675 replies to this topic

[Varent]

Noesis, on 06 January 2014 - 02:33 AM, said:

Hot chocolate then. And someone who at least demonstrates respect to their fellow players. But you kick back and enjoy your beer after insulting someone, it is after all the best thing to demonstrate at this time?

lol your blatently insulting and belittling posts speak for themselves I think. and coffee actually. addicted to the stuff.

[Sephlock]

[Craig Steele]

Oh dear Varent, sitting on the couch drinking beer and "having a ball".

Either thats a poor choice of words or more information than we need

lolololol

[Sephlock]

Varent, Noesis, what are your favorite flavors of ice cream?

[Varent]

Craig Steele, on 06 January 2014 - 02:40 AM, said:

Oh dear Varent, sitting on the couch drinking beer and "having a ball".

Either thats a poor choice of words or more information than we need

lolololol

coffee, but well played good sir *hat tip*

Sephlock, on 06 January 2014 - 02:43 AM, said:

Varent, Noesis, what are your favorite flavors of ice cream?

chocolate.

[Noesis]

Pistachio.

But, I',m taking a break from balance discussions until a time when "bread and butter" interests are back on the menu.

[Sephlock]

Varent, on 06 January 2014 - 02:46 AM, said:

chocolate.

Noesis, on 06 January 2014 - 02:58 AM, said:

Pistachio.

I *KNEW* IT!

Quote

But, I',m taking a break from balance discussions until a time when "bread and butter" interests are back on the menu.

Such as?

Because I hate to tell you this but I get the feeling they won't be. Ever.

[Allen Ward]

Rebas Kradd, on 05 January 2014 - 03:17 PM, said:

The necessary drawback to AC20 boats already exists: they usually need an XL engine. If pugs were regularly able to coordinate, these and every other boat out there would be regarded as the death traps they really are.

Unfortunately, the basic mechanics of the game don't really allow enemies to exploit that vulnerability. Screen shake, LRM5 spam, blinding smoke, and the "stick together" mentality ensure that any attempts to get to an AC40 Jager will be futile as long as it doesn't wander off alone. And forget any chance of communicating or coordinating fire on a specific target.

I agree. The drawbacks are to weak - or the damage rating to high, it's the same. I don't care if my Jagermech doesnt survive 8 out of 10 matches due to XL engine explosion if I kill 2-5 enemies before going down. I fulfilled my role and I can do this on almost any match in PUG. It's rare that I die with 0 or 1 kill only. The AC40 Jagermechs role is to knock out several targets quickly and efficiently in close combat. His enemies are Missile Boats + Lights or guys like Hunchbacks that can laser away your side torso in seconds. But this is not about Jagermechs, it's about Laser weapons vs Ballistic Weapons/PPCs.

I guess the AC40 Jagermech is even more troublesome in 12man matches where people coordinate and communicate.

The question is: does MWO need weapons that deliver these amounts of damage so fastly and easily? Is it fun or is it game breaking? and I include myself as a new Jagermech pilot - it is not fun to terminate a third of the enemy team alone without too much effort, it feels wrong and makes the game more stale. Same is true for Gauss/PPC boats or LRM 60 boats. Such builds did not exist in TT as far as I know, probably for a reason. I used an Archer back in the days: 2 LRM20 launchers were considered pure terror back in the days.

I agree MWO is a FPS with some simulation aspects and not a tactical board game. But I see no reason why it couldn't stick to the roots of BT, stay within reasonable amounts of damage/weapon loads and not being turned into another Battlerfield clone.

MWO is the only FPS I play just because it is slower paced and has potential for tactics compared to those boring and hectic shooters out there where you race at 50kph (on foot) through a level you have to know by heart just to be the first to headshot a pixel sized enemy on the other side with your ultimo sniper rifle. These games have no soul at all and all this competitive talk is ********. People compete at clicking a mouse button faster than others, oh my.

Tactics though have almost nothing to do with the weapon mechanics and ratings. It's maps (conditions) and game modes (goals) that tactics have to be built around by the players. Unfortunately maps and game modes of MWO are...plain.

Still I argue that if you create an FPS game based on an existing TT game and you take over 60% of the weapon ratings from that TT game but change 40% of the other ratings pretty arbitrarily, the outcome can look like MWO.

But I doubt that many people at PGI would agree with me. They know BT very well and they have chosen different paths because they want to make something new and unique, which is ok. BT balancing wasn't done in a year, too (some argue ever). I just suggested that BT delivers a very solid base for weapon ratings that work and I just don't understand why they deviated in certain areas by multipliers x2.5 (remember AC20 in TT: 20 damage/10 secs, AC20 in MWO: 50 damage/10 secs).

[Sandpit]

Allen Ward, on 06 January 2014 - 07:33 AM, said:

I agree. The drawbacks are to weak - or the damage rating to high, it's the same. I don't care if my Jagermech doesnt survive 8 out of 10 matches due to XL engine explosion if I kill 2-5 enemies before going down. I fulfilled my role and I can do this on almost any match in PUG. It's rare that I die with 0 or 1 kill only. The AC40 Jagermechs role is to knock out several targets quickly and efficiently in close combat. His enemies are Missile Boats + Lights or guys like Hunchbacks that can laser away your side torso in seconds. But this is not about Jagermechs, it's about Laser weapons vs Ballistic Weapons/PPCs.

I guess the AC40 Jagermech is even more troublesome in 12man matches where people coordinate and communicate.

The question is: does MWO need weapons that deliver these amounts of damage so fastly and easily? Is it fun or is it game breaking? and I include myself as a new Jagermech pilot - it is not fun to terminate a third of the enemy team alone without too much effort, it feels wrong and makes the game more stale. Same is true for Gauss/PPC boats or LRM 60 boats. Such builds did not exist in TT as far as I know, probably for a reason. I used an Archer back in the days: 2 LRM20 launchers were considered pure terror back in the days.

I agree MWO is a FPS with some simulation aspects and not a tactical board game. But I see no reason why it couldn't stick to the roots of BT, stay within reasonable amounts of damage/weapon loads and not being turned into another Battlerfield clone.

MWO is the only FPS I play just because it is slower paced and has potential for tactics compared to those boring and hectic shooters out there where you race at 50kph (on foot) through a level you have to know by heart just to be the first to headshot a pixel sized enemy on the other side with your ultimo sniper rifle. These games have no soul at all and all this competitive talk is ********. People compete at clicking a mouse button faster than others, oh my.

Tactics though have almost nothing to do with the weapon mechanics and ratings. It's maps (conditions) and game modes (goals) that tactics have to be built around by the players. Unfortunately maps and game modes of MWO are...plain.

Still I argue that if you create an FPS game based on an existing TT game and you take over 60% of the weapon ratings from that TT game but change 40% of the other ratings pretty arbitrarily, the outcome can look like MWO.

But I doubt that many people at PGI would agree with me. They know BT very well and they have chosen different paths because they want to make something new and unique, which is ok. BT balancing wasn't done in a year, too (some argue ever). I just suggested that BT delivers a very solid base for weapon ratings that work and I just don't understand why they deviated in certain areas by multipliers x2.5 (remember AC20 in TT: 20 damage/10 secs, AC20 in MWO: 50 damage/10 secs).

I like your post and sentiments, I just don't think ballistics should be switched to a DPS. They're direct damage. That is their only perk over energy weapons. As some have stated giving them a DPS just turns them into the same class of weapon as beams but with a LOT of downsides witht he only exception at that point being slightly better heat values.

[Allen Ward]

Sandpit, on 06 January 2014 - 07:47 AM, said:

I like your post and sentiments, I just don't think ballistics should be switched to a DPS. They're direct damage. That is their only perk over energy weapons. As some have stated giving them a DPS just turns them into the same class of weapon as beams but with a LOT of downsides witht he only exception at that point being slightly better heat values.

Totaly agree again. Actually turning Ballistics into DPS now would be twice dumb. Lasers never were DPS in BT, it's an invention for MWO (and on of their better ideas i think). So if any change is necessary, I would vote for taking away Laser DPS and not the other way around

[Craig Steele]

IMO the easy answer remains to increase armour ratings. It's not my idea, but it sounds very easy to implement and incredibly effective. If 60 points is the current max dmg from an alpha, then 150 should be max armour.

No more one shots, everyone gets to play a little longer and explore tactics, use up more of the map.

I know in theory there were handful of TT mechs that could one shot a mech with their alpha, but targeting rolls made this a chance to effect, not an auto kill. We don't have splash targeting for good reasons, but that shouldn't equate to auto kills either.

Good enough to get three alpha's in the CT in rapid succession, heres your C-Bills, you earned it.

I know its only prolonging the death in some ways, but there is a big difference for a players experience between getting hit once and sitting on the sidelines and getting hit once and having the chance to get back under cover and try something different.

Still if it takes 6 months to implement, I am thinking the next generation of players will enjoy the benefits.

[Sandpit]

Craig Steele, on 06 January 2014 - 07:56 AM, said:

IMO the easy answer remains to increase armour ratings. It's not my idea, but it sounds very easy to implement and incredibly effective. If 60 points is the current max dmg from an alpha, then 150 should be max armour.

No more one shots, everyone gets to play a little longer and explore tactics, use up more of the map.

I know in theory there were handful of TT mechs that could one shot a mech with their alpha, but targeting rolls made this a chance to effect, not an auto kill. We don't have splash targeting for good reasons, but that shouldn't equate to auto kills either.

Good enough to get three alpha's in the CT in rapid succession, heres your C-Bills, you earned it.

I know its only prolonging the death in some ways, but there is a big difference for a players experience between getting hit once and sitting on the sidelines and getting hit once and having the chance to get back under cover and try something different.

Still if it takes 6 months to implement, I am thinking the next generation of players will enjoy the benefits.

The problem with that is you're completely reducing (effectively nerfing) every other single weapon in the game.

[Allen Ward]

Craig Steele, on 06 January 2014 - 07:56 AM, said:

IMO the easy answer remains to increase armour ratings. It's not my idea, but it sounds very easy to implement and incredibly effective. If 60 points is the current max dmg from an alpha, then 150 should be max armour.

No more one shots, everyone gets to play a little longer and explore tactics, use up more of the map.

I know in theory there were handful of TT mechs that could one shot a mech with their alpha, but targeting rolls made this a chance to effect, not an auto kill. We don't have splash targeting for good reasons, but that shouldn't equate to auto kills either.

Good enough to get three alpha's in the CT in rapid succession, heres your C-Bills, you earned it.

I know its only prolonging the death in some ways, but there is a big difference for a players experience between getting hit once and sitting on the sidelines and getting hit once and having the chance to get back under cover and try something different.

Still if it takes 6 months to implement, I am thinking the next generation of players will enjoy the benefits.

I don't think this is necessary or leading to better game experience. They already raised armor, as they raised damage compared to BT drastically. You named it, (almost) no on location Alphas existed in BT. In MWO many many people build their mechs around that one goal: instakill with 1-3 Alphas strikes. It's ok, Mechwarriors in BT would do the same, they just didn't have the targeting equipment we have (mouse and keyboard/joystick).

I thought about available parameters, and whatever you change, you create more imbalance. The only parameter PGI invented is Cooldown. And this one could be changed without nerfing certain weapons into the ground. What if they raised Cooldown for all weapons by a factor like x2 or x2.5? It has a severe impact on the "feel" of the game. You loose a certain degree of dakka dakka but get closer to the lowtech, bad aiming sluggish mechs of BT. I'm afraid many people (who never knew BT) wouldn't like that. For my part, I don't have to shoot 5 weapons every 2 seconds, longer Cooldown would actually enforce better manouvering and thinking ahead - what do you do in the long time until your AC20 can fire again, standing exposed to the enemy?

I don't know if this would make it better or would have even worse sideffects. First of all I would like to see damage ratings of all weapons being brought back in line with BT damage ratings. From that solid balancing one could work on with things like beam duration, gauss delay, maybe longer cool times, more/less heat here and there (why did Medium Laser get +1 Heat in MWO?).

[Sandpit]

Sandpit, on 05 January 2014 - 03:12 PM, said:

That's pretty much what I thought I was proposing. That's why it scales down to smaller ballistics
AC2 would be completely unaffected
AC5 (not UAC or RAC) would have maybe a .025 (that's less than one tenth of a second we're talking about but all of these are just examples and could be adjusted)
AC10 maybe a .25
AC20 maybe a .5

Allen Ward, on 06 January 2014 - 08:11 AM, said:

I don't think this is necessary or leading to better game experience. They already raised armor, as they raised damage compared to BT drastically. You named it, (almost) no on location Alphas existed in BT. In MWO many many people build their mechs around that one goal: instakill with 1-3 Alphas strikes. It's ok, Mechwarriors in BT would do the same, they just didn't have the targeting equipment we have (mouse and keyboard/joystick).

I thought about available parameters, and whatever you change, you create more imbalance. The only parameter PGI invented is Cooldown. And this one could be changed without nerfing certain weapons into the ground. What if they raised Cooldown for all weapons by a factor like x2 or x2.5? It has a severe impact on the "feel" of the game. You loose a certain degree of dakka dakka but get closer to the lowtech, bad aiming sluggish mechs of BT. I'm afraid many people (who never knew BT) wouldn't like that. For my part, I don't have to shoot 5 weapons every 2 seconds, longer Cooldown would actually enforce better manouvering and thinking ahead - what do you do in the long time until your AC20 can fire again, standing exposed to the enemy?

I don't know if this would make it better or would have even worse sideffects. First of all I would like to see damage ratings of all weapons being brought back in line with BT damage ratings. From that solid balancing one could work on with things like beam duration, gauss delay, maybe longer cool times, more/less heat here and there (why did Medium Laser get +1 Heat in MWO?).

This idea would prevent simultaneous and instantaneous firing of multiple large caliber ballistics without changing how they work or deal damage. So you'd have to wait .5 seconds before you click off that second AC20 giving opponents a split second to twist and avoid the second shot in the same location.

[Iron Hyena]

I think its hilarious that none of you anti-ballistics bring up the fact that the weapons your talking about take 3x more tonnage then their laser equals.

[Sandpit]

Dornhal, on 06 January 2014 - 08:17 AM, said:

I think its hilarious that none of you anti-ballistics bring up the fact that the weapons your talking about take 3x more tonnage then their laser equals.

?
That's one of the trade-offs almost everyone mentions.....

I don't understand what your point was....?
What do you mean by anti-ballistics??

[Allen Ward]

Dornhal, on 06 January 2014 - 08:17 AM, said:

I think its hilarious that none of you anti-ballistics bring up the fact that the weapons your talking about take 3x more tonnage then their laser equals.

Yes, but ballistics have almost no heat. What you load on weapon and ammo weight with ballistics is pretty much what you need in DHS (not tons but in slots, and you never have that amount of slots on any mech). Add beam duration compared to instant damage delivery, voila Ballistics win. BT had instant damage delivery with lasers, too (actually didn't care about stuff like that, it all got through or it was a miss - except for missiles).

If any weapon in MWO should have a splash effect, it should be ballistics - they fire 20 to 100 projectiles with every "shot". Do that to a 155 kph Locust 200m away and you will hit all of its hit locations with a few slugs. No, it's not what the LBX does, this one uses a single slug that punches thru armor and then scatters like shotgun ripping through internals. Lasers could deliver their damage potential in the fraction of a millisecond it takes for the beam to travel to it's target. The energy requird to keep up a 1 sec long beam could be delivered in a shorter time by just focusing it, it's the nature of laser. Or are they meant to be "laser cutter tools"? I think PGI screwed that up already, before all else. But hey, PPCs are said to emit "photons or particles", some lasers in BT emit "a mixture of photons and particles", PPC bolts cause recoil (photons, yeah yeah)...sigh

And by the way, do the "x3" weight drawbacks make ballistics an inferior weapon that no one uses? No, the opposite is true. Lasers are used on mechs that can't use ballistics or missiles efficiently (due to hardpoints, weight, slot limits). If they could, they would swap them for ballistics, believe me. "But I love lasers" doesn't count. I love the Battlemaster build from Readout 3025, I used it for quite a while in MWO. It stinks. Yes, it could be my bad piloting/shooting skills. Then I switch to my other Battlemaster with 5 Large Lasers and loads of DHS. Guess what? It sucks. It's fun to play, scaring people with constant laser chain fire, but when I check my stats I know this build is just a pile of dooh. Then I use my Battlemaster with 3 AC2s (and I can't aim, believe me) - hooray - I kill enemies, 1, 2 somtimes 3 in a match ... I switch to AC40 Jagermech, 3-5 kills per match. And I consider myself to be a mediocre player with a really crappy computer.

[3endless8oogie]

Sandpit, on 06 January 2014 - 08:23 AM, said:

?
That's one of the trade-offs almost everyone mentions.....

I don't understand what your point was....?
What do you mean by anti-ballistics??

His point is ballistics are a bit heavier so they should be upright better with no drawback...

.... and sadly atm thats the state of the game.

Ballistics are better at any range, run cool, have impact effect that is just ridiculous and allow jumpsniping.
drawbacks: they are heavy (well you don´t realy need anything else- so what) and need ammo ( matches are too short to run out of ammo- so what)

Lasers are accurate, but have a dot effect, dont need ammo, but need so many heatsinks that the whole mech is filled with it and even then you hear that sexy voice "heatlevel critical" very soon

Pulse lasers? Uhmmm yeah, all of the metioned flaws but with less range and more heat


atm lasers are some sort off secondary weapon, especially on maps like caustic or therma you are at a huge disadvantage if you don´t have acs.

[Sandpit]

3endless8oogie, on 06 January 2014 - 09:12 AM, said:

His point is ballistics are a bit heavier so they should be upright better with no drawback...

.... and sadly atm thats the state of the game.

Ballistics are better at any range, run cool, have impact effect that is just ridiculous and allow jumpsniping.
drawbacks: they are heavy (well you don´t realy need anything else- so what) and need ammo ( matches are too short to run out of ammo- so what)

Lasers are accurate, but have a dot effect, dont need ammo, but need so many heatsinks that the whole mech is filled with it and even then you hear that sexy voice "heatlevel critical" very soon

Pulse lasers? Uhmmm yeah, all of the metioned flaws but with less range and more heat


atm lasers are some sort off secondary weapon, especially on maps like caustic or therma you are at a huge disadvantage if you don´t have acs.

There's just nowhere near the discrepancy in my opinion. I use lasers almost exclusively. I use them well. I do well with them as a primary weapon.
I run a 5LL Stalker a LOT and I can cycle through all 5 continuously 5 times on most maps before heat is a concern.
The trade-offs are there. Whether they're "worth it" is subjective to an extent. The community is very vocal on this subject but also just about evenly divided.
Just as many that hate the way ballistics currently work, like the way they work now. So you have 6 of one and half a dozen of the other.

[Wildstreak]

Allen Ward, on 06 January 2014 - 07:33 AM, said:

BT balancing wasn't done in a year, too (some argue ever).

Indeed, on this I agree. You can go read the CBT forums right now and see how many topics there are claiming TT Ballisitcs are under powered.

Dornhal, on 06 January 2014 - 08:17 AM, said:

I think its hilarious that none of you anti-ballistics bring up the fact that the weapons your talking about take 3x more tonnage then their laser equals.

Sandpit, on 06 January 2014 - 08:23 AM, said:

?
That's one of the trade-offs almost everyone mentions.....

I don't understand what your point was....?
What do you mean by anti-ballistics??

Guess that is the 'political' name given to some people like myself, the Anti-Ballistic Party. Once the political labels get thrown around, you know a topic and discussion goes downhill.

But that is also when topics get more attention from mods and staff then multiple topics get closed and consolidated into 1.

Anyhow, as stated, people on both sides have mentioned the tonnage along with other things. If anything, the blinding effect of Ballistics gets ignored more except by strange posts claiming we need more blinding effects, the same as saying 'I have no skill and need to blind opponents to compensate' or 'I don't like getting shot at, it hurts too much.' Then 3 advantages get wrongfully described as one to overstate the disadvantages.