269 replies to this topic

[Joseph Mallan]

stjobe, on 27 November 2013 - 10:28 AM, said:

No. Being overpowered does not mean "has no counter", it means "this is overly powerful compared to some baseline".

Then maybe we need to define what that said baseline IS.

Edited by Joseph Mallan, 27 November 2013 - 10:59 AM.

[stjobe]

Terciel1976, on 27 November 2013 - 10:32 AM, said:

Every time an enemy fires one of his precious 1/7 ton rounds at me from 500 yards, I smile. Round-per-round, it outdamages an AC/10, but ton-per-ton, it's not close. It's a waste of an AC/20 shot.

Only if it doesn't kill you, or maim you, or damages you enough that you break off the engagement.

Joseph Mallan, on 27 November 2013 - 10:58 AM, said:

Then maybe we need to define what that said baseline IS.

That would be a much more interesting discussion, yes. Especially if it had some input from the devs, what they defined as their baseline.

But I'm such a dreamer

[Joseph Mallan]

stjobe, on 27 November 2013 - 11:04 AM, said:

That would be a much more interesting discussion, yes. Especially if it had some input from the devs, what they defined as their baseline.

But I'm such a dreamer

QFT!
Me To

[Sandpit]

stjobe, on 27 November 2013 - 10:28 AM, said:

No, that's an example of a bug. Quite a different thing than a balance issue.

Uhm, no it wasn't. It was working exactly as coded to work. It was just coded to be stronger than they intended. They adjusted it. Same with SSRMs when they would jsut crush your CT

[stjobe]

Sandpit, on 27 November 2013 - 11:25 AM, said:

Uhm, no it wasn't. It was working exactly as coded to work. It was just coded to be stronger than they intended. They adjusted it. Same with SSRMs when they would jsut crush your CT

I suggest you go back and re-read these two threads and relevant links. You seem to need a refresher on what it was that happened.

Also, you may want to take a minute to think about the definition of the word "software bug" and how "working exactly as coded to work" relates to "coded to be stronger than they intended".

[Sandpit]

stjobe, on 27 November 2013 - 11:41 AM, said:

I suggest you go back and re-read these two threads and relevant links. You seem to need a refresher on what it was that happened.

Also, you may want to take a minute to think about the definition of the word "software bug" and how "working exactly as coded to work" relates to "coded to be stronger than they intended".

Uhm yea, that's what I said. See the further tuning? Yea, that's called balancing. Maybe you should check your references?

Pauls Quote: [color=#959595]Just an update. We will be removing splash damage until further tuning can be done that takes into account the new Mechs and their respective hit boxes. The splash damage will be removed in the April 2nd patch.[/color][color=#959595]Y[/color]

[stjobe]

Sandpit, on 27 November 2013 - 11:44 AM, said:

Uhm yea, that's what I said. See the further tuning? Yea, that's called balancing. Maybe you should check your references?

Pauls Quote: [color=#959595]Just an update. We will be removing splash damage until further tuning can be done that takes into account the new Mechs and their respective hit boxes. The splash damage will be removed in the April 2nd patch.[/color][color=#959595]Y[/color]

Now read the other thread linked, especially the part after "But Paul! You said you'd REMOVE splash damage!".

[Sandpit]

stjobe, on 27 November 2013 - 11:55 AM, said:

Now read the other thread linked, especially the part after "But Paul! You said you'd REMOVE splash damage!".

Quote

[color=#959595]I know I did, but here's the kicker and yet another part of the mystery of missile damage. We tried removing splash damage and it did exactly what you think it was going to do. Pinpoint on target damage. Cool right? Yes... but...[/color]

[color=#959595]Doing this exposed a problem with the grouping/clustering of missiles. We now have a high percentage of any incoming missile targeting the CT. This is BAD.[/color]

[color=#959595]Now our primary concern as to what is happening on the live servers is to curtail the incredibly high damage levels of missiles/explosions. To make the missile explosions/damage feel like they should and to keep the damage spread across a Mech, we kept the above mentioned splash damage work along with the following damage changes to missiles:[/color]

[color=#959595]LRMs drop from 1.8 damage per missile to 0.7 damage per missile.[/color]
[color=#959595]SRMs drop from 2.5 damage per missile to 1.5 damage per missile.[/color]

[color=#959595]DO NOT HIT REPLY TO FREAKOUT YET![/color]

[color=#959595]It is at these levels that missile combat falls back to a level that we AND the community felt was right for a long period of time before the badness appeared. I'm going to ask you to help us test these values by FEEL. Not by playing SpreadsheetWarrior.[/color]


[color=#959595]Missiles are STILL a very big threat to the target but just aren't doing these chart topping damage numbers.[/color]

THIS IS THE MOST IMPORTANT PART OF THIS MESSAGE:

[color=#959595]This is a TEMPORARY fix to quell the damage done by missiles at this time. We are fully investigating the damage model AND focusing on the grouping of missiles and will update as soon as we can on how any changes will be managed/implemented.[/color]

Maybe you can tell me where Paul says anything about a bug in there? He talks about balancing and adjusting damage, grouping, and splash. Maybe you're reading something I'm not?

[stjobe]

Sandpit, on 27 November 2013 - 12:07 PM, said:

Maybe you can tell me where Paul says anything about a bug in there? He talks about balancing and adjusting damage, grouping, and splash. Maybe you're reading something I'm not?

Here: "Doing this exposed a problem with the grouping/clustering of missiles".

"A problem" in this context is a bug.

Not to mention that the whole situation arose from a bug (or perhaps several bugs); that missiles did their full splash damage throughout the whole splash radius and their full damage to all hitboxes (instead of damage falling off from the center and doing damage proportional to the area of the hitbox affected).

Edited by stjobe, 27 November 2013 - 12:21 PM.

[Sandpit]

stjobe, on 27 November 2013 - 12:18 PM, said:

Here: "Doing this exposed a problem with the grouping/clustering of missiles".

"A problem" in this context is a bug.

........
No it doesn't. It implies they unbalanced it. A "bug" is something that isn't intentionally coded in

Exposing a problem with the cluster means they coded it to group too tight and adjusted (not "fixed") the code to loosen those groups.
A bug is not getting your c-bills after winning a match.
A bug is UAV not showing enemy mech positions
A bug is LRMs not doing damage
A bug is a weapon not producing heat after being fired

EDIT: Typos

Edited by Sandpit, 27 November 2013 - 12:23 PM.

[stjobe]

Sandpit, on 27 November 2013 - 12:23 PM, said:

........
No it doesn't. It implies they unbalanced it. A "bug" is something that isn't intentionally coded in

Exposing a problem with the cluster means they coded it to group too tight and adjusted (not "fixed") the code to loosen those groups.
A bug is not getting your c-bills after winning a match.
A bug is UAV not showing enemy mech positions
A bug is LRMs not doing damage
A bug is a weapon not producing heat after being fired

EDIT: Typos

You know that they had to leave splash damage in because they couldn't remove it right? They just put it down to 1cm radius. That means they do not know how to remove it without it tightening up missile clustering beyond what they want, but even a 1cm radius splash keeps the clustrering okay.

And while all the things you mention sure are bugs, not being able to remove a piece of code because of unwanted consequences definitely also qualifies as a bug.

And as I mentioned, the whole mess started because of other bugs (missiles doing way too much damage because they behaved in ways not intended).

[SniperCon]

I'm really confused. An AC20 is OP because it deals more damage than an AC10 at 540 meters, what? And it fires slower, weighs more, generates more heat, has less ammo, and its bullet speed is slower. An AC20 is the definition of NOT overpowered at 540 meters.

Edited by SniperCon, 27 November 2013 - 12:43 PM.

[Sandpit]

SniperCon, on 27 November 2013 - 12:42 PM, said:

I'm really confused. An AC20 is OP because it deals more damage than an AC10 at 540 meters, what? And it fires slower, weighs more, generates more heat, has less ammo, and its bullet speed is slower. An AC20 is the definition of NOT overpowered at 540 meters.

I'd agree for the most part but the damage really should drop off a bit more at that distance.

[Cimarb]

An autocannon should do damage over time, just like a laser. Same damage during the same cooldown duration, but spread the damage over part of that duration. Autocannons are now no longer OP, but keep their heat advantage at the cost of weight. They then have no need for ghost heat as a secondary balancer, eliminating a horrible system in the process.

[Sandpit]

Cimarb, on 27 November 2013 - 01:08 PM, said:

An autocannon should do damage over time, just like a laser. Same damage during the same cooldown duration, but spread the damage over part of that duration. Autocannons are now no longer OP, but keep their heat advantage at the cost of weight. They then have no need for ghost heat as a secondary balancer, eliminating a horrible system in the process.

and those of us that don't think ACs are op now?

EDIT: Typos

Edited by Sandpit, 27 November 2013 - 03:22 PM.

[GroovYChickeN]

MustrumRidcully, on 27 November 2013 - 02:26 AM, said:

Why is it a problem if mechs are used outside of an intended design scope that doesn't exist in MW:O?

There is no anti aircraft support role in MW:O, because there are no aircraft to shoot at.

It's also hardly a balance problem if you can use a long range fire support mech as a close range brawler instead. That might be aesthetically or thematically displeasing, but it's not like the Jagermech Or catapult K2 come with a special ability that works better at close range then at long range.


Don't confuse theme with balance.

Joseph Mallan, on 27 November 2013 - 05:24 AM, said:

So you would stop players from making a Useless Anti-Air Mech into a formidable battlefield unit? You may want to read the Variants listed Such as the DG with its twin Gauss. Heck the Chassis even got a tonnage boost just so it could be made a better ground pounder!

Please read the last 5 words of my post. Thanks.
1st. It's a problem to not have restrictive hardpoints because it makes some mechs way too good while invalidating others. Prime example. Why take an Awesome when you can take a Stalker?

2nd. It's a problem to not have restrictive hardpoints because it breaks individual weapon balance. Example. why take a few medium lasers when I can take one ppc.

3rd It's a problem to not have restrictive hardpoints because 1&2 make the game less fun for those who want to run balanced builds and "noncheese" when playing people who do.

All of those ARE problems with balance.

Again nothing wrong with a mech carrying dual AC20's as long as that is the intended purpose of the mech with the proper drawbacks designed into the mech.

Joseph Mallan, on 27 November 2013 - 05:24 AM, said:

You may want to read the Variants listed Such as the DG with its twin Gauss. Heck the Chassis even got a tonnage boost just so it could be made a better ground pounder!

The following is taken straight from http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Gauss_Rifle

The Gauss Rifle utilizes a series of electromagnets to propel slugs of ferrous nickel-iron alloy at extremely high velocities, making it a devastating and lethal long-range weapon. Unlike most traditional ballistic weapons, the Gauss Rifle does not use combustible propellant, so its firing generates very little heat. However, the sheer mass and bulk of the weapon limits its applications.

The following is taken straight from http://www.sarna.net...i/Autocannon_20

Different manufacturers and models of autocannons have different calibers (25mm-203mm) and rates of fire. Due to this, autocannons are grouped into generic "classes" of autocannons with common damage ratings, with Autocannon/20s doing massive damage while having very short range.[/color]

Comparing the Gauss and AC20 is a false equivalency. Again I will point you to the last 5 words of my first post.
You may also want to investigate the variants of the mech as well. Other than the DG non of them have anything higher than a AC5.


In closing here a FANTASTIC picture of a Jager (I like the guy with the glasses). Enjoy!

Edited by GroovYChickeN, 27 November 2013 - 02:55 PM.

[Sephlock]

Nubsternator, on 26 November 2013 - 11:10 AM, said:

Staying out of range would be possible if the maps were larger

If the maps were any larger every mech would come with a cyanide pill in case the pilot started to go insane.

Edited by Sephlock, 27 November 2013 - 02:06 PM.

[OmniJackal]

Just got the BJ-1 today. Having a lot of fun moving around in a fairly small medium mech with 3 medium lasers and an AC-20 that does 90kph and can jump over 20 meters coring heavies and assaults left and right and 1 shotting any light mech that is dumb enough to sit still even briefly or turn too sharply in front of me. Yep nothing wrong with triple range AC. Hell and here I thought the LB10X was freaking awesome.

Edited by OmniJackal, 27 November 2013 - 02:35 PM.

[Asmudius Heng]

Reduce AC20 range to less so that the damage drop off becomes even more marked.

Right now it does tread on the AC10 a bit considering the general range of engagement.

Maybe 200m would still make it very viable would not change things much but would mean its damage drop off would be at an AC10 damage at 400 range giving the AC10 a clear range advantage

[Cimarb]

Sandpit, on 27 November 2013 - 01:50 PM, said:

and those of us that don't think ACs aren't op now?

EDIT: Typos

I didn't think 2xPPC+Gauss was overpowered either - it was fun for me - so join the crowd.

I am not complaining about the damage or any other stat of autocannons - they can all stay the same for all I care. I just think they should apply their damage in a more consistent manner to the other weapon systems.