388 replies to this topic

[KinLuu]

I run most of my builds with 3+ tons per AC/5.
For example, on my 2x AC/5, 2x AC/2 Jaegermech, I run 7 tons of AC/5 ammo and 4 tons of AC/2 ammo. And while the AC/2s run dry from time to time, I have yet to run out of AC/5 ammo.

If you use up all ammo, while only scoring hits on vital componements, you will only lose if the match goes horribly wrong.
And in such cases, health is the limiting factor, not ammo.

[Joseph Mallan]

Just remember it will remain ACWarroirOnLine Until it is Nerfed then it will be LaserWarriorOnLine till its nerfed then it will be LRMWarrior OnLine... RWR. Unless all weapons do the same damage range cyclic something will always be king.

Edited by Joseph Mallan, 08 November 2013 - 05:50 AM.

[VikingN1nja]

KinLuu, on 06 November 2013 - 01:01 PM, said:

Then:

Nerf Gauss and PPC, Buff ACs!

PGI does as the community demanded.

Now:

Nerf ACs! Buff Energy!

Review the Gauss make it viable again!

[Haji1096]

IMHO, ACs aren't op. But what realistic alternatives are there in this meta ?

SRMs spread their damage, require you to get in close and hit detection is borked.

LRMs are complete garbage. Easy to avoid.

Just because everyone is using ACs and designing their mechs to bring enough ammo doesn't mean they need to be nerfed. This is what happen's when PGI balances through heat instead of fixing convergence.

[OneEyed Jack]

Joseph Mallan, on 08 November 2013 - 05:49 AM, said:

Just remember it will remain ACWarroirOnLine Until it is Nerfed then it will be LaserWarriorOnLine till its nerfed then it will be LRMWarrior OnLine... RWR. Unless all weapons do the same damage range cyclic something will always be king.

See, the problem is you think you're discouraging them. But you're not. You're actually encouraging them, because it tells them that no matter how nerfed things get, they'll always have something they can cry about. Some people are only happy when they'er bitching, and if they ran out of things to ***** about... well, then they'd be unhappy, indeed.

[Masterzinja]

It seems to me that they still have AC's and Lasers backwards. AC's are supposed to deliver streams of damage from 2,5,10,and 20 rounds in a burst: Damage over Time. Lasers are supposed to be precision instant damage weapons. PGI has it completely backwards for some reason.

If we're going to keep things backwards then maybe the RoF for ac/2s and ac/5's needs to be dropped a bit or some sort of recoil or shot dispersion needs to be added to stop the precision High RoF bombardment at long range that seems uncharacteristic of how these weapons should really be working.

[DaZur]

Attank, on 08 November 2013 - 02:09 AM, said:

They could solve the problem if lasers do (let's say) 75% of their actual total damage on contact, plus a 40% (just a slight damage buff of +15%) till the beam ends.

SO it could be effective and working very similar to ballistic, but if you are an ace and keep the beam for all the duration, you will be rewarded with some extra damage.

I disagree with buffing any damage beyond their max damage rating but I do like the idea of ramping damage based on beam contact time.

This would reward a pilot for skill-based hit-scan tracking in that the longer a pilot can maintain their aim on their target, the more they are rewarded with max damage potential.

I'd go with an initial contact damage of 50 percent and the rest ramping down to one with the beam duration...

This actually kinda jives with canon in that the explanation for pulse-lasers is the pulsed beam allows vaporized armor to dissipate, thus allowing each beam pulse to issue max damage without being diffused. Knowing that... the longer a "standard" beam is held on target, the less productive / efficient the beam is.

Edited by DaZur, 08 November 2013 - 06:16 AM.

[Joseph Mallan]

OneEyed Jack, on 08 November 2013 - 05:58 AM, said:

See, the problem is you think you're discouraging them. But you're not. You're actually encouraging them, because it tells them that no matter how nerfed things get, they'll always have something they can cry about. Some people are only happy when they'er bitching, and if they ran out of things to ***** about... well, then they'd be unhappy, indeed.

I am not trying to discourage anything, just pointing to the obvious. They are already unhappy cause they think combat should be perfectly balanced, It's not, and never has been. Neither has competition. Someone always has a better fastball, better coach, more money, perfect balance would have allowed the Detroit Lions to have won at least One Superbowl! If you are playing competitively someone will almost always be better and someone will almost always be worse than you. If you do not come to the game accepting this truth, you will always be complaining that, this, that or the other is not fair.

[DelRico]

Well thats life. Energy weapons are more accurate and need no ammo but are lest powerful. Even in our own modern world.

When I get shot at I simply move away and fins a new angle. Adaptation is key.

In the Battletech universe, ACs need constant supplying on the battlefront, making them a bad choice for extented confrontations. Energy weapons were always there and ready.

[DaZur]

Joseph Mallan, on 08 November 2013 - 06:17 AM, said:

I am not trying to discourage anything, just pointing to the obvious. They are already unhappy cause they think combat should be perfectly balanced, It's not, and never has been. Neither has competition. Someone always has a better fastball, better coach, more money, perfect balance would have allowed the Detroit Lions to have won at least One Superbowl! If you are playing competitively someone will almost always be better and someone will almost always be worse than you. If you do not come to the game accepting this truth, you will always be complaining that, this, that or the other is not fair.

Apparently you are showing your age with your archaic logic...

Don't you know we don't keep score or label anyone as "winners or "losers" anymore because it will diminish their self-confidence, thus lowering their self-worth.

You sir are a barbarian...

[Joseph Mallan]

DaZur, on 08 November 2013 - 06:23 AM, said:

Apparently you are showing your age with your archaic logic...

Don't you know we don't keep score or label anyone as "winners or "losers" anymore because it will diminish their self-confidence, thus lowering their self-worth.

You sir are a barbarian...

Thank You. You are to kind!

Eylradjaw, on 08 November 2013 - 06:19 AM, said:

Well thats life. Energy weapons are more accurate and need no ammo but are lest powerful. Even in our own modern world.

When I get shot at I simply move away and fins a new angle. Adaptation is key.

In the Battletech universe, ACs need constant supplying on the battlefront, making them a bad choice for extented confrontations. Energy weapons were always there and ready.

DaZ did you see this? More Archaic Logic!

[Malleus011]

It's evident that AC's currently rule the battlefield. Check the highest damage 'mechs at the end of every match. Chances are they are either Cataphracts or Jagermechs of some type. Occasionally another mech or variant, but more often than not, it's one of those boating some mixture of ballistics. When a 'mech chassis that can boat the maximum amount of a single weapon type consistently takes the top damage slots in most matches, it's obvious that those 'mechs and weapon types have a systemic advantage.

What to do about it is another matter and a good topic of discussion. I'd rather see ECM nerfed to make LRMs useful again, and DHS brought to their proper cooling capacity to boost energy weapons (and hit detection fixed of course) and then see where we are. But that's just my opinion, your mileage may vary.

Edited by Malleus011, 08 November 2013 - 06:39 AM.

[Panther TBC]

What do you expect, after all the complaining about PPC and Gauss, this is the next logical Min/Max configs. Eventually, we will all be using small lasers and machine guns only.

[DaZur]

Malleus011, on 08 November 2013 - 06:39 AM, said:

It's evident that AC's currently rule the battlefield. Check the highest damage 'mechs at the end of every match. Chances are they are either Cataphracts or Jagermechs of some type.

Fair point... now look at that list and tell me which mechs have accrued the most kills and assists? Point being... Damage does not always correlate with productivity.

While I agree it's purely anecdotal, I routinely see more energy-based (or mixed-mechs) with better kill totals than the dakka mechs... That said, I cannot refute that dakka mechs do achieve better damage totals.

I guess it boils down to what you want out of MW:O... If your "grinding" a dakka mech will obviously provide you ample opportunity to farm assists and amass impressive damage totals.

Edited by DaZur, 08 November 2013 - 06:53 AM.

[DaZur]

Panther TBC, on 08 November 2013 - 06:44 AM, said:

What do you expect, after all the complaining about PPC and Gauss, this is the next logical Min/Max configs. Eventually, we will all be using small lasers and machine guns only.

Welcome to MW:O "Pillow-fight" edition...

Can't wait til our balance arguments orbit around which pillow affords better FPS (fluffs-per-second)... down pillows or polyfoam.

[Rasc4l]

KinLuu, on 08 November 2013 - 05:43 AM, said:

I run most of my builds with 3+ tons per AC/5.
For example, on my 2x AC/5, 2x AC/2 Jaegermech, I run 7 tons of AC/5 ammo and 4 tons of AC/2 ammo. And while the AC/2s run dry from time to time, I have yet to run out of AC/5 ammo.

If you use up all ammo, while only scoring hits on vital componements, you will only lose if the match goes horribly wrong.
And in such cases, health is the limiting factor, not ammo.

It seems that you, sir, have made an excellent build there with quite optimal ammo counts although I'd probably sacrifice some armor just to have a ton or two more. Your build will remain functional a bit longer in MWO battles, because you have adequate amount of ammo.


But the main gripe was about boating ACs, not about reasonable AC builds like yours, which last longer. They talk about being destroyed by those 4xAC5 boats etc. It is true that such a boat can quickly make a kill almost out of anyone. However, this is not OP because such a boat can never carry enough ammo to rule the whole length of the game or is crippled by XL. Anyway, such beasts are even in the initial contact easy to counter with LRMs or confuse with lights leaving them vulnerable for that 2xPPC+gauss or whoever knows what they are doing.

[Werewolf486 ScorpS]

Incoming WOT! To the OP, You've been here since February so you've been here long enough to see weapons get nerfed, mechanics changed and a few buffs. So I'm going to say this as if I'm talking to someone who's been here long enough and not like talking to a newb.

I disagree with nerfing the ballistics and complaining about the PPC/AC poptarting. Every time I see these threads it scares me that PGI will listen, again. I will say at some point PGI needs to do a balance on all the weapons. I will also say that PGI has done a number on any weapon that players consider to be over powered by over doing the nerfs and changes to mechanics. Ghost heat has killed once viable chassis like the Awesome which was meant to carry triple PPC/Large Lasers/ Large Pulse. The Gauss firing mechanic has broken the Gauss for anything but the long range sniper and has created more bad builds, like the triple Gauss on an CTF-IM.

What you fail to realize is that when you call to nerf a weapon because you deem it OP there is always the next weapon to take it's place. It's not always the case of a weapon being OP, it's just how the meta of the game evolves when you nerf the best weapon in the game at that point. The next best thing becomes the best thing. It's not the weapons all the time as every call to nerf would suggest, it's a broken way of thinking by PGI on how to manage weapons.

Biggest reason we have these issues: Most of the time the reason players complain about a weapon isn't due to it truly being OP, but rather the broken way that PGI has decided to manage the weapons in the game. Allowing a chassis to boat weapons in the beginning like having 4-6 PPC on any chassis was a mistake. Instead of restricting how many big guns you can have PGI decided to only limit the type between ballistic, beam, and missile. This line of thinking is the root of the weapons issues in MWO. The only way to manage the weapons and be able to keep things under control is to manage them on a per chassis basis by restricting the number of big guns a chassis can carry and removing Ghost heat. The Awesome for example would be able to carry 3 PPC/Large Lasers/Large Pulse and no more then that. If you restrict the amount of big guns by chassis you stop the boating. I believe the only way to fix this would be to remove ghost heat and to manage the weapons allowed on a chassis by limiting the number it can carry. How many big guns does any real life military tank carry?

Maps are another issue and things will only get worse when we know what map we are going to get before we drop and can pick our chassis. Example: Alpine is the next map, you gonna take a Brawler or something long range? Most will opt for the long range and this will increase the number of matches you get picked apart at long range. If the number of PPC's, AC/2-5, and LRM's are limited on the field then it's less of an issue and can afford you time to close in and fight inside.

The forever cycle of demanding the best thing be nerfed is getting old and costly. Having to change my builds because of a nerf is costing me Cbills and time that I would rather spend on new chassis and playing. Having to tolerate the constant calls to nerf the best thing till we get back to the first weapon nerfed is getting old. Calling for nerfs in an effort to fix the way PGI built in a broken weapons management system IS old! Rather then putting band-aid(Ghost heat) after band-aid(Gauss mechanic) on the worst weapons management system in MW history, they need to fix it by managing the weapons on a per-chassis basis, so ask for that rather than shouting from the tower "NERF,NERF,NERF!"

Disclosure: I have one poptart Cataphract and Victor I use rarely and only when I'm asked to, never liked them, just not my thing. I didn't agree with any of the changes PGI did to nerf them before I ever had them(Ghost Heat, Gauss change). I use the AC20 in most of my builds that it can fit in, I like the punch, but I only run one and then I have medium lasers behind that and maybe missiles. I'm a brawler, that's how I play, I'm good at it too because I use cover, I flank and I usually take down 2 or more enemy mechs that have me out tonned. I feel that if you are complaining about the current meta, you need some lessons in using cover, flanking and also to understand you're not going to win most battles without an organized 4 man.

[Joseph Mallan]

Here is how weapons need balanced. Weapons that do 5 damage on TT need to do the same amount of damage in X seconds. 10 point weapons all do X damage in X seconds. An AC2 should do up to 1/2 the damage of an AC5 over x seconds etc etc.

Exceptions should be Missiles as their damage was variable on TT.

Small lasers, Small Pulse lasers, MGs, should all do near equivalent damage to each other.

Balanced. Done. Lets get to the killing!

[Fate 6]

Joseph Mallan, on 08 November 2013 - 07:45 AM, said:

Here is how weapons need balanced. Weapons that do 5 damage on TT need to do the same amount of damage in X seconds. 10 point weapons all do X damage in X seconds. An AC2 should do up to 1/2 the damage of an AC5 over x seconds etc etc.

Exceptions should be Missiles as their damage was variable on TT.

Small lasers, Small Pulse lasers, MGs, should all do near equivalent damage to each other.

Balanced. Done. Lets get to the killing!

Logic detected. Initiate extermination protocol. Destroy the meat bag.

[Sandpit]

It amazes me how you can show examples and people still sit in denial because it doesn't fit into their agenda.

I could easily take any comparable weapon systems and show the trade-offs. I'm not going to because I don't feel the want or need to. I've played long enough here to know what true OP and imbalance is and we are FAR from that. Just because a certain weapon balance performs in a different manner doesn't make it "better".

There are tons of people who use ballistics because they enjoy that style of play. I like my energy weapons for the same reasons they like their ballistics. I do just fine competitively with my energy weapons against all builds. If ACs were TRULY that op, you would see nothing but ballistics. You would see no other weapons used, except maybe in certain cases of missiles or to fill out leftover tonnage after completing your build. As it is now I see every weapon system utilized effectively. There will never be a perfect balance because it is, in large part, subjective.

I see thigns as very balanced at the moment. Want to see true imbalance? Look up some of the videos from lrmpocalypse and SSRMs when the spread on those things was too tight. THOSE were imbalances. This? This is not.

How can I say this? Well I can say that because it's my opinion on the current state of balance. There's nothing wrong with stating that you feel it's imbalanced but you can't make statements like "ACs are OP, everybody uses them" or "You can't be competitive without ballistics" because those are subjective and flat out untrue. It doesn't matter how many mathematical equations or factual evidence you use to justify your opinion, it's still an opinion.

You also can't say "Everyone, most of, the majority, (any %), etc. agrees with you" because that's simply untrue as well. You ahve no idea how many outside of this exact thread agree or disagree with you (other than maybe catching players in the game and getting their opinion on the matter as well).

If those kinds of statements were true we wouldn't even be having this discussion because everyone would agree with you. If you feel something needs to be changed then state your case for it but arguing with those how disagree on a completely subjective matter is pointless. We all get caught up in that sometimes but the bottom line is that if PGI looks at all of the factual data that they have and see that it is a problem they will make changes.