408 replies to this topic

[verybad]

Khobai, on 11 November 2013 - 11:02 AM, said:

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.

Except the effect is essentially 20 damage to one location using two AC-20s because the armor is doubled. *meh*

[Khobai]

Quote

Except the effect is essentially 20 damage to one location using two AC-20s because the armor is doubled. *meh*

No because you get to aim both at the same location instead of having both hit random locations. That massively amplifies damage.

[Joseph Mallan]

verybad, on 11 November 2013 - 11:02 AM, said:

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.

Who said it had to invalidate the TT rules to make it work? AC2 was half as effective as a 5 an so on and so on. Lasers were similar that a small laser was weaker than a Medium and a Medium weaker than a Large. LRMs were the same. You got MORE bang for your Buck. We could make an AC2 equal to a MG (not the other way around) damage, an AC5 would be 2.5 times better than an AC2, AC10 double that of a AC5 an of course AC20 the big guy at 4 times as heavy hitting as a AC5. Deliver the rounds as single slugs or cassettes of shells. Makes little difference to me. so long as the feel of of escalation is there.

Edited by Joseph Mallan, 11 November 2013 - 11:13 AM.

[Joseph Mallan]

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

No because you get to aim both at the same location instead of having both hit random locations. That massively amplifies damage.

One AC 20 on TT is equal to two in MW:O for total armor damage done thanks to convergence. Two AC20s on TT would be like being hit by the guns of 2 Jager40s one hitting a torso and one hitting a leg.

[Khobai]

yep theres no reason an AC/20 has to do 20 damage either. Personally I think PGI should just rename the autocannons to heavy/medium/light/very light, etc... then they no longer have any obligation to use battletech damage values and MWO will be so much more balanced as a result.

Quote

One AC 20 on TT is equal to two in MW:O for total armor damage done thanks to convergence. Two AC20s on TT would be like being hit by the guns of 2 Jager40s one hitting a torso and one hitting a leg.

Except in tabletop, arms and legs absorb 50% of the total damage. Since players generally avoid hitting arms/legs in MWO that damage soak is effectively gone. Being able to aim for the center torso greatly amplifies damage and the efficiency with which mechs are killed.

In TT the chance to hit a CT is only 20%. In MWO its as high as 100% if you have perfect aim. That means a CT is taking as much as 5 times more damage compared to TT. Even if you divide through by x2 armor thats still 5/2 = 2.5 times more damage than TT. Being able to precisely aim is a HUGE damage amplifier and the weapons in MWO need to be balanced around that fact.

It gets even worse with convergence and multiple weapons. In TT if I have two AC/20s and fire both, statistically I only have a 1/5 * 1/5 or 1/25 chance of both hitting the center torso. Thats only 4% of the time that both hit the CT of a mech. In MWO, a dual AC/20 jager can put both into your CT 100% of the time with perfect aim. That's upto a x25 damage increase compared to TT. Divide through by double armor and its x12.5 more damage than tabletop!!! That's how utterly broken convergence is.

So yeah I think autocannons and ppcs spreading damage around a bit is completely reasonable given how insanely powerful convergence makes those weapons.

Edited by Khobai, 11 November 2013 - 11:31 AM.

[Joseph Mallan]

Khobai, on 11 November 2013 - 11:16 AM, said:

yep theres no reason an AC/20 has to do 20 damage either. Personally I think PGI should just rename the autocannons to heavy/medium/light/very light, etc... then they no longer have any obligation to use battletech damage values and MWO will be so much more balanced as a result.

So long as it does comparatively superior damage to an AC5 does per shell. However since they are calling the game MechWarrior which is the title of pilots of BattleMechs your argument kinda falls on it face.

[Sandpit]

The game is pretty well balanced now in my opinion. Based on all the maths, trade-offs between weapon types, and (more importantly?) in game experience and performance, I feel that things are fairly even and balanced.

[Terror Teddy]

Sandpit, on 11 November 2013 - 11:26 AM, said:

The game is pretty well balanced now in my opinion. Based on all the maths, trade-offs between weapon types, and (more importantly?) in game experience and performance, I feel that things are fairly even and balanced.

They stil need to fix a few things.

-Ghost heat (Because firing twin AC/2 and getting the heat of an AC/20 is reasonable...)
-Chainfire (Because firing slower in chainfire mode than tapping two/three different keys makes sense...)

[MustrumRidcully]

DPS is pretty much an imaginary number that has not much relevance for practical gameplay.

It might be more useful to talk about DPS over 5 seconds or DPS over 10 seconds, or DPS after 15 seconds. After 5-15 seconds, your or the target might have long gotten back to cover, or are dead.

Without saying this would make things perfect...

I would probably lower the AC/2 rate of fire to 1 shot every 0.75 seconds, and also lower its heat per shot to 0.75 per shot. Maybe even 1 shot every second and 0.5 heat per shot.

Though if we weren't so married to those damage per shot values (rename the stupid weapons! Khobai is right!), we could tweak these weapons probably a lot better. For all I care, AC/2 and AC/5 could deal the same damage per shot but the AC/5 might have a 25 % higher rate of fire or something like that.

[Tiamat of the Sea]

While I don't necessarily endorse the specific method Mustrum is suggesting here, I do agree with him that there should be at least a little more willingness to flex on the damage per shot values from the tabletop bases.

This is particularly a noteworthily weird golden cow of PGI's given that they were willing to double both armor and internal structure AND make 'double' heatsinks only partially effective AND specifically avoid heat-neutral 'mechs (really? Why? These 'mechs all gave up a lot in order to reach that point.... and it's not like heat-neutral builds don't still overheat in places like Terra Therma...) AND triple maximum ranges on autocannon AND double maximum ranges on energy weapons AND multiply ammo for everything but SRMs by 140-180% per ton AND change the damage and heat values of lasers all over the place AND utterly convert machine gun function into something completely different AND allow engine ratings that aren't a multiple of 'mech tonnage AND...

I'm pretty sure you got where I was going with this halfway through that paragraph, but I felt like being a bit ridiculous.

[akpavker]

lol they deleted my posts!?

[Lupus Aurelius]

MustrumRidcully, on 11 November 2013 - 12:39 PM, said:

DPS is pretty much an imaginary number that has not much relevance for practical gameplay.

It might be more useful to talk about DPS over 5 seconds or DPS over 10 seconds, or DPS after 15 seconds. After 5-15 seconds, your or the target might have long gotten back to cover, or are dead.

Without saying this would make things perfect...

I would probably lower the AC/2 rate of fire to 1 shot every 0.75 seconds, and also lower its heat per shot to 0.75 per shot. Maybe even 1 shot every second and 0.5 heat per shot.

Though if we weren't so married to those damage per shot values (rename the stupid weapons! Khobai is right!), we could tweak these weapons probably a lot better. For all I care, AC/2 and AC/5 could deal the same damage per shot but the AC/5 might have a 25 % higher rate of fire or something like that.

I disagree. DPS and burst damage are indicators. Granted, this is not like EVE, where DPS factors in heavily. But in MWO, it's an indicator of what a potential is. Same with burst damage, you are not always going to be able to apply all your weapons at once, nor maintain them indefinitely. But it is an indicator of potential.

DPS can't be ignored any more than alpha. At range, full alpha does not apply, unless all your weapons are long range. What becomes important then is being able to sustain fire with your long range weapons until the enemy closes. Once that occurs, alpha comes into play. But the AC mechs at close range can sustain that fire substantially longer than an ERPPC mech. So both at range and up close, ballistics excel way beyond the energy weapons for versatility due to the current heat issues.

The longer a mech can sustain fire of it's primary weapons, the more DPS becomes a factor. Both alpha and DPS are going to be affected by heat, but if you can keep your primary damage dealers running non-stop in an engagement, you are going to be doing significantly more damage as the engagement continues.

The fallacy in PGI's system is self evident. Keeping dissipation unaltered from TT rates, and in the case of engine external DHS reducing their dissipation from 2 heat/10sec to 1.4 heat/10sec, while increasing ROF, totally changes weapon balance. Instead of addressing the root cause, they continued with that system, modified heat and firing times, and implemented ghost heat, further shifting the system to an even more unbalanced state.

Edited by Lupus Aurelius, 11 November 2013 - 05:35 PM.

[Joseph Mallan]

Khobai, on 11 November 2013 - 11:16 AM, said:

yep theres no reason an AC/20 has to do 20 damage either. Personally I think PGI should just rename the autocannons to heavy/medium/light/very light, etc... then they no longer have any obligation to use battletech damage values and MWO will be so much more balanced as a result.



Except in tabletop, arms and legs absorb 50% of the total damage. Since players generally avoid hitting arms/legs in MWO that damage soak is effectively gone. Being able to aim for the center torso greatly amplifies damage and the efficiency with which mechs are killed.

In TT the chance to hit a CT is only 20%. In MWO its as high as 100% if you have perfect aim. That means a CT is taking as much as 5 times more damage compared to TT. Even if you divide through by x2 armor thats still 5/2 = 2.5 times more damage than TT. Being able to precisely aim is a HUGE damage amplifier and the weapons in MWO need to be balanced around that fact.

It gets even worse with convergence and multiple weapons. In TT if I have two AC/20s and fire both, statistically I only have a 1/5 * 1/5 or 1/25 chance of both hitting the center torso. Thats only 4% of the time that both hit the CT of a mech. In MWO, a dual AC/20 jager can put both into your CT 100% of the time with perfect aim. That's upto a x25 damage increase compared to TT. Divide through by double armor and its x12.5 more damage than tabletop!!! That's how utterly broken convergence is.

So yeah I think autocannons and ppcs spreading damage around a bit is completely reasonable given how insanely powerful convergence makes those weapons.

This is just lame excuses, If a mere average player (Me) can be fine with 30 and 40 point Alphas IN MW:O why are supposedly Better ones be so bent by it? It is funny to me how Competitive players cannot accept 30 damage against double armor and I am fine with it. If weapons get some divergence I will not be sad, but I can accept how this game handles damage now.

[GalaxyBluestar]

Joseph Mallan, on 11 November 2013 - 11:21 AM, said:

So long as it does comparatively superior damage to an AC5 does per shell. However since they are calling the game MechWarrior which is the title of pilots of BattleMechs your argument kinda falls on it face.

now theres an interesting point, just what are battlemechs in this game? are battlemechs dependant on DHS because SHS was nerfed forcing you to pay in cbills? was gaurdian ecm actually all the ecm's combined and was bap actually eccm? was IS mechs a race of tack on parts from a scrape heap like they are becoming now?

BT influence in this game has been dead for ages, the final nail being champions for all trial mechs, that's how highly canon is thought of around here, it's just a formality now with the mech warrior name. so yeah why not change the weapon values and the names etc, it's being happening for ages anyways. then we can call this game build your own stompy machine online because battlemechs bare little resemblance to what this game is becoming to represent.

never mind TT values the looks and rulesets all over the show has changed so there's no point sticking to battletech logic nowdays.

Edited by GalaxyBluestar, 11 November 2013 - 05:44 PM.

[Joseph Mallan]

Double Sinks are exactly what they are on TT. Better than Single sinks. Single sinks would work fine if MW:O followed Canon, and not a short lived mostly hated boxset. Guardian is more than just ECMs... Then take the MechWarrior name off it. If it doesn't follow the universe physics it ain't MechWarrior.

[Khobai]

Quote

This is just lame excuses, If a mere average player (Me) can be fine with 30 and 40 point Alphas IN MW:O why are supposedly Better ones be so bent by it? It is funny to me how Competitive players cannot accept 30 damage against double armor and I am fine with it. If weapons get some divergence I will not be sad, but I can accept how this game handles damage now.

Its not lame excuses at all. Wanna know why people dont like to play medium mechs? Because of 30-40 damage alphas. Worse yet is that mediums are forced into using XL engines to compete. So all it takes is two of those alphas to your side torso and youre dead. And when youre as tall as an assault mech with half the armor its really not that hard to aim for that side torso either. There's really no good justification for 30-40 damage alphas existing in the game, all it does its overly punish medium mechs, because they have neither the speed of lights or the armor of heavies... so pinpoint damage obliterates them.

Ultimately the best way to fix mediums is to get pinpoint damage under control. Beyond that PGI needs to focus on weight class and role warfare to give people a reason to play mediums again.

Edited by Khobai, 11 November 2013 - 06:00 PM.

[Joseph Mallan]

Khobai, on 11 November 2013 - 05:54 PM, said:

Its not lame excuses at all. Wanna know why people dont like to play medium mechs? Because of 30-40 damage alphas. Worse yet is that mediums are forced into using XL engines to compete. So all it takes is two of those alphas to your side torso and youre dead. And when youre as tall as an assault mech with half the armor its really not that hard to aim for that side torso either. There's really no good justification for 30-40 damage alphas existing in the game, all it does its overly punish medium mechs, because they have neither the speed of lights or the armor of heavies... so pinpoint damage obliterates them.

So Mediums are dying as fast as they did on TT? Hunchback has 20 armor on Side Torsos so single AC20s stripped em and the next weapon hit hurt em bad. So seconds to cripple a Medium on TT too! Same as being hit by these 40 point Alphas that are to powerful. An 30 years of no complaints even with half the armor.

[GalaxyBluestar]

Joseph Mallan, on 11 November 2013 - 05:50 PM, said:

Double Sinks are exactly what they are on TT. Better than Single sinks. Single sinks would work fine if MW:O followed Canon, and not a short lived mostly hated boxset. Guardian is more than just ECMs... Then take the MechWarrior name off it. If it doesn't follow the universe physics it ain't MechWarrior.

well it still makes it dissapointing. with catapults having their weapons tacked on going nuts for the customisation fools the arbitary GH all the hit detection, weapon balance {scrap} i'm wondering if this game is going to live up to MW, cause we've already thrown BT out.

Edited by GalaxyBluestar, 11 November 2013 - 06:08 PM.

[Joseph Mallan]

GalaxyBluestar, on 11 November 2013 - 06:07 PM, said:

well it still makes it dissapointing. with catapults having their weapons tacked on going nuts for the customisation fools the arbitary GH all the hit detection, weapon balance {scrap} i'm wondering if this game is going to live up to MW, cause we've already thrown BT out.

[Khobai]

Quote

So Mediums are dying as fast as they did on TT?

Yeah but this isnt TT. In MWO the weight classes are supposed to be more equalized. A Hunchback is supposed to contribute as much to winning as an Atlas despite the 50 ton difference.