388 replies to this topic

[Joseph Mallan]

Wait, did you just say ACs don't have Convergence and have Unlimited Ammo???

Its early and I was up late... Was that sarcasm?

[Karl Streiger]

Joseph Mallan, on 18 November 2013 - 05:15 AM, said:

Wait, did you just say ACs don't have Convergence and have Unlimited Ammo???

Its early and I was up late... Was that sarcasm?

A little bit of both:
Go in the training ground and try to hit a standing target with a couple of shells while moving - much more difficult in comparison with the "real" game.
And yes ammo is unlimited: you spend 10tons now - and in 10minutes in the next battle again 10... and again and again.

Oh of course its ACs have convergenze - sry my mistake - and its time for the afternoon tee....

Edited by Karl Streiger, 18 November 2013 - 05:18 AM.

[Joseph Mallan]

Ok, I hadn't come at it from that perspective on Ammo! Very nice.

[Sandpit]

Karl Streiger, on 18 November 2013 - 12:00 AM, said:

Sounds like to be caught between a rock and a hard place
The 5 LL Stalker is in NO MEANS a better choice as the current AC Meta.

That's your opinion sir. Mine is (well actually this is factual) that I tear up dakkas all day long in my stalker and bmaster energy boats.

[Almond Brown]

Khobai, on 13 November 2013 - 07:01 PM, said:

No. Its called asymmetrical balance. And a lot of games implement the concept.

Implement, sure. Ever actually "achieve" it according to their Player Base? Not since I starting playing such games, some 25 years ago.

Hell has even SC2 achieved "asymmetrical balance" yet? They had 7 years between releases...

[pbiggz]

Of all the metas we could have, i find AC meta the least repulsive, so I'd say the meta game is in a better place then it's ever been.

No doubt more balancing is required, but It's not as bad as you guys think it is.

[Karl Streiger]

Sandpit, on 18 November 2013 - 08:46 AM, said:

That's your opinion sir. Mine is (well actually this is factual) that I tear up dakkas all day long in my stalker and bmaster energy boats.

I didn't mean better by performance - its a kinky build - the violation of style and intension of the current available Stalkers.
So feal your self pround not to use Dakka Dakka Builds - but be ashamed to be unable to use a Stalker as heavy cavallry unit

Edited by Karl Streiger, 19 November 2013 - 12:48 AM.

[Sandpit]

Karl Streiger, on 19 November 2013 - 12:47 AM, said:

I didn't mean better by performance - its a kinky build - the violation of style and intension of the current available Stalkers.
So feal your self pround not to use Dakka Dakka Builds - but be ashamed to be unable to use a Stalker as heavy cavallry unit

Not sure what you mean here? I can use many builds. I run energy boats a lot just to prove they aren't worthless as many (especially in this thread) like to claim. Just because I use those builds as examples don't mean those are the only builds I run. I run a multitude of weapons, chassis, and builds. A mech is used "properly" when it kills the enemy before they kill you.

[Karl Streiger]

Sandpit, on 19 November 2013 - 08:05 AM, said:

Not sure what you mean here?

Just some puristic stuff BattleMech stuff. You don't have to bother about.

I'm one of the few that drive Stalker, Victor and Thunderbolt - near Stock loadout

[Skunk Wolf]

Triple ammo explosion damage.

[Sandpit]

Karl Streiger, on 19 November 2013 - 08:11 AM, said:

Just some puristic stuff BattleMech stuff. You don't have to bother about.

I'm one of the few that drive Stalker, Victor and Thunderbolt - near Stock loadout

ok....?

I don't drive many stock mechs because they don't come stock to fit my playstyle most times. That's the whole point of having a mechlab in my opinion. I knew as soon as I saw we had a mechlab in this game that there would be issues with "op" builds and such. Btech was never really designed to allow players to munch out their builds and fully optimize mech loadouts. part of the challenge was always dealing with, what most would consider, subpar designs. GMs ensured that there was balance in a build before it was allowed to be used in game. Here we don't have that but we do have mechanics that help balance it. The current mechanics work quite well in my opinion

[Kilrein]

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

There have been several posters who have included those areas so it seems very convenient for you to act like they don't exist. But one of key points here is that ammo endurance is very high compared to match length. Per PGI, average match lengths are approximately 8 minutes. So the primary advantage of energy weapons over ammo weapons is minimized as units rarely run out of ammo in matches and there is no logistical train to worry about.

[Sandpit]

Kilrein, on 25 November 2013 - 06:02 PM, said:

There have been several posters who have included those areas so it seems very convenient for you to act like they don't exist. But one of key points here is that ammo endurance is very high compared to match length. Per PGI, average match lengths are approximately 8 minutes. So the primary advantage of energy weapons over ammo weapons is minimized as units rarely run out of ammo in matches and there is no logistical train to worry about.

It's also very convenient for you to quote a post that's 3 weeks old. At the time of the post it was valid. And for the most part still is. Thank you for playing though? You might want to pick someone else to try and troll lol

[Sandpit]

[Joseph Mallan]

Sandpit, on 26 November 2013 - 07:29 AM, said:

Awwwwwwwww!

[DaZur]

The Justicar, on 06 November 2013 - 02:20 PM, said:

Would you like a DPS comparison on equal weight loadouts AC vs Lasers? AC's require tonnage and crit space for ammo. Energy weapons require tonnage and (much more) crit space for heat sinks. So long as you have ammo, your weapons are plainly, mathematically superior to energy weapons. And sorry, but most of the high-end meta builds right now focus on boating ballistics basically to exclusion.

Stated differently, do you think AC/5's should be so vastly out-damaging PPC's? I certainly hope not...

Again... "maths" does not compensate for real-world application.

AC DPS over front-loaded PPC damage means bubkiss when one has to uncover and face your enemy for the necessary period of time to achieve the required rounds to target to out-damage a PPCs single front-loaded shot. Not even mentioning the fact that, while the shooter is exposed, they have to actually "hit" the same location repeatedly to achieve same / similar location specific damage.

I'm not arguing that your "maths" is wrong.... Numbers are empirical. The larger issue is "maths" does not necessarily mirror actual application and results.

Edited by DaZur, 26 November 2013 - 07:48 AM.

[CDLord HHGD]

For me, the balance in ballistics are their size and weight..... An AC2 weights almost as much as a PPC for a fraction of the damage. Add to that the need for ammo, say 2 tons, it weighs one ton more than the PPC at the same number of crits. And the AC2 is the smallest/weakest of the ballistics.

When I see a ballistic boat, I start to think of what they sacrificed. Armor? Heat efficiency? Speed? As I scroll though the targets we are facing, if I see a ballistic boat, I call primary on it. Both because of it's threat to my team and because the thing has a weakness and can be nullified quickly.

[Lightfoot]

You can't balance a MechWarrior game with a pile of heat nerfs. MWO is the proof. It is GunWarrior Online.

It doesn't matter if you made a mech that works well for you without ballistics. Each mech is different. What binds them all together in a balanced way is that Battletech gave each weapon type a different weakness to keep it in check. These weaknesses are what allow one mech to carry mostly ACs and another to carry mostly Energy without granting an advantage to either.

Ballistic's weakness is weight and usually size and it's strength is it is very low heat (with a few exceptions).

Energy's weakness is high heat and it's strength is it's small and light.

The Heatsink size and dissipation rates are calculated to keep energy mechs and ballistic mechs even in damage over time per tonnage of payload. Both get perks and drawbacks that are also balanced.

MWO's problem has been too much damage for the Mechs to stand up too. PGI's fix has been one heat nerf after another. First we got DHS 1.4 instead of the promised 2.0's. Then we got Heat Scale which also only affects Energy mechs/ Energy weapons.

Problem is you can't just use heat as your only balancing tool even if it seems sneaky and smooth because you make GunWarrior which places a bonus on Ballistic mechs and a deficit on Energy mechs.

The correct way to reduce damage in MechWarrior is just cut it across all weapons and be upfront with the players. MWO even has the perfect excuse. "We almost doubled the recharge rates of the weapons so we are resetting them to do their Battletech rated damage in a normal 10 second full turn." Then balance accordingly.

[LowSubmarino]

I think I am to blame...

Seriously. Since the shadowhawk was released for cbills I couldnt resist slapping an ac10 in that thing and I have shot it in big mech's faces left, right, up, down and then all around again.

KABLAMM. Afterwards there were mostly only dead smoldering, white hot red-glowing pieces of metal left all over the place.

Maybe it was a little too much destruction. I will attempt to tone it down.

Edited by oneda, 26 November 2013 - 11:01 AM.

[IceCase88]

Nerf red, buff blue. That is all these weapons QQ threads are all about. My play-style is infringed upon by a certain weapons setup... QQ.. Nerf it. Set everything to canon weapons specifications and let us play. People will find successful weapons builds and others will emulate them. Ultimately, with hit registration problems and people QQing about pinpoint weapons the only possible conclusion is going to the old canon rules of weapons randomly hitting segments of mechs. Stop QQing if you do not want that to happen.