PM, said:

In fact if you do the math you will find that most mechs reach a hard cap of 3.75 to 4.25 DPS when using only energy weapons. If you take smaller more efficient lasers you run out of hardpoints and the lack of weapons is what limits you. If you take a few larger weapons you run out of critical slots for heatsinks and that limits you. If you try to balance the weapons and heatsinks you run out of tonnage because you can't take an XL or endo-steel.

Yeah... your math doesn't really work right, dude. Again, a big part of it is how fighting actually takes place in Mechwarrior, but the other big part is what I just pointed out, which is that if you honestly believed that 4 LL was capped at only 3.9 due to heat, then it would make more sense to just take two lasers since two of them alone can crank out 4.24.

[BrockSamsonFW]

Roland, on 31 October 2013 - 04:38 PM, said:

Er... that's not really how DPS calculations work. Heat efficiency is a separate calculation, because it's dependent upon the environment, and it's not a hard limit on damage output. That is, hot configs can put out spike damage. Overall sustained damage over time really isn't a useful metric in Mechwarrior, because we don't just walk into the open and stare at each other while shooting as fast as our weapons recycle, until the other guy is dead.

The DPS for the loadout you specified is about 8.5, not 3.9.

I mean, honestly, if you believed that heat efficiency was somehow crippling your damage output to 3.9, then that would make your weapons loadout totally nonsensical, since you could instead just run TWO lasers and have far better heat efficiency, and just TWO large lasers will give you a DPS of 4.24.



Yeah... your math doesn't really work right, dude. Again, a big part of it is how fighting actually takes place in Mechwarrior, but the other big part is what I just pointed out, which is that if you honestly believed that 4 LL was capped at only 3.9 due to heat, then it would make more sense to just take two lasers since two of them alone can crank out 4.24.

That IS what happens though. If a ballistic-based mech and energy-based mech of comparable chassis and player skill meet, the ballistic user can simply walk around the corner and they will win the head-to-head brawl every time. Even if you assume that the energy user started with 0 heat and can maximize their "burst DPS" that you pointed out, the pinpoint damage of the ballistic weapons will win the "core war" hands down.

Even if the energy user is skilled enough to ignore the camera shake, the ballistic user can torso twist between shots which means it is literally impossible for the energy user to maintain an even remotely comparable single-component DPS. This is why the AC20 and multiple AC5 are so effective. The AC20 has a slower rate of fire for maximum focus damage and torso twisting defense. The multiple AC5 result in hit effects and camera shake that are essentially blinding to the target and prevent any meaningful component targeting. Either way, even if both players do the same damage, the energy user will be cored and die while the ballistic user will probably just have 1/3 damage to all their core segments. It's not even close.

Edited by BrockSamsonFW, 31 October 2013 - 05:55 PM.

[Roland]

Quote

That IS what happens though. If a ballistic-based mech and energy-based mech of comparable chassis and player skill meet, the ballistic user can simply walk around the corner and they will win the head-to-head brawl every time. Even if you assume that the energy user started with 0 heat and can maximize their "burst DPS" that you pointed out, the pinpoint damage of the ballistic weapons will win the "core war" hands down.

First of all, PPC's are energy weapons, and have point damage too.

Second, generally I don't just engage in fights where you just walk up to the enemy and start punching each other in the face. Although, yes, generally that would tend to play to the strengths of a cooler build. But that's a reason why you shouldn't engage in that kind of fight as a primary energy mech.

Energy mechs, since their weapons are light and small, generally benefit from very large engines. The engines give them more storage for heat sinks, and then they are able to better utilize mobility to deal with heat issues. (i.e. not just go and stand face to face with a brawling ballistic mech)

Generally, good builds tend to use both weapon types. You then benefit from the free heat sinks in your engine, while taking some ballistic weaponry that complements the alpha strike but without building up additional heat.

I'm really not seeing the issue with balanced energy/ballistic builds actually being good.

Honestly, why is that bad?

[FerrolupisXIII]

Roland, on 31 October 2013 - 04:33 PM, said:

lol?
Oh man, you mean 16 tons of weapons, not including ammo, is better than 6 tons of weapons? No {Scrap}, really?


Oh man, only 3 shots with no extra weight in sinks at all? ONLY 90 damage? Yeah dude, that's pretty terrible.

On some level, I can't even believe how crazy your position is. "Why isn't my 6 tons of guns equal to 16+ tons of guns??" Because that would be ******** if it were true. "Why can't I do more than 90 points of damage without waiting to cool off, with my 6 tons of guns??" Because, again, that would be ******** if you could.

you really just dont like to listen do you? that was your given example and now you're mocking it. *shrug*

The 16 tons of AC's will do a similar amount of damage in that amount of time, without waiting to cool off, at a longer range, and with pinpoint damage. Thats ok, but energy being remotely capable of that isn't? okey dokey then.

[Roland]

FerrolupisXIII, on 31 October 2013 - 08:12 PM, said:

you really just dont like to listen do you? that was your given example and now you're mocking it. *shrug*

The 16 tons of AC's will do a similar amount of damage in that amount of time, without waiting to cool off, at a longer range, and with pinpoint damage. Thats ok, but energy being remotely capable of that isn't? okey dokey then.

But it's SIXTEEN tons of weapons. Not even including ammo.
It's 260% of the tonnage. Of course it's a more capable loadout.

How could it possibly be balanced if it weren't more capable?

I'm making fun of the comparison, because you seem to think that there is something wrong with 16 tons of weapons being more powerful than 6 tons of weapons.

[mike29tw]

Roland, on 31 October 2013 - 01:21 PM, said:

Dude, having the AC20 fire out 4 rounds is exactly the same thing a laser does.

It means that you will have to continually hold the reticle on target, and face the target, while the firing duration takes place.

You're just turning it into a laser. The fact that the animation is different doesn't change the fact that you are making the mechanics the exact same. You are turning it into a DoT weapon, just like lasers.

Oh really? Do you consider AC2 lasers? Do you consider UAC5 lasers? Because they exactly fit your description for lasers. They require you to hold your reticle on target and keep facing the target.

All burst-fire AC would do, is turn AC20 into ultra ultra AC5 that doesn't jam and discharge projectile in a tighter window, if that makes sense to you.

Roland, on 31 October 2013 - 01:21 PM, said:

You're basically just turning it into a really big PULSE laser then.

But again, what you describe here does not compare favorably to simply taking a bunch of medium lasers.
In half a second, the medium lasers are gonna do have the damage, exactly as good as the AC 20 with the stats you describe.. only they only weigh 4 tons, and have infinite ammo. The damage spread will be EXACTLY the same for that half second.

Facepalm. That's not how pulse lasers work. Pulse lasers work exactly like lasers except with shorter duration.

Since you mentioned pulse lasers though, let's take a look at a hypothetical scenario. PGI just announced that they will change the mechanism of large pulse laser. Large pulse lasers now discharges 4 pulses, each pulse dealing 3 damage. After the change, will the new mechanism A)buff LPL, B)nerf LPL, C) make no difference whatsoever?

Since the answer is clearly A, it should be apparent now that just like the new LPL mechanism, burst-fire AC still has a clear advantage over regular lasers. Turning them burst-fire does not make them lasers.

Roland, on 31 October 2013 - 01:21 PM, said:

I've seen a lot of folks say this, and then I've seen those exact same folks in game, and seen that they have terrible, terrible aim.

But hey, go prove me wrong dude. Go make some videos of you nailing everything with your AC20, and never missing your shots against fast moving mechs. Prove me wrong.

I'd love to record every one of my match, but my PC can hardly maintain a steady 30 FPS as it is. Please, let's not turn this discussion into "vids or you suck dude". We're better than that.

I'd reword my sentence if that offended you though. What I meant was that in terms of aiming skill, MWO is a lot more forgiving when comparing to other skill-based FPS titles. Targets are moving at a relatively slower speed, and the distance you have to lead your target is relatively short.