388 replies to this topic

[Sandpit]

Whatzituyah, on 09 November 2013 - 09:39 PM, said:

Sure try to avoid shots when your just a huge target anyway and very slow. Very exact reason I mostly use mediums and lights.

I'd like to direct you to several threads that claim mediums are completely useless.

Do you not see a trend here?

[Whatzituyah]

Sandpit, on 09 November 2013 - 09:50 PM, said:

I'd like to direct you to several threads that claim mediums are completely useless.

Do you not see a trend here?

Completely useless? No that would be like saying that Heavy's are useless.

[Sandpit]

Whatzituyah, on 09 November 2013 - 09:53 PM, said:

Completely useless? No that would be like saying that Heavy's are useless.

That's my point.

Your opinions on LRMs and many of the statements made in this thread about ACs is the exact same thing as someone else posting on those weight classes being useless. Do you see the similarities and what I'm getting at?

[Whatzituyah]

Sandpit, on 09 November 2013 - 09:56 PM, said:

That's my point.

Your opinions on LRMs and many of the statements made in this thread about ACs is the exact same thing as someone else posting on those weight classes being useless. Do you see the similarities and what I'm getting at?

Look I know what your saying it just seems at the end its the ghost heat nerf but when they take it away they will cause another problem with ghost heat. This game is supposed to be for smart people thinking about a lot of scenarios now its turned into just a first person shooter with classes like TF2.

[Victor Morson]

Autocannons not worthless in my MechWarrior? Better write a thread about it to alert the masses to the immediate required nerf!

PS: AC/2s are still worthless. Thanks, Ghost Heat!

[Whatzituyah]

Victor Morson, on 09 November 2013 - 10:02 PM, said:

Autocannons not worthless in my MechWarrior? Better write a thread about it to alert the masses to the immediate required nerf!

PS: AC/2s are still worthless. Thanks, Ghost Heat!

Its not a nerf that's needed its a buff Energy weapons now suck because of it. Oh man I am getting confused and mixed up I need a snickers.

Edited by Whatzituyah, 09 November 2013 - 10:04 PM.

[Sandpit]

Whatzituyah, on 09 November 2013 - 10:00 PM, said:

Look I know what your saying it just seems at the end its the ghost heat nerf but when they take it away they will cause another problem with ghost heat. This game is supposed to be for smart people thinking about a lot of scenarios now its turned into just a first person shooter with classes like TF2.

But it's threads like these that CAUSE exactly what you're talking about. THAT'S my point. Every time they adjust, balance, tweak, change, etc. something in the game we get a section of the forum population claiming doom and gloom or claiming another aspect has been rendered useless when in fact, it's just their inability to adjust to new mechanics

[TychoTheItinerant]

Sandpit, on 06 November 2013 - 01:17 PM, said:

Nobody ever bothers to talk about the trade-offs such as additional weight, crit spaces, and ammo (which also takes up weight and slots) because it's not convenient to their ideas and opinions

Do ballistics and ammo take up lots of crits? Yes. Look at how many DHS it takes to comfortably use an energy-based build, and tell me that the ballistics are SO disadvantaged. Weight? Weight simply doesn't matter when you don't have to hemorrhage tonnage and crits on DHS just to run a couple ERPPCs without constantly shutting down. ACs get low heat pinpoint damage at good ranges, and matches simply never run long enough to favor energy weapons.

I think what needs to happen (aside from the removal of Ghost Heat) is:

Shorten Laser beam duration. Make regular lasers do a quick ZAP (think like the Lasers from Mechwarrior 3). Make Pulse Lasers a quicker-cycling version of lasers. Make PPC and ERPPC shots "splatter", spreading their damage out slightly over mech parts adjacent to the one that got zapped. Make TAG a component that does not occupy a weapon slot. Give flamers an increased chance to cause ammo explosions, but make them more like Mechwarrior 4's flamers (a shot instead of a constant stream of fire). Impose penalties of increasing severity on mechs that are overheated (HUD blurring, sensor malfunction, reticle blurring, temporary shutdown of components like ECM or BAP).

Edited by TychoTheItinerant, 09 November 2013 - 10:50 PM.

[RickySpanish]

Sandpit, on 06 November 2013 - 01:32 PM, said:

That's because showing things like an AC 10 weighing 9 tons and requiring another ton of ammo for 10 tons of weight compared to 5 tons of an LL actually shows why there's a trade-off and how that weapon isn't the end-all be-all. It doesn't take into account things like what happens when ammo runs dry, ammo gets blown, or the fact that I can carry 2 LLs for the same weight to ensure that if one gets destroyed I'm still combat effective. They don't talk about things like that because it shows just how one-sided and biased their points are.

Actually they don't talk about it because ghost heat renders firing that many lasers uneconomical, not to mention that it exposes you for the duration of the shot as well. Ballistics are in a really good spot right now because ghost heat doesn't affect them much, since most Mechs don't mount a large number of them. You're best off building your Mech around its existing ballistics slots, or boating a fast Mech with energy weapons that can run away to cool down. You may be able to mount a pair of large lasers in place of a single AC5, but that AC5 can just keep on shooting all day long.

[Sandpit]

TychoTheItinerant, on 09 November 2013 - 10:32 PM, said:

Do ballistics and ammo take up lots of crits? Yes. Look at how many DHS it takes to comfortably use an energy-based build, and tell me that the ballistics are SO disadvantaged. Weight? Weight simply doesn't matter when you don't have to hemorrhage tonnage and crits on DHS just to run a couple ERPPCs without constantly shutting down. ACs get low heat pinpoint damage at good ranges, and matches simply never run long enough to favor energy weapons.

Just because you have an opinion on whether the trade-offs are balanced does not mean there aren't trade-offs. My opinion based on all the factual evidence is that they are pretty well balanced.

Your opinion is that they are not. Your opinion is not fact. Your opinion is your own personal perception of the current mechanic based on the factual evidence.

Just because your opinion is based on factual evidence doesn't make your opinion fact. Your opinion is biased. All opinions are. That's partially what distinguishes the difference between fact and opinion. Facts and truth are facts and truth regardless of interpretation. The truth does not change regardless of opinion, consequences, or inconvenience.

RickySpanish, on 09 November 2013 - 10:41 PM, said:

Actually they don't talk about it because ghost heat renders firing that many lasers uneconomical, not to mention that it exposes you for the duration of the shot as well. Ballistics are in a really good spot right now because ghost heat doesn't affect them much, since most Mechs don't mount a large number of them. You're best off building your Mech around its existing ballistics slots, or boating a fast Mech with energy weapons that can run away to cool down. You may be able to mount a pair of large lasers in place of a single AC5, but that AC5 can just keep on shooting all day long.

see above

oh, and all day long until it runs out of ammo you mean

[TychoTheItinerant]

Sandpit, on 09 November 2013 - 10:45 PM, said:

Your opinion is not fact.

Neither is yours.

Sandpit, on 09 November 2013 - 10:45 PM, said:

oh, and all day long until it runs out of ammo you mean

I like how you conveniently ignore why ammo-dependency is not as big a disadvantage as you make it out to be (read: the current quick-skirmish gameplay model that encourages and promotes quick-and-dirty slugfests instead of long protracted battles where energy's lack of ammo dependency would actually give it some kind of advantage)

[Sandpit]

Sandpit, on 09 November 2013 - 10:45 PM, said:

My opinion based on all the factual evidence is that they are pretty well balanced.

I'm well aware of that. I never said mine was.

TychoTheItinerant, on 09 November 2013 - 10:58 PM, said:

Neither is yours.



I like how you conveniently ignore why ammo-dependency is not as big a disadvantage as you make it out to be (read: the current quick-skirmish gameplay model that encourages and promotes quick-and-dirty slugfests instead of long protracted battles where energy's lack of ammo dependency would actually give it some kind of advantage)

I didn't ignore anything sir. I pointed out both sides and said there are trade-offs and that things aren't as unbalanced as many are trying to make it out to be. This is pretty typical though. Let's take someone's post and try to attack them and take the focus off what they are really pointing out (which in this case would simply be that there are a whole list of trade-offs and that my opinion is thigns are pretty balanced)

[TychoTheItinerant]

Sandpit, on 09 November 2013 - 11:08 PM, said:

I'm well aware of that. I never said mine was.

You damn well insinuated yours was somehow more connected to fact than mine, which is a load of **********.

Sandpit, on 09 November 2013 - 11:10 PM, said:

I didn't ignore anything sir. I pointed out both sides and said there are trade-offs and that things aren't as unbalanced as many are trying to make it out to be. This is pretty typical though. Let's take someone's post and try to attack them and take the focus off what they are really pointing out (which in this case would simply be that there are a whole list of trade-offs and that my opinion is thigns are pretty balanced)

Let's do some list making.

BALLISTICS:
Pros: Low heat. Pinpoint, lump sum damage with low flight time. Minimally affected by ghost heat. Gameplay model favors "pop and twist/run" to minimize risk to player's mech (which ballistics excel at), and overall engagements are shorter so ammo consumption usually does not exceed ammo capacity.
Cons: Ammo is finite. Ammo can be exploded. Ballistics+ammo are both weighty and bulky.
(Personal rebuttal to "ammo can be exploded" - how many mechs have you seen die from ammo explosions lately? Players are pretty smart about putting ammo either in places where it won't likely get critted or at least where it being critted will matter a lot less. Also, as ammo is consumed, risk of death from ammo explosions decreases because damage from an ammo explosion decreases.)


ENERGY:
Pros: No ammo required. Weapons are generally lighter and less bulky than ballistics.
Cons: High heat, requiring the use of many heatsinks (DHS is usually necessary on any build with a strong Energy loadout). Heatsinks use up crits and tonnage. Lasers have "duration", meaning the player must hold the beam on the targeted area for the full duration of the beam to actually get the damage promised, which can be difficult on some targets, and reduces the player's survivability by forcing him to give his opponent(s) a target for that duration. Ghost heat disproportionately affects Energy weapons, in part because more Energy weapons are needed to get the same effect as a single Ballistic and ghost heat punishes this.

Ammo explosions are neither incredibly common (as to even trigger them you have to peel armor from a crit location first, usually, and why bother peeling armor from where the ammo is when you can go after the mech's reactor and KILL the player instead?) nor necessarily deadly (leg armor is pretty strong, and players frequently put ammo there. Why go after the legs on, say, a CTF when the center torso or side torsos are less armored and will get a kill?)

Edited by TychoTheItinerant, 09 November 2013 - 11:46 PM.

[Sandpit]

TychoTheItinerant, on 09 November 2013 - 11:10 PM, said:

You damn well insinuated yours was somehow more connected to fact than mine, which is a load of **********.

No, no sir I didn't. Which is why I stated "my opinion". If you're going to make a point or argument at least have it make sense man. I've stated numerous times in this thread alone that opinion is opinion and then stated things as my opinion. I can't help it that you don't like my opinion. Luckily my opinion doesn't require anyone else's seal of approval.

What I DO point out is when people state all this factual evidence and then add an addendum that somehow tries to use that factual evidence as proof that their opinion is factual as well instead of being just their opinion on the facts presented.

Now if I hadn't stated "my opinion" then I could see your point.

[Sandpit]

TychoTheItinerant, on 09 November 2013 - 11:10 PM, said:

You damn well insinuated yours was somehow more connected to fact than mine, which is a load of **********.




Let's do some list making.

BALLISTICS:
Pros: Low heat. Pinpoint, lump sum damage with low flight time. Minimally affected by ghost heat. Gameplay model favors "pop and twist/run" to minimize risk to player's mech (which ballistics excel at), and overall engagements are shorter so ammo consumption usually does not exceed ammo capacity.
Cons: Ammo is finite. Ammo can be exploded. Ballistics+ammo are both weighty and bulky.
(Personal rebuttal to "ammo can be exploded" - how many mechs have you seen die from ammo explosions lately? Players are pretty smart about putting ammo either in places where it won't likely get critted or at least where it being critted will matter a lot less. Also, as ammo is consumed, risk of death from ammo explosions decreases because damage from an ammo explosion decreases.)


ENERGY:
Pros: No ammo required. Weapons are generally lighter and less bulky than ballistics.
Cons: High heat, requiring the use of many heatsinks (DHS is usually necessary on any build with a strong Energy loadout). Heatsinks use up crits and tonnage. Lasers have "duration", meaning the player must hold the beam on the targeted area for the full duration of the beam to actually get the damage promised, which can be difficult on some targets, and reduces the player's survivability by forcing him to give his opponent(s) a target for that duration. Ghost heat disproportionately affects Energy weapons, in part because more Energy weapons are needed to get the same effect as a single Ballistic and ghost heat punishes this.

Ammo explosions are neither incredibly common (as to even trigger them you have to peel armor from a crit location first, usually, and why bother peeling armor from where the ammo is when you can go after the mech's reactor and KILL the player instead?) nor necessarily deadly (leg armor is pretty strong, and players frequently put ammo there. Why go after the legs on, say, a CTF when the center torso or side torsos are less armored and will get a kill?)

I posted the same thing but instead of placing any kind of opinionated info in it (IE Ghost Heat being disproportionate). Instead, I posted a straight list with no editorial info, jsut the factual numbers and then in a completely separate paragraph I stated my opinion on those numbers.

I don't know how else I can explain it. I have an opinion and you have one. They simply are not they same opinion. I think things are fairly balanced. You do not. No matter how you attempt to display the numbers or state your opinion on the matter I'll not change mine. You can quote and post all you want on the matter. Why would you care what my opinion on the issue is anyhow?

Wouldnt' a much better use of your post be to state a case to the dev team and not care what another person's opinion on the matter is? I merely stated that there are trade-offs and based on all of the math, trade-offs, and stats that my opinion is that the weapons are pretty well balanced at this point. Some agree with me, some don't. I'm not trying to convince you of anything. I'm merely pointing out that a person's opinion isn't fact nor is it "right" or "wrong". You have every right to give your opinion to PGI about the matter, but I have the same right.

[Deathlike]

This thread.. deserves a facepalm of disapproval.

*insert facepalm pic here*

With that said...

FupDup, on 06 November 2013 - 03:21 PM, said:

Actually there is a Commando variant that does, but as expected it's also completely terribad and nigh useless because of it.

Don't crush the dreams of those poor light pilots (stjobe) that wishes for light mech dakka!

I'm not even sure where to begin in this thread.

It is pretty obvious since the PPC+Gauss nerfs that has put the "AC meta" to the forefront. It still hasn't stopped people from using PPC+Gauss independently (or together, for whatever the reason) to a lesser/different degree.

However, there's just tons of whining and being overdramatic going here and there isn't that much of a discussion.

The ACs themselves are not the problem.. in the situation with tonnage and crits... those are tougher to manager in smaller mechs, thus are primarily limited to 45+ tonners to make the most out of them. Energy has benefited from lower tonnage and less crits, which need to be combined with DHS in order to quell the heat generated... although with DHS not being true DHS (and the entire heat system itself) muddles things a bit anyhow. These issues exist, and have their own sets of problems... but are not the true problem.

What ACs in general needs is something similar to what MW3 and MW4 did with ACs... make them into "multiple projectiles" directed at the same location. It produces the same/similar effect as laser fire's beam duration. Having multiple projectiles potentially hitting multiple locations improves the ability of the almighty torso twist... thus reducing the effect of "pinpoint convergence" which has been referenced often.

Why add this?

I like the AC20 (and AC2, the AC5/UAC5 is meh and so is the AC10) and I like killing stuff quickly with it. However, there's something a little bit off with that it is very effective at taking down stuff. The problem is that it is kinda too effective. If a mech can fit an AC20, it's going to town... and it affects light mechs the most. As the chassis is bigger, it would be easier to concentrate fire on a section of a mech (so, shooting Atlai is easier). On a lighter mech, scattering some damage would actually help bring surviveability up. It might not be the most canon solution, but it's the only way to balance this in some proper sense.

Ultimately, I think energy can stand to be buffered (just the ERPPC's heat), but ballistics are not as overpowering... just being used more due to the state of PPCs in general. I use energy often and the only less usable thing at this time is the ERPPC, but it's where it should be at this point in time. Ballistics are not OP, just currently used more because of the "heat balance" people have been seeking. Ballistics, particularly the AC, should be refined because of the current concentrated nature of the weapon itself. Once that's done, you can get rid of ghost heat off the AC2+AC20 for good.

Before you even say "Gauss", that charging mechanic is mainly what's keeping the DPS/easy-fire nature of the weapon in check for the most part.

[TychoTheItinerant]

Sandpit, on 10 November 2013 - 12:12 AM, said:

I posted the same thing but instead of placing any kind of opinionated info in it (IE Ghost Heat being disproportionate).

Ghost heat's disproportionate effect is a fact, not opinionated info. Look at how it affects the weapons, how the weapons are employed, how much heat the weapons already generate. A single AC20 does not trigger ghost heat and does 20 damage on a single location for a very manageable heat cost. 20 points of damage into a rear torso location on a lot of mechs equals damaged internals. Compare with 20 points of damage from energy weapons. 2 PPC shots = 20 damage, and also a LOT of heat. 2 LLas beams = 18 dmg but that assumes you can keep the beams on the same location for the entirety of the beam duration, and they generate plenty of heat. 4 MLas = 20 dmg, but again beam duration and heat buildup come into play (and does the mech you run have that many Energy hardpoints?)

If you are right, if Ballistics and Energy are as well balanced as you claim, then why don't you see more energy boats instead of ballistic boats? Boomjagers/boomcats, Gausskitties, Dakkaphracts, Victors. Look at the meta. Tell me that the playerbase of MWO is ignoring a "viable" option, instead of going with what damn well works (AC meta and poptarting). Go on, tell me.

Sandpit said:

Wouldnt' a much better use of your post be to state a case to the dev team and not care what another person's opinion on the matter is?

Yes, because they're really going to listen to me. If they can't be arsed to read their own forums to keep their fingers firmly on the community's pulse, what in blue blazes makes you think they'll pay any mind to what I have to say? Look at their track record. I'm not interested in appealing to the devs anymore, because they're not interested in making a game I want to play anymore. I'm not who they're trying to sell MWO to anymore. I'm trying to get other people to recognize that they're being served steaming **** on a silver platter while being told it's beluga caviar.

Edited by TychoTheItinerant, 10 November 2013 - 12:42 AM.

[Sandpit]

TychoTheItinerant, on 10 November 2013 - 12:26 AM, said:

Ghost heat's disproportionate effect is a fact, not opinionated info.

No, no it is not. It is opinion. My opinion is that it is not disproportionate. Disproportionate implies that it is unfair. I think it's a fair trade-off.

[YueFei]

Look at it this way, for a rapid-fire AC-using mech to bring his superior DPS to bear, he must find a way to engage you in a prolonged exchange. If you are behind cover and he is behind cover, and both peek and shoot each other, and then you duck into cover again, his advantage is negated. If you're packing a nasty alpha with a stack of relatively light-weight energy weapons, you'll have crappy heat efficiency, it's true. But you can maneuver to deny the other guy a shot until you've cooled off. Then try to do it again.

It's the AC-user who has to take risks bounding across open ground to try to close in and force a sustained engagement. If he manages to put you into a situation where he has the advantage, he deserves to win. If you manage to strike and fade away, cool off, and repeat that enough times to gain the upper hand and win, then you deserved it.

If you're just gonna step from cover and engage the other guy head-on where his loadout is stronger than yours in sustained DPS, you can't expect to win unless you vastly out-skill the other guy in terms of movement and shooting accuracy.

Well, even then, with the right kind of torso-twist tanking of damage to give your weapons time to recycle and yourself time to cool off, you might still be able to pull off a win against a dakka-mech.

Edited by YueFei, 10 November 2013 - 12:44 AM.

[Clownwarlord]

I disagree with toning the ACs down, I would rather suggest maybe a buff to energy weapons (which a nurfing to them is what got us placed in this in the first place). No longer do we see the PPC builds we use to (rarely do you see 2 ppcs on a single mech and when you do that player is constantly battling the heat). So role back the heat penalty on the energy (somewhat ... not all the way) and you should see a balancing in the weapons to the point of being more even then to just turn acs into nurf guns.