99 replies to this topic

[Almond Brown]

Draconis March, on 13 November 2013 - 05:22 PM, said:

The fact that YOU run them doesn't prove that they're not useless.

Nor does the fact that just because Lucy thinks they are useless, does not make them so.

[Shredhead]

First off:
Balancing this game through RnR was bad and is still a bad idea!
As much as I want to see RnR back at least for mercs in CW, RnR should be balanced around the income, not equipment costs.
Secondly:
Why is there an abundance of ballistic weapons on the field? Because SRMs don't work! Yes, AC10 and 20 are good weapons, but mechs with energy/missile setup are right now excluded from brawling!
SRMs were the way to go in brawling. Their spread ensured critical hits in open locations, they were shaking the target and you had to pay in weight, crit slots and CBills for more accuracy. Right now brawling with high powered pinpoint weapons needs more skill than with lasers and SRMs (before HSR), because every pilot who knows what he's doing is constantly twisting to protect open sections. The current brawler setups are mostly AC and lasers, because lasers have the advantage that you can adjust your aim while firing. This is why I survive many head to head brawls with AC40 Jagers in my Shadowhawk. I can constantly twist and jump to spread damage while working on his side torso, while the Jager has to watch heat and rely on lucky shots to hit me constantly in the same sections.
Thirdly:
AC2 and 5 are bad brawler weapons, even if you have more than one. You have to aim constantly at your enemy to deal damage. UACs are meh, too unreliable. Against AC10 and 20 it's on you to twist and protect open sections, and it is absolutely possible to do it.
So, let's have SRMs back in play before anyone jumps the bandwagon of "ACs are OP! NERF NAO!!11!eleven!".
All that said I do want a convergence system like the old one back, but focused on targeted mechs, not the area you're aiming at. That would make snapshots way harder and more unreliable and benefits lasers and missiles.
And by the way; the TT system of spread damage is already in game, you just have to activate it manually by twisting your torso! You have an even better system in place, as you can decide which parts of your mech get hit mostly! Oh, and an AC20 in MWO does the same damage as an AC10 in TT, JFYI.
One last tip:
That's for the proponents of "ACs are OP!" as well as those who say "Artystrikes are OP!"; just don't stand still! Move constantly, change positions after one or two salvoes were exchanged and stop trying to hug your favourite little hill! That also helps against jumpsnipers.

[Joseph Mallan]

Khobai, on 13 November 2013 - 07:10 PM, said:

thats the biggest problem with the current weapon balance.

ssrms were unbalanced because they all hit center torso. now that they spread damage out theyre fine. PGI needs to apply that same principle to all weapons.

either that or the pinpoint weapons need to have massive downsides like gauss does.

Multiple front loaded damage weapons get a small ring of fire if fired in an Alpha. That should not be so hard to accept.

[Trauglodyte]

Joseph Mallan, on 14 November 2013 - 08:57 AM, said:

Even so we need more than just damage per second weapons, I am happy to see Our ACs do damage like a M256 Cannon. with 10-12 rounds a minute.

I agree with you. But, there comes a time when it can be a little detrimental to the overall game. It really comes down to this:

Are ACs acceptable in a healthy way for the game or is their single shot damage a little too much given how easy it is to put mass amounts of damage into one singular location?

I like autocannons, even though they don't operate as their name suggests. But, they are extremely potent and can quickly turn the tide of the game. Carrying ammo with only a 10% chance of an ammo explosion isn't really a deterent, especially as everyone carries ammor in their legs (a location that is sometimes hard to hit with accuracy and doesn't prevent incoming damage - better to burn through a torso than to leg and hope for an explosion) or in their head (a spot that you can only continuously hit if you're a bad *** aim - not me - and only on a few mechs). And, despite having to expend more ammo on targets since we've gone from 8v8 to 12v12, almost nobody runs out of ammo on a smart design built on an ammo based weapon. So, you've got heavy pin point damage with no heat drawbacks with a decently fast firing rate and the only downsides are that they're heavy and big. Heavy and big isn't an issue because the mechs that carry them are built around them. And, if that weren't enough, ACs get another addition of range vs energy (E = range x2, B = range x3) which allows the AC20 to beat out the AC10 at its max effective range (a different issue altogether).

[Vodrin Thales]

stjobe, on 14 November 2013 - 04:07 AM, said:

I'm going to use the words "PPC" and "canon" as a jump-off point for a bit of a rant; you have been warned

One of the best things PGI did was to make lasers a beam-duration weapon; it makes them need higher skill to place all their damage potential in the same location and therefore negates much of the pin-point issues that plague the ACs/PPCs (and thereby the whole game). With that in mind, one might wonder why the ACs and the PPC are still one-projectile, pin-point damage? Especially curious it becomes if one refers to the canon fluff about these weapons (source sarna.net, emphasis mine):



From these quotes it should be obvious that according to lore, neither ACs nor PPCs are one-projectile pin-point damage weapons; ACs fire in bursts of multiple shells and PPCs fire an ion beam. Why is this important?

Well, missiles do not suffer from pin-point damage, they have inherent spread. Energy weapons do not suffer from pin-point damage, their beam duration spreads their damage. It's only the ACs and the PPC that do have pin-point damage, and I for one think the game would be much better if these weapons were redesigned to be burst-fire and beam duration respectively. It would also fit better with their canon descriptions.

Excellent post. From what I read the gauss should be the only true pinpoint weapon if we follow battletech source material. I'd be interested to see if such changes would lead to better or worse weapons balance, as I am not sure if the pinpoint nature of AC/PPC's is the sole problem, or if AC's are doing a little too much DPS relative to energy/missile weapons right now.

[Shredhead]

Joseph Mallan, on 14 November 2013 - 09:25 AM, said:

Multiple front loaded damage weapons get a small ring of fire if fired in an Alpha. That should not be so hard to accept.

Why? there'd be enough of a drawback if a sniper had to aim at you for a second for convergence. Just bring back that mechanic, cone of fire is a terrible system.

Edited by Shredhead, 14 November 2013 - 09:43 AM.

[Joseph Mallan]

Shredhead, on 14 November 2013 - 09:43 AM, said:

Why? there'd be enough of a drawback if a sniper had to aim at you for a second for convergence. Just bring back that mechanic, cone of fire is a terrible system.

Its a terrible system if you are a terrible player.

[Trauglodyte]

Joseph Mallan, on 14 November 2013 - 09:45 AM, said:

Its a terrible system if you are a terrible player.

So, its a terrible system when I'm in my Locusts?

[Shredhead]

Joseph Mallan, on 14 November 2013 - 09:45 AM, said:

Its a terrible system if you are a terrible player.

Nah, it would benefit bad players. Imagine the frustration if your enemy is lucky and can constantly hit the same section while you spread your damage all over his mech.

[Joseph Mallan]

Trauglodyte, on 14 November 2013 - 09:48 AM, said:

So, its a terrible system when I'm in my Locusts?

I don't know, I on't remember reading you complaining about your Locust.

[Trauglodyte]

Joseph Mallan, on 14 November 2013 - 09:54 AM, said:

I don't know, I on't remember reading you complaining about your Locust.

You should lode in with me one of these days. Someone sneezes on me and I'm done. Then the ranting comes. Its even worse when I'm almost legged and then accidentally leg myself running away cause I tripped over a rock. It sounds a lot like this:

[Joseph Mallan]

Shredhead, on 14 November 2013 - 09:48 AM, said:

Nah, it would benefit bad players. Imagine the frustration if your enemy is lucky and can constantly hit the same section while you spread your damage all over his mech.

I fired enough weapons in my life to know how OP our convergence is. I am a real life rifle expert, how this game tracks hits is enough to make me LMAO at anyone who thinks it is an indication of how good a shot they really are!

Trauglodyte, on 14 November 2013 - 09:57 AM, said:

You should lode in with me one of these days. Someone sneezes on me and I'm done. Then the ranting comes. Its even worse when I'm almost legged and then accidentally leg myself running away cause I tripped over a rock.

Umm, it is a Locust. They have been doing that for 30 years now. I often say that a Locust dies at the mere rattle of enemy dice.

Edited by Joseph Mallan, 14 November 2013 - 10:00 AM.

[Almond Brown]

Sandpit, on 14 November 2013 - 07:33 AM, said:

"Better" is subjective. There's always going to be someone better regardless of weapon systems. I'm merely pointing out that the game is, in my opinion, very well balanced at the moment. I don't step onto a battlefield and ever see a loadout that makes me think "Well I might as well give up now". You've been here long enough lucy that you have seen what actual unbalanced weapons can do. You've been here for things like LRM and SSRM madness and what a truly unbalanced weapon system can do. The current balance is nowhere near that. Will we ever have a "perfect" balance? No, because again balance is going to be somewhat subjective and every weapon has different pros and cons and acts in a different manner. Because of that fact alone you're ALWAYS going to have someone who feels things are "unbalanced" If all weapons performed in the exact same manner then you would have "balance" for everyone. But then you wouldn't have Btech either.

While the absolute truth, we could still use having the LL get GH after 3.

(just saying)

P.S. How about an increase of the crit chance on AC based ammo? Not a major increase but make it enough that when you do see a AC carrier, you start to wonder where their ammo is stored. Those kind of numbers...

Edited by Almond Brown, 14 November 2013 - 10:01 AM.

[Trauglodyte]

Joseph Mallan, on 14 November 2013 - 10:00 AM, said:

I fired enough weapons in my life to know how OP our convergence is. I am a real life rifle expert, how this game tracks hits is enough to make me LMAO at anyone who thinks it is an indication of how good a shot they really are!

And THAT is why the SEAL team that took the shots on the Somali pirates to free Capt Roberts was so impressive. They were stationary, unlike us, but were pitching on three different plains against targets that were moving, though not very much given the cramped quarters that they were in, and also pitching on three different plains and all the shots were taken through a very small area of visibility. THOSE guys were the best of the best and put their shots on the money. We, on the other hand, aren't anywhere near that good and yet we look like we are due to the game. I don't always think it is such a bad thing because adding too much randomness to a game just leads to frustration on the part of the player and the consequential diminishing of the player base. But, beign able to push and kill like we do is very preposterous and laughable.

Quote

Umm, it is a Locust. They have been doing that for 30 years now. I often say that a Locust dies at the mere rattle of enemy dice.

This is true. If only my legs had more armor. I'm telling you, looking at a legless paper doll every game gets old. Also, knowing that I purposely spent $20 to be frustrated is, well, frustrating.

Edited by Trauglodyte, 14 November 2013 - 10:07 AM.

[Shredhead]

Joseph Mallan, on 14 November 2013 - 10:00 AM, said:

I fired enough weapons in my life to know how OP our convergence is. I am a real life rifle expert, how this game tracks hits is enough to make me LMAO at anyone who thinks it is an indication of how good a shot they really are!

I already said I want a convergence system for the weapons, didn't I? And I was in the army long enough to know enough about RL weapons.
Btw, ACs fire ballistically in MWO. Could even be a bit more of a curve for my liking, but you already have to compensate for travel time and ballistic curve. I just don't want a system relying on chance, that's all.

[Joseph Mallan]

Shredhead, on 14 November 2013 - 10:09 AM, said:

I already said I want a convergence system for the weapons, didn't I? And I was in the army long enough to know enough about RL weapons.
Btw, ACs fire ballistically in MWO. Could even be a bit more of a curve for my liking, but you already have to compensate for travel time and ballistic curve. I just don't want a system relying on chance, that's all.

There is always a chance. If you fired enough weapons you'll know what I know. I fire 10 rounds at the "head" of the Marines 500m Target, 7 rounds go in the head, 2 hit the chest, one misses the left ear. That sir is a cone of fire. The grunt next to me puts six all over the torso, 2 in the head, 2 miss completely. Cone of fire.

[stjobe]

Joseph Mallan, on 14 November 2013 - 10:17 AM, said:

There is always a chance. If you fired enough weapons you'll know what I know. I fire 10 rounds at the "head" of the Marines 500m Target, 7 rounds go in the head, 2 hit the chest, one misses the left ear. That sir is a cone of fire. The grunt next to me puts six all over the torso, 2 in the head, 2 miss completely. Cone of fire.

And had that been MWO the grunt beside you had simultaneously fired six shots from the M-16 in his right hand, three rounds from the venerable 1911 in his left hand, and a single round from a M82 triggered with his toe - and they'd all hit the same eye of the 500m target, at the same time.

That's how ridiculous our perfect convergence pin-point alpha strikes are.

[Cyberiad]

Khobai, on 13 November 2013 - 07:10 PM, said:

thats the biggest problem with the current weapon balance.

ssrms were unbalanced because they all hit center torso. now that they spread damage out theyre fine. PGI needs to apply that same principle to all weapons.

either that or the pinpoint weapons need to have massive downsides like gauss does.

I think PGI should implement a weapons spread. If an ac5 has an effective range of 650m, it should mean that its accurate to X meters at a range of 650m. Right now weapons fire is too predictable and always travel along the same path. If they add in weapons spread they could also change the weapon damage to range curve to something more realistic and get rid of maximum ranges. This would make lasers more attractive than they currently are since lasers would not experience weapons spread since lasers don't produce any explosions that rock the barrel of a gun. On a side note I would also suggest that missiles in this game should accelerate instead of travelling at a constant speed from exiting their launch tubes all the way to the target. I would suggest SRMS to work like rockets in real life with no maximum range. You would fire them and they would accelerate out of your tube for a short time and then fall according to balistic trajectory with the proper spread, like rockets in real life. I also think the LRMs should be able to travel straight when dumbfired instead of the same way they travel when they have a lock. They should accelerate for a while until they run out of fuel and then start falling in a ballistic trajectory.

Edited by SiliconLife, 14 November 2013 - 12:44 PM.

[Vodrin Thales]

stjobe, on 14 November 2013 - 12:13 PM, said:

And had that been MWO the grunt beside you had simultaneously fired six shots from the M-16 in his right hand, three rounds from the venerable 1911 in his left hand, and a single round from a M82 triggered with his toe - and they'd all hit the same eye of the 500m target, at the same time.

That's how ridiculous our perfect convergence pin-point alpha strikes are.

But aren't we comparing apples and oranges there? We are assuming that a human being firing handheld weapons is the same thing as a several stories high, multi-ton mech firing it's integrated weapons with computer assistance. I don't think any of us is qualified to evaluate the plausibility of MWO's current convergence system. What we need to focus on is what sort of system makes for a fun game experience and leave real life out of it, as MWO is attempting to simulate a world that is very different from our real one.

[Shredhead]

Joseph Mallan, on 14 November 2013 - 10:17 AM, said:

There is always a chance. If you fired enough weapons you'll know what I know. I fire 10 rounds at the "head" of the Marines 500m Target, 7 rounds go in the head, 2 hit the chest, one misses the left ear. That sir is a cone of fire. The grunt next to me puts six all over the torso, 2 in the head, 2 miss completely. Cone of fire.

While that's all true, you should rather compare MW gunplay with tank systems. Leopard 2A4 was able of mechanically and electronically stabilized precision firing at ranges over 1000 meters, on the move. With 1980's technology. A human body doesn't quite equate to something like that, does it?

Edited by Shredhead, 14 November 2013 - 02:24 PM.