910 replies to this topic

[Greyboots]

Sandpit, on 25 November 2013 - 01:40 PM, said:

I feel the weapons are pretty well balanced as is. No need to nerf ballistics

No need to nerf ballistics at all but energy weapons need some love. They aren't massively problematic as a lot of people keep saying but the last round of adjustments hit them just a little too hard IMO.

[Sandpit]

Greyboots, on 25 November 2013 - 01:59 PM, said:

No need to nerf ballistics at all but energy weapons need some love. They aren't massively problematic as a lot of people keep saying but the last round of adjustments hit them just a little too hard IMO.

They feel like they're in a good place to me. I'm really saying this for your own good as egotistical as it may sound. The last thing you want is me and a few others I've seen getting a buff to energy weapons.

Seriously, I'm doing 400-600 damage on average and it's nothing for me to pop off and kill 3-4 mechs in a match. Do you REALLY want to give me the ability to do even more than that?

[Cimarb]

Sandpit, on 25 November 2013 - 02:05 PM, said:

They feel like they're in a good place to me. I'm really saying this for your own good as egotistical as it may sound. The last thing you want is me and a few others I've seen getting a buff to energy weapons.

Seriously, I'm doing 400-600 damage on average and it's nothing for me to pop off and kill 3-4 mechs in a match. Do you REALLY want to give me the ability to do even more than that?

I think the damage is fine, I just think it should be spread out over a burst rather than a single "bullet". For AC, think of it like a laser. For PPC, like a close spread LBX.

[Sandpit]

Cimarb, on 25 November 2013 - 05:02 PM, said:

I think the damage is fine, I just think it should be spread out over a burst rather than a single "bullet". For AC, think of it like a laser. For PPC, like a close spread LBX.

I don't have a problem with pinpoint, I think it's a tradeoff for the size, weight, and ammo requirements

[Aleksanteri Bekker]

The people saying "just mount AMS" are... well, oversimplifying the situation. AMS still fires even if you are hiding behind cover. So great, I've taken AMS just like all you "good" players suggest, I hide behind cover just like all you "good" players suggest, aaaand... my AMS runs out because I don't devote 6 tons to anti-missles.

LRM-spam will be less of a problem if AMS stopped wasting rounds when I'm behind cover.

[Sandpit]

Aleksanteri Bekker, on 25 November 2013 - 06:48 PM, said:

The people saying "just mount AMS" are... well, oversimplifying the situation. AMS still fires even if you are hiding behind cover. So great, I've taken AMS just like all you "good" players suggest, I hide behind cover just like all you "good" players suggest, aaaand... my AMS runs out because I don't devote 6 tons to anti-missles.

LRM-spam will be less of a problem if AMS stopped wasting rounds when I'm behind cover.

Can't you toggle it off?

[FupDup]

Sandpit, on 25 November 2013 - 06:51 PM, said:

Can't you toggle it off?

Toggling AMS was a feature that the devs had once planned/hoped to do, but so far AMS is simply always on.

Regardless, the guy who you quoted is really overexaggerating the situation. One ton of ammo per AMS is completely fine in any normal match. Once in a blue moon, maybe 2 tons. 6 tons is never needed, ever.

[Sandpit]

FupDup, on 25 November 2013 - 06:53 PM, said:

Toggling AMS was a feature that the devs had once planned/hoped to do, but so far AMS is simply always on.

Regardless, the guy who you quoted is really overexaggerating the situation. One ton of ammo per AMS is completely fine in any normal match. Once in a blue moon, maybe 2 tons. 6 tons is never needed, ever.

Yea I rarely run through a full ton unless i'm facing off against 5+ lrm boats that are coordinated

[GalaxyBluestar]

Sandpit, on 25 November 2013 - 02:05 PM, said:

They feel like they're in a good place to me. I'm really saying this for your own good as egotistical as it may sound. The last thing you want is me and a few others I've seen getting a buff to energy weapons.

Seriously, I'm doing 400-600 damage on average and it's nothing for me to pop off and kill 3-4 mechs in a match. Do you REALLY want to give me the ability to do even more than that?

i am a ghost heat hater but for more reasons than just give me my old mech back... because if that were to happen without a solution to convergence or alpha striking i would enjoy going to town on peoples...

for the sake of the game when the netcode/hitreg aligns with no GH issues a "cheese" can be born.

{the thread linked is back in march just when HSR was introduced for lasers and not one mech was missed. however a fortnight later ballistics state rewind was introduced and the laser "cheese" fell to gauss, ppc "cheese"}

Edited by GalaxyBluestar, 25 November 2013 - 07:41 PM.

[Blackadder]

LRMs are no more OP then any other weapon at the moment. The fact is that good player can leverage the potential of LRM's to destroy less skilled players and new players who do not understand the concept. The same high level players or good players, can beat you with brawling builds, sniping builds and other weapons loadouts. The fact remains ,that for every Villz or other player, there are probably hundreds of below average players who are completely ineffective with LRMs.

I have yet to see any truly dominant play with LRM oriented teams, outside of high level players who can dominate with most weapons and builds. Given that all it takes is learning the map, and how LRM's work in a predictable pattern every time, makes them easy to counter. Usually i die to LRM players once every 30-40 games at most. The only times LRM's have been OP, is when they have had splash damage, trajectory or targeting issues Head/CT.

When you add in AMS and ECM, they become a completely below average weapon in most cases, and not all that many players can make them work well enough to do much with them.

[Greyboots]

Sandpit, on 25 November 2013 - 02:05 PM, said:

I'm really saying this for your own good as egotistical as it may sound. The last thing you want is me and a few others I've seen getting a buff to energy weapons.

Well, not really.



I uploaded this video for another thread a few weeks ago but it applies here none the less. Not my best, not my worst but fairly typical of my performance with my BJ-3 outside of roflstomps. Match score of 90, 2 kills, 6 assists, 542 damage from a 45 ton mech.

Your numbers don't surprise me because I'm no stranger to them myself. I'm not disagreeing with you because I am not in posession of all of the relevant facts. I'm disagreeing because I think lasers could use a little love.

Quote

Seriously, I'm doing 400-600 damage on average and it's nothing for me to pop off and kill 3-4 mechs in a match. Do you REALLY want to give me the ability to do even more than that?

Well, yes...

My highest KDR mechs are the BJ-1 and K2 catapult and I run both as energy-centric mechs. Conversely? My highest Win-Loss ratios are for the Hunchback 4G (AC20 build), Catapult C4 (2 x LRM 15, 1 x LRM 10 - much ammo) and Kintaro KTO-20 (SSRM centric with a medium laser, medium pulse and a TAG).

How much damage I can do or how many mechs I can kill does not directly correlate with my win/loss ratio which is how the game defines "success".

That's simple. Winning a game is worth approximately 3 kills in cBills and 2 kills in XP. I can actually progress further if I die early, do less damage and get fewer kills PROVIDED I'm dieing for something that will help my team shore up a victory.

Tactics matter and they aren't just an application of DPS and how many kills you can get.

An AC20 will intimidate even the toughest mech and make it at least sit up and take notice if not withdraw. A pair of LRM 15's can intimidate any mech and make it seek cover. SSRM boats intimidate lights and make them back off too. All 3 cost me damage and cost me kills but are also game winning strategies.

eg: If there's a lot of large lasers coming my way it won't stop me from repositioning myself on the battlefield. The damage isn't wonderful and I can spread it around by twisting my torso. LRMs? That makes me rethink the move. A pinpoint AC strike? That makes me think twice too. But not lasers (and PPCs no longer qualify on their own either).

This is not a game about "who kills the most". This is a game about "who wins the most" and there is no direct correlation between the two. You can get 11 kills, do 6000 damage and still lose.

This is a tactical game where the conditions for "balance" are set by the game and not a preconceived idea of some tradeoff of abstract numbers. Balance is based on win/loss ratio and in my experience Energy Weapons aren't giving me the tools to effect the battlefield like other weapons are. This means that despite what the damage and kill numbers are? If the win/loss isn't there then... They aren't balanced.

If energy weapons are to be relegated to a non-tactical weapon then they should be more powerful than other weapons as a tradeoff. If they are equal in DPS and/or ability to kill but lack a distinct tactical advantage that all other weapons have then they are unbalanced.

[Sandpit]

Greyboots, on 25 November 2013 - 09:10 PM, said:

snip because I'm tired

Your opinion is they need a buff, mine is they are good where they're at. I like where they're at. I'm at no disadvantage against any other weapon or mech out there. I win more than I lose (hence the positive W/L I mentioned earlier) I do great damage, get kills, buffing them is going to make them OP because if players who know how to use them are going to keep using them jsut as effectively as they are now.

[Victor Morson]

Aleksanteri Bekker, on 25 November 2013 - 06:48 PM, said:

So great, I've taken AMS just like all you "good" players suggest, I hide behind cover just like all you "good" players suggest, aaaand... my AMS runs out because I don't devote 6 tons to anti-missles.

Here is why this is pure hyperbole: There won't be missiles streaming over your head in general if they don't have a lock on anyone. And if it is firing to protect a teammate.. GOOD. You don't want to turn that off.

Your problem is probably that once you lose lock (got out of sight) you just stand there and let the missiles keep coming in. If you reposition once lock is lost, 90% of that indirect damage is blown off without a scratch.

[Sandpit]

Also, I tend to find that if I slink around the outskirts of the main furball and get into a position to unload a 5LL alpha into a lurmer, they tend to break their locks and try to run and hide.

[Joseph Mallan]

Sandpit, on 26 November 2013 - 06:28 AM, said:

Also, I tend to find that if I slink around the outskirts of the main furball and get into a position to unload a 5LL alpha into a lurmer, they tend to break their locks and try to run and hide.

Playing chicken with an LRM boat... Classic fun!

[Sandpit]

Joseph Mallan, on 26 November 2013 - 06:40 AM, said:

Playing chicken with an LRM boat... Classic fun!

They usually lose. It tales a lot more time for the LRMs to reach their target than my lasers do and lurmers tend to stand still a lot for some reason. 5LL pinpoint damage will ruin anyone's day. Sometimes I make a game out of it and try to pull the ears off of cats before I get serious lol

[Joseph Mallan]

Sandpit, on 26 November 2013 - 07:28 AM, said:

They usually lose. It tales a lot more time for the LRMs to reach their target than my lasers do and lurmers tend to stand still a lot for some reason. 5LL pinpoint damage will ruin anyone's day. Sometimes I make a game out of it and try to pull the ears off of cats before I get serious lol

I'll be honest in my Archer days, I never had t worry about LLaser boats, but I'd like to see who flinches first with you

[Zyllos]

Lyoto Machida, on 25 November 2013 - 12:45 PM, said:

Great post...2 things:

1) No one read the spoiler most likely.
2) I have doubts on PGI implementing 3 of those ideas, much less all of them.

You are correct. I doubt any of this will get implemented. But it's what I view as part of the problem...

Greyboots, on 25 November 2013 - 01:23 PM, said:

What, exactly, would this accomplish? And I'm not trying to be confrontational, I really want to know what people expect this to do.

There is actually no difference between direct fire and indirect fire except indirect fire uses someone else's target. Artemis is what makes the difference and all it cares about is whether or not you have LOS to your target whether that be a locked target and the missiles home in or unlocked and they just hit where the crosshairs are.

Is this really just a way to make LRMs more powerful by reducing the penalties for shooting at ECM shielded targets and mechs that "pop out" to attack that you can't get a lock on?

Or am I missing something?

Well, indirect fire is much harder to achieve because you need a forward scout (because most heavier mechs have shorter ranged sensors) or someone needs to TAG/NARC a target for you. If your running up to get your own targets, that's the point of Artemis IV, to give more concentrated damage for your LRMs by placing yourself in direct LoS of your target.

Direct fire mainly to be used to hit a target that you can't get a lock on for yourself, hence the more direct route and faster flight speed suggestions for direct fire LRMs. This also lets LRMs end up being good when fired on a group of mechs, especially slow mechs. But, direct fire should always be a last resort, thus rarely used.

Cimarb, on 25 November 2013 - 01:35 PM, said:

No. Do you want ballistics and energy weapons to randomly hit like in TT also? LRMs damage the way they should. Clustering them into fives was just to make things simpler in TT so you didn't have to roll once for each missile (four rolls instead of twenty? Yes please). How about missiles hitting your legs even though they all visually hit your torsos? (Or vice versa) Please stop with the TT implementations that make no sense in a real time shooter.

Honestly, the opposite needs to happen. Instead of clustering the LRM damage, the direct fire weapons are the ones that need adjusted. ACs should fire bursts of rounds, like a large bore MG (which they are) and PPCs should do a small radius cone that disburses the damage amongst the hitboxes impacted. This would dramatically balance out the weapon systems and decrease the pinpoint issue immensely.

I 100% agree with you. Pin point accuracy is in need of a fix. But this is an LRM thread, so that is why I mentioned nothing about it.

This isn't an attempt to make LRMs better/worse, it's an attempt to make LRMs act like how they should be acting. Right now, larger launchers act completely different than smaller launchers, hence why many players utilize smaller launchers.

[Sandpit]

Joseph Mallan, on 26 November 2013 - 07:34 AM, said:

I'll be honest in my Archer days, I never had t worry about LLaser boats, but I'd like to see who flinches first with you

Bring it on sir!!! Just remember, screen shake doesn't stop me from shooting back, heck I've got my eyes closed when I pull the trigger 90% of the time anyhow

[Cimarb]

Sandpit, on 25 November 2013 - 05:31 PM, said:

I don't have a problem with pinpoint, I think it's a tradeoff for the size, weight, and ammo requirements

I'm glad you don't have a problem with it, but a large majority of people seem to. I am fine where most weapon systems are too, but I think it would only get better if they adjusted them to not do pinpoint damage. It is the same issue as ghost heat - I am fine with it because I have adapted to the system, but that doesn't mean the system is a good one.