408 replies to this topic

[Joseph Mallan]

Elli Gujar, on 11 November 2013 - 07:50 AM, said:

It's worth noting that they also increased the ammunition for ballistic weapons by 50% (roughly) per ton, and the only change they made to missile weapon ammo was not requiring different ammo for different rack sizes (which is not an equivalent alteration by any means).

Um... on TT an LRM 5 has as many missiles a LRM20...120 missiles per ton. And MW:O does have more missiles per ton than TT 60 more in fact. That is 50% more.

[A banana in the tailpipe]

Joseph Mallan, on 11 November 2013 - 08:47 AM, said:

MW:O does have more missiles per ton than TT 60 more in fact. That is 50% more.

50% more missiles to make up for the fact only about 20% per salvo connects with your target.

[Tiamat of the Sea]

Joseph Mallan, on 11 November 2013 - 08:47 AM, said:

Um... on TT an LRM 5 has as many missiles a LRM20...120 missiles per ton. And MW:O does have more missiles per ton than TT 60 more in fact. That is 50% more.

Ah, point. My mistake. They did increase LRMs per ton.

That 100 SRMs per ton, though, is not increased, which is what I was thinking of at the time. Good spot there.

Please forgive my lack of sleep, some kind of noise in my ceiling woke me up about three hours early this morning.

Edited by Elli Gujar, 11 November 2013 - 09:09 AM.

[Joseph Mallan]

50 shots per SRM2 is plenty
25 shots per SRM4 is the same
16.6667 Per shot is... not working as intended?!?

[Tiamat of the Sea]

Ah, but by the same rote, 45 shots per AC/2 should be plenty, so why do they now get 75 shots per ton of ammo (a 66% increase)?

And 20 shots per LRM-5 should be plenty, so why is it now 36 (an 80% increase)?

The real point here is that when they used tabletop stats as the basis (and there's no point arguing about whether or not tabletop stats should be the basis, because the fact of the matter is that they are already) they didn't convert things over in a comparable manner and then tweak the stats from there, but instead made large changes to begin with and haven't ever given any indication of considering altering those initial changes.

[Joseph Mallan]

Elli Gujar, on 11 November 2013 - 09:29 AM, said:

Ah, but by the same rote, 45 shots per AC/2 should be plenty, so why do they now get 75 shots per ton of ammo (a 66% increase)?

That is a fair question! The only answer I can see is 45 rounds at 0.5(2) seconds would run out pretty quick vs the 5 times slower Missile reload rate. Understand, I don't support this but it is the explaination that makes the most sense to me.

[Terror Teddy]

From my experience i'd say that they have not manage to properly balance any weapons as the foundation they started on was faulty from the beginning. Heat being one of them.

They DID on the other hand manage to make Machine Guns useful after a 500 pages thread and multiple posts about them.
I have yet to see them fix flamers.
Also, the firing delay on the Gauss is a good simulation of the limited range the weapon is supposed to have in order to show how hard it is supposed to be to use in close combat.

[PropagandaWar]

I think we should let these guys throw in the 10 second TT stuff. Yeah lets do it. Throw in normal heat, normal armor, Actual heads in their entirity. The whole 9 yards. Now when they realize mechs tend to lose limbs or blow up in the first firing rounds or two, and that head shots are more common then you think, they will probably want to go back running this style of play.

[Joseph Mallan]

Terror Teddy, on 11 November 2013 - 09:48 AM, said:

From my experience i'd say that they have not manage to properly balance any weapons as the foundation they started on was faulty from the beginning. Heat being one of them.

They DID on the other hand manage to make Machine Guns useful after a 500 pages thread and multiple posts about them.
I have yet to see them fix flamers.
Also, the firing delay on the Gauss is a good simulation of the limited range the weapon is supposed to have in order to show how hard it is supposed to be to use in close combat.

Balance, AC5 and Medium lasers need to have the same DpS. They do the same amount of damage on TT. Same for PPCs/AC10. The RoF o a Ballistic should also be timed that when a laser is finished with its 5 or 10 points an AC of equivalence has done the same amount of DpS. A large Laser should do just a touch less DpS than an AC10/PPC.

PropagandaWar, on 11 November 2013 - 09:55 AM, said:

I think we should let these guys throw in the 10 second TT stuff. Yeah lets do it. Throw in normal heat, normal armor, Actual heads in their entirity. The whole 9 yards. Now when they realize mechs tend to lose limbs or blow up in the first firing rounds or two, and that head shots are more common then you think, they will probably want to go back running this style of play.

That is cause they didn't understand the 'real time' affect of a TT Turn. I would go hoe after every game saying that was the longest 2 minutes I ever experienced.

[Tiamat of the Sea]

Joseph Mallan, on 11 November 2013 - 09:56 AM, said:

Balance, AC5 and Medium lasers need to have the same DpS. They do the same amount of damage on TT. Same for PPCs/AC10. The RoF o a Ballistic should also be timed that when a laser is finished with its 5 or 10 points an AC of equivalence has done the same amount of DpS. A large Laser should do just a touch less DpS than an AC10/PPC.

Well, that's kind of a problematic proposal. TT players will tell you (rightly) that AC/2s are wasteful and non-Ultra AC/5s are near-universally a case of 'why didn't I take a PPC instead'.

I would instead say that the AC/5 rate of fire where it is now is actually roughly correct (should maybe be slightly slower, but not much if at all), and the AC/2 is all out of whack in so many ways (ghost heat assignment, 2 Km+ max range, stupid-high firing rate, better DPS than an AC/5) that it really just needs to be revised from the ground up. I rather like where Large Lasers are (excepting the Pulse, which generates a ridiculous amount of heat for a less than equivalent benefit) and the AC/10 and LB 10-X 'feel' fine in use.

I do think that the 3x max range on ballistics is silly, though, because it means that (for instance): At an AC/10's optimum range an AC/20 still deals 10 damage (Part of what makes boomjaegers truly terrifying), and an AC/2 still deals noteworthy damage to ranges you can't get the game to draw enemies at.

Overall, really, I stand by my point- PGI made a lot of big changes at the start that may have -seemed- like they didn't affect each other but really did, and gives every appearance of being unwilling to change these 'sacred cow' alterations they made with repeated insistences like 'We are not going to change to a high-dissipation low-threshhold heat scale.'

Whether or not they actually are willing to change these things is unknown, because in combination with the appearance that they are, as a group, unwilling to examine any of these things as potentially flawed, they haven't actually changed any of them since and don't tell the players at any point that they have been reexamining these ideas or testing potential changes to them.

Edited by Elli Gujar, 11 November 2013 - 10:07 AM.

[Terror Teddy]

PropagandaWar, on 11 November 2013 - 09:55 AM, said:

I think we should let these guys throw in the 10 second TT stuff. Yeah lets do it. Throw in normal heat, normal armor, Actual heads in their entirity. The whole 9 yards. Now when they realize mechs tend to lose limbs or blow up in the first firing rounds or two, and that head shots are more common then you think, they will probably want to go back running this style of play.

Reading comprehension my friend. Of course one cannot put in a direct mechanic from the boardgame but they went in the completely wrong direction after they had done it.

Less is more - Instead they went with More is better.

An AC/20 in a "turn" would do 2 damage a SECOND.
It would receive 0,7 Heat a SECOND.

Since all guns fired during a "turn" it meant an entire alpha strike took 10 seconds.

By having standard armour levels and not making up arbitrary fire rate numbers like PGI have done we could tool it quite simple.

An AC20 with a fire rate of every 2,5 second would deliver 5 damage per shot OR 20 damage per shot in 10 seconds.

Depending on HOW you want to play you could have a "Quickfire" AC/20 that shoots 4 times in 10 seconds or the "Hammer" variant that only fires every 10 due to it's massive shell but instantly blows off a leg of a light mech.

The AC/20 is the premier example to WHY people were afraid of it in the boardgame because it COULD kill a light mech outright.

Instead of fixing fire rates and splitting the damage PGI decided to double armour and after that they had to increase fire rates even more to keep up with what they created.

THEN then had to "fix" heat since everythign fired faster...

And it all went downhill from there.

[Joseph Mallan]

Elli Gujar, on 11 November 2013 - 10:06 AM, said:

Well, that's kind of a problematic proposal. TT players will tell you (rightly) that AC/2s are wasteful and non-Ultra AC/5s are near-universally a case of 'why didn't I take a PPC instead'.

I would instead say that the AC/5 rate of fire where it is now is actually roughly correct (should maybe be slightly slower, but not much if at all), and the AC/2 is all out of whack in so many ways (ghost heat assignment, 2 Km+ max range, stupid-high firing rate, better DPS than an AC/5) that it really just needs to be revised from the ground up. I rather like where Large Lasers are (excepting the Pulse, which generates a ridiculous amount of heat for a less than equivalent benefit) and the AC/10 and LB 10-X 'feel' fine in use.

I do think that the 3x max range on ballistics is silly, though, because it means that (for instance): At an AC/10's optimum range an AC/20 still deals 10 damage (Part of what makes boomjaegers truly terrifying), and an AC/2 still deals noteworthy damage to ranges you can't get the game to draw enemies at.

Overall, really, I stand by my point- PGI made a lot of big changes at the start that may have -seemed- like they didn't affect each other but really did, and gives every appearance of being unwilling to change these 'sacred cow' alterations they made with repeated insistences like 'We are not going to change to a high-dissipation low-threshhold heat scale.'

Whether or not they actually are willing to change these things is unknown, because in combination with the appearance that they are, as a group, unwilling to examine any of these things as potentially flawed, they haven't actually changed any of them since and don't tell the players at any point that they have been reexamining these ideas or testing potential changes to them.

So in one turn(10 seconds)
An AC2 can throw 38 damage at you (one shot every 0.52 seconds)
An AC5 can throw 30 damage at you (One shot every 1.5 seconds)
An AC10 can throw 40 damage at you (One shot every 2.5 seconds)
An AC20 can throw 40 damage at you (One shot every 4.0 seconds)

The AC2 is over balanced in the amount of damage it can throw. Surprisingly the AC5 is the weakling AC over time. Yes this is looking at max damage possible but there in lies the error. An AC5 had to hit twice(20 seconds of fire) to equal a single AC10 slug/burst and 40 seconds to equal the one AC20 round/burst. Don't even talk about how long it took an AC2 to be as effective as a AC20. That was the proper balance. You gave up punch or range (AC2) and range for punch (AC20).

Which would you rather having if you physically could carry it:
This Machine Gun?

or this one?

Edited by Joseph Mallan, 11 November 2013 - 10:36 AM.

[Tiamat of the Sea]

And under those rules, nobody used AC/2s if they could help it, and virtually nobody used AC/5s. I feel that the AC/5 is kicked-up enough- if it wasn't, people wouldn't be using them nearly as often as they are (particularly not boating them on Ilyas and Jaegers). The AC/2, on the other hand, is kicked up -too far-, on which I agree with you, and said as much on the post you quoted yourself.

By tabletop, the AC/2 drops too much punch to be worth any amount of range at that tonnage, and by MWO, the AC/2 adds too much rate of fire to be usable in multiples, while being so low-damage as to be meaningless at the range it functions where nothing else does (nevermind that nobody can function at that range because no matter your zoom you won't be able to see anything you could shoot at with it).

Frankly, I'm disinclined to break it up into exact ten-second intervals because two of the major elements (AC/5, AC/20) don't have a firing rate that fits evenly in that interval.

Main point being- with the caveat of your breaking up firing rates into exact ten-second chunks but using per-shot instead of DOT, which I don't agree with as a good way to analyze MWO firing rates- I pretty much agree with you here, so I can't determine if you were trying to argue with or agree with me???

Edited by Elli Gujar, 11 November 2013 - 10:36 AM.

[verybad]

Pro-DPS arguments used as a re balancing theory never seem to take into acount the fact that mechs under fire tend to retreat to cover as well as move their torso in order to spread damage. The AC-2 is a good suppression weapon, but it's clearly not ahead of the AC-5/UAC-5 as a damage maker.

FOr me (and I realize I'm not the only one playing, the Medium Laser is by far my biggest damage maker. (I'm sure partly because almost every mech I have carries at least one). TT Battletech also doesn't take into acount sub ten second movement and damage suppression action like cover retreat, mtwisting of torso, etc. In addition, it's notoriously unbalanced weapon to weapon. It's much easier to build an OP mech in TT than it is in MWO.

MWO has made several useless weapons (AC-2, AC-5) useful, but not all-powerful (IMO) I just wish they would do the same with NARC and a few otehr weapons, Personally I find it better balanced than TT.

[Joseph Mallan]

Elli Gujar, on 11 November 2013 - 10:34 AM, said:

And under those rules, nobody used AC/2s if they could help it, and virtually nobody used AC/5s. I feel that the AC/5 is kicked-up enough- if it wasn't, people wouldn't be using them nearly as often as they are (particularly not boating them on Ilyas and Jaegers). The AC/2, on the other hand, is kicked up -too far-, on which I agree with you, and said as much on the post you quoted yourself.

By tabletop, the AC/2 drops too much punch to be worth any amount of range at that tonnage, and by MWO, the AC/2 adds too much rate of fire to be usable in multiples, while being so low-damage as to be meaningless at the range it functions where nothing else does (nevermind that nobody can function at that range because no matter your zoom you won't be able to see anything you could shoot at with it).

Frankly, I'm disinclined to break it up into exact ten-second intervals because two of the major elements (AC/5, AC/20) don't have a firing rate that fits evenly in that interval.

Main point being- with the caveat of your breaking up firing rates into exact ten-second chunks but using per-shot instead of DOT, which I don't agree with as a good way to analyze MWO firing rates- I pretty much agree with you here, so I can't determine if you were trying to argue with or agree with me???

And for 30 years that was absolutely fine for everyone playing on their own tables. heck I never saw a player in a World Wide Event take a Vulcan unless it was the last Mech available. So I don't see the validity that it has to be balanced. All my years playing TT game, both at home and world wide events I only saw one player complain about Competitive play.

Edited by Joseph Mallan, 11 November 2013 - 10:52 AM.

[Khobai]

Quote

I would instead say that the AC/5 rate of fire where it is now is actually roughly correct

Actually, AC/5s and AC/20s need to fire faster but do less damage per shot. That way they spread damage out more and you cant poptart with them as effectively. Additionally PPCs should do splash damage so they dont do their full 10 damage to a single location.

We know convergence is a broken mechanic. We dont want random cone of fire in the game. So the only logical fix is to make damage spread out more in the manner I suggested. There is no other viable way to fix pinpoint alphas.

Edited by Khobai, 11 November 2013 - 10:58 AM.

[verybad]

Khobai, on 11 November 2013 - 10:56 AM, said:

Actually, AC/5s and AC/20s need to fire faster but do less damage per shot. That way they spread damage out more and you cant poptart with them as effectively. Additionally PPCs should do splash damage so they dont do their full 10 damage to a single location.

We know convergence is a broken mechanic. We dont want random cone of fire in the game. So the only logical fix is to make damage spread out more in the way I suggested. There is no other viable way to fix pinpoint alphas.

Why? That matches (SOME) fluff in the game, but not TT rules, so that makes no sense whatsoever. Why make the AC-20 or PPC splash damage, both are feared in Battltech and Mechwarrior for causing large amounts of damage to the same place, that's their whole point. Make an C-20 a fast firing but low damage per shot weapon and it's an AC-2 with shorter range...

[Khobai]

Quote

Why make the AC-20 or PPC splash damage, both are feared in Battltech and Mechwarrior for causing large amounts of damage to the same place, that's their whole point.

I already explained why. Because being able to do 40 damage to one location is completely broken. In battletech those weapons all hit different locations randomly.

Quote

Make an C-20 a fast firing but low damage per shot weapon and it's an AC-2 with shorter range...

Not really. If you increased its firing rate by 25% but lowered its damage per shot by 25% its still doing 15 damage per shot and firing once every 3 seconds. That's nothing like an AC/2. But its shaving 5 damage off the max pinpoint alpha (and if PPCs do 25% splash damage, then AC/20 + dual PPC now only does 30 pinpoint damage instead of 40 pinpoint damage, which is slightly more reasonable)

Edited by Khobai, 11 November 2013 - 11:08 AM.

[verybad]

Joseph Mallan, on 11 November 2013 - 10:51 AM, said:

And for 30 years that was absolutely fine for everyone playing on their own tables. heck I never saw a player in a World Wide Event take a Vulcan unless it was the last Mech available. So I don't see the validity that it has to be balanced. All my years playing TT game, both at home and world wide events I only saw one player complain about Competitive play.

So iit's better to match TT rules that are unbalanced than make a balanced shooter? THat automatically invalidates your argument...All you want is no change, not a good game.

[Tiamat of the Sea]

Khobai, on 11 November 2013 - 10:56 AM, said:

There is no other viable way to fix pinpoint alphas.

Personally, I consider Homeless Bill's solution both viable and elegant.

http://www.qqmercs.com/?p=2780